The Serious Side

This is REALLY scary. People aren't panicking just for jokes, the people trump is surrounding himself with are horrible.

Federal judge at U.S citizen ceremony  says if you don't like Trump go to another country.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3953246/Federal-judge-citizenship-ceremony-says-people-need-country-don-t-like-Trump-going-president.html

Yep, Fingerandtoes, very. People need to read this.

And apart from anything else, how on earth are the likes of Trump and Flynn going to separate their global financial interests from their foreign policy?

In the UK all business interests have to be declared before anything like this can happen.

Conflict of interests

This is fascinating - if scary - too:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/cashing-in-bigly-in-argentina

Only the beginning...

Anyone who has the time should read this.  A breakdown of the huge conflicts of interest posed by Trump's real estate and financial dealings.  If anything brings down his presidency this could be it.  Makes me wonder if on some level Trump's motivation to be President was to somehow embellish his worldwide businesses.

http://time.com/4578431/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interest-list/

Donnamarie wrote:Anyone who has the time should read this.  A breakdown of the huge conflicts of interest posed by Trump's real estate and financial dealings.  If anything brings down his presidency this could be it.  Makes me wonder if on some level Trump's motivation to be President was to somehow embellish his worldwide businesses.

http://time.com/4578431/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interest-list/

Can you explain how his business interests could bring him down.  Are you talking about misuse of his interest?  His business interests in and of itself?  Both?

Ladybug - I think the concern is that he'll use the office of the Presidency to promote his business interests. This is highly unethical and, I believe, illegal. He has already spoken to the President of Argentina about smoothing the way for a project he is having trouble getting off the ground in that country. Granted he is not President yet, but to ask for business favors from a head of state who calls to congratulate you is really self-serving.

We have no idea how extensive his foreign business interests are because he still refuses to reveal his tax returns. Who knows what deals he has made or whether he will actually stop doing business after he takes office. He's supposed to put his business into a "blind trust" which would remove control from his hands. Instead he is turning his businesses over to his kids. If anyone believes he won't be involved I have a bridge to sell you.

LizzyNY wrote:Ladybug - I think the concern is that he'll use the office of the Presidency to promote his business interests. This is highly unethical and, I believe, illegal. He has already spoken to the President of Argentina about smoothing the way for a project he is having trouble getting off the ground in that country. Granted he is not President yet, but to ask for business favors from a head of state who calls to congratulate you is really self-serving.

We have no idea how extensive his foreign business interests are because he still refuses to reveal his tax returns. Who knows what deals he has made or whether he will actually stop doing business after he takes office. He's supposed to put his business into a "blind trust" which would remove control from his hands. Instead he is turning his businesses over to his kids. If anyone believes he won't be involved I have a bridge to sell you.

Thanks.  Something to keep an eye on.

So Hillary Clinton was blamed by Trump, Sanders and others for accepting donations by her supporters for her campaign. Trump, on the other hand, always statued that he financed his own campaign.

Hillary was also blamed because she and Bill make money by giving speeches. Trump said himself that he's worth 10 billion $ but doesn't seem to pay taxes - at least he refuses to public his finances. He's also not forced to separate from his businesses which we don't know about in detail, so we can't judge if he doesn't do deals - as POTUS - for his own advantage.

He wants to FIGHT corruption? This whole business shouts CORRUPTION IMO!

I somehow get the impression that people apply double standard...

And now there's this.........

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/21/donald-trumps-grandfather-begged-not-deported-germany-letter/

A lack of ethics seems to run in the family.........not a great example to the world when you represent your country.......

and this!!......

https://twitter.com/howiewolf/status/800834281400582144?lang=en

Better watch out
For truth
Into news

Or the whole information system
Will collapse soon

Energy problems



Energia, i nodi da sciogliere per Trump

di LEONARDO MAUGERI
Non c'è dubbio che produttori di carbone, petrolio e gas abbiano trovato in Donald Trump l'uomo della provvidenza. Trump è un convinto sostenitore della produzione intensiva delle fonti fossili, non crede al cambiamento climatico, è scettico sulle energie rinnovabili. Le sue scelte in materia, pertanto, sembrano segnate. Eppure non sarà semplice per lui prendere decisioni a senso unico. Partiamo dal carbone, la più inquinante delle fonti fossili. Gli Stati Uniti ne detengono le riserve più vaste al mondo e ne sono il più grande produttore. Fino a due anni fa, il carbone generava quasi il 50% dell'elettricità statunitense, poi la percentuale è crollata a poco più del 30%, non tanto per motivi ambientali, quanto per la competizione dello shale gas a basso costo garantito dalla rivoluzione shale. La crescita esponenziale della produzione di shale gas ne ha fatto crollare il prezzo. Se Trump vorrà spingere su queste due fonti finirà per metterle una contro l'altra, con danno per entrambe.

D'altra parte, se favorisse troppo le esportazioni per offrire uno sfogo ai produttori, indurrebbe una crescita dei prezzi interni che danneggerebbe l'industria e i cittadini. Problemi anche per il petrolio. Trump non vede limiti al fracking, la tecnica di estrazione dello shale. Tutto lascia pensare che cercherà di aiutarlo con accorgimenti fiscali e eliminazione di vincoli ambientali, puntando a un ritorno alla crescita della produzione americana. Ma sarà una

corsa a ostacoli. Il boom della produzione statunitense di greggio fino al 2015 è stato il fattore principale nel crollo globale del prezzo. Rispetto a una domanda che cresce poco rispetto a una produzione che continua a superarla, i produttori di qualunque paese soffrono e attendono speranzosi che l'Opec risolva il problema, congelando la sua produzione entro dicembre.
Ma l'Opec ha spinto sull'acceleratore, i suoi membri principali producono petrolio a livelli record e alcuni di essi non vogliono saperne di congelare le estrazioni. Il principale motivo è di non fare regali a paesi che hanno costi di produzione più alti, e solo grazie a tagli dell'Opec potrebbero continuare a produrre senza rimetterci. E chi è il principale di questi paesi? Gli Stati Uniti. Congelando la sua produzione, l'Opec potrebbe far risalire i prezzi del greggio, consentendo agli Usa di produrre di più. Tutto ciò è un elemento ulteriore a favore della prospettiva di un possibile crollo dei prezzi tra dicembre e febbraio del 2017, alimentato da sovrapproduzione e inazione dell'Opec. Un bel rompicapo per Trump, perché molte società americane che producono petrolio da shale non sopravviverebbero a prezzi troppo bassi. Le difficoltà non cambiano se guardiamo alle fonti rinnovabili, soprattutto biocarburanti ed energia solare. Gli Stati Uniti producono quasi il 60% dell'etanolo mondiale - di gran lunga il più diffuso biocarburante, registrando la continuazione di un boom che non sarebbe stato possibile senza i sussidi garantiti da amministrazioni repubblicane e democratiche agli agricoltori del paese. Sussidi legati non tanto ad aneliti ambientalisti, ma a crudi motivi economici: senza la produzione di biocarburanti, gran parte degli agricoltori americani sarebbe fallita dati i prezzi in caduta delle sue produzioni tradizionali, a partire dal mais. E chi sono gli agricoltori statunitensi? L'America della Corn Belt - l'area del mais di cui gli Usa sono i più grandi produttori mondiali - comprende gli stati del midwest come (in ordine di produzione di etanolo) Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois, Minnesota, South Dakota, Indiana, Michigan, Kansas e Missouri. A questi si aggiunge l'Ohio. Con le sole eccezioni di Illinois e Minnesota, tutti stati che hanno votato in massa per Trump. Sarà difficile per il presidente voltare le spalle a questa America tradizionalista e rurale che tira avanti grazie all'opportunità offerta dalla produzione di biocarburanti.

Quanto all'energia solare, e in particolare a quella fotovoltaica, gli Stati Uniti hanno conquistato negli ultimi anni sia la leadership tecnologica mondiale, sia la leadership di costo. Senza che i più se ne siano accorti, il fotovoltaico - quando adottato in grandi centrali di produzione - ha conquistato la cosiddetta parity grid nelle aree a alta insolazione, cioè una sostanziale parità di costo rispetto alla media delle altre fonti di energia. Nei prossimi anni, il continuo avanzare della tecnologia e l'abbattimento ulteriore dei costi renderanno i più importanti produttori americani potenziali protagonisti di un'espansione mondiale che difficilmente potrà essere contrastata da altri paesi. I cinesi, che sembravano destinati a dominare i mercati grazie a costi stracciati, stanno pagando il prezzo di una tecnologia più vetusta e di un eccesso di capacità produttiva, che rischia di mandare a gambe all'aria molti produttori della prima tigre asiatica. Anche in questo caso, non sarà facile per Trump chiudere gli occhi di fronte a un primato a stelle e strisce. Insomma, sarà facile per Trump mandare in soffitta il cambiamento climatico, l'iper-regolazione, e le preoccupazioni ambientali che hanno accompagnato lo sviluppo dei temi energetici negli ultimi anni. Ma non gli sarà facile confrontarsi con le dure leggi dell'economia che renderanno ogni scelta in tema di energia piena di trappole e effetti boomerang.

Fast Trad

Energy, the problems to be solved for Trump

by LEONARDO MAUGERI
There is no doubt that coal, oil and gas producers have found in Donald Trump the man of Providence. Trump is a firm believer in the intensive production of fossil fuels, doesn't believe in climate change, is a skeptic about renewable energy. His choices in the matter, therefore, seem to be marked. Yet it will not be easy for him to make decisions one way. We start from the coal, the dirtiest of fossil fuels. The United States hold the largest reserves in the world and the largest producer. Until two years ago, coal generates nearly 50 percent of u.s. electricity, then the percentage has plummeted to just above 30%, not only for environmental reasons, but for the low-cost competition from shale gas revolution shale. The exponential growth of shale gas production has brought down the price. If Trump wants to push on these two sources will eventually put them against each other, with damage to both.

On the other hand, if favored too exports to provide an outlet for producers, would cause an increase in domestic prices that would damage the industry and citizens. Problems even for oil. Trump sees no limits to fracking, shale extraction technique. Everything suggests that he will try to help you with tax measures and elimination of environmental restrictions, pointing to a return to growth of American production. But it will be a

obstacle course. The boom in u.s. production of crude oil until 2015 was the main factor in the global collapse of the price. Than a question that grows little compared to a production that continues to overcome it, the producers of any country suffer and wait in expectation that Opec resolves this issue by freezing its production by December.
But Opec has pushed on the accelerator, its principal members produce oil at record levels and some of them do not want to freeze the extractions. The main reason is not to give gifts to countries that have higher production costs, and only thanks to Opec cuts could continue to produce without loss. And who is the principal of these countries? The United States. Freezing its output, Opec may raise crude prices, allowing the US to produce more. This is a further element in favour of the prospect of a possible slump in prices between December and February 2017, powered by Opec overproduction and inaction. Quite a conundrum for Trump because many American companies that produce oil from shale would not survive at low prices. The difficulties do not change if we look at renewable sources, particularly biofuels and solar energy. The United States produces nearly 60% of world's ethanol-by far the most widespread biofuel, recording a continuation of a boom that would not have been possible without the subsidies granted by democratic and Republican administrations to farmers in the country. AIDS related not so much to yearnings environmentalists, but raw economic reasons: without the production of biofuels, mostly American farmers would bankrupt the falling prices of its traditional products, from corn. And who are the American farmers? America in the Corn Belt-the area of maize of which the US is the largest world producers-Midwestern States as (in order of production of ethanol) Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois, Minnesota, South Dakota, Indiana, Michigan, Kansas and Missouri. To these are added the Ohio. With the exception of Illinois and Minnesota, all States that voted en masse to Trump. It will be difficult for the President to turn our backs on this traditionalist and rural America pulling ahead thanks to the opportunities offered by biofuels production.

As for solar energy, and particularly photovoltaics, the United States won in recent years both worldwide technological leadership, both cost leadership. Without the more they realized, photovoltaics-when adopted in large power plants-conquered the so-called grid parity in areas of high insolation, namely substantive equality of cost compared to other energy sources. In the coming years, the continuous technology advances and further abatement costs will make the most important American producers worldwide expansion potential protagonists is unlikely to be opposed by other countries. The Chinese, who seemed destined to dominate markets due to low costs, are paying the price of a more antiquated technology and of excess production capacity, which is likely to send many air legs producers of the first Asian Tiger. Again, this will not be easy to Trump


(Lost a piece ... Anyway it's a big problem)

Why on earth didn't the strategists of the Democrats make this an issue during the election campaign? Though I don't know if it had made a difference in the result...

I guess so
But better learn from mistakes

ladybugcngc wrote:

Donnamarie wrote:Anyone who has the time should read this.  A breakdown of the huge conflicts of interest posed by Trump's real estate and financial dealings.  If anything brings down his presidency this could be it.  Makes me wonder if on some level Trump's motivation to be President was to somehow embellish his worldwide businesses.

http://time.com/4578431/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interest-list/

Can you explain how his business interests could bring him down.  Are you talking about misuse of his interest?  His business interests in and of itself?  Both?

Also, getting any kind of consideration from a foreign government (and in some countries, the banks, etc. are part of the government) is an impeachable offense under the emoluments clause of the Consititution.

carolhathaway wrote:Why on earth didn't the strategists of the Democrats make this an issue during the election campaign? Though I don't know if it had made a difference in the result...

Because actual issues did not get any traction in the campaign and that definitely worked in Trump's favor.

Ladybug - It is expected that the President puts the interests of the country above everything else. If he uses his office to pressure other governments,  banks or businesses to enhance his business interests or if he puts the profits of his business interests above the interests of the country he should be removed from office. He is violating the Constitution.

Since Trump seems to believe you only do the right thing when it is convenient and profitable there is a fairly good chance that he will violate the Constitution. There's also a pretty good chance he's already thinking of some way to weasel out of it.

The Don, has really outraged ppl...and we are NOT the `Country he has been tweeting about...

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38064664

He is the gift that keeps on giving....really bad mannered behaviour, telling another Country who to pick as U.S Ambassador....

I read that the Hamilton thing was used as some form of diversion from Trump Uni settlement.....One can only imagine in 3/4 years time IF he fails to bring home the bacon....WHAT would he use to rally a disgruntled nation, to divert attention....World War 3.....

News channels must be elated...everyday something, and his shoes are not even under the WH bed yet...Fasten your seat belts....

Well said, WWHS, and as one American said to me 'Never mind God bless America. More like God help America. They'll need it!'

Nope he'll just blame it on former President Obama.

Tonight's headline from over the pond........


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-president-erdogan-russia-turkey-europe-threat-guy-verhofstad-a7432206.html

And Trump went to the New York Times offices today and was interviewed!!

The man is a chameleon.............

https://twitter.com/migold/lists/nyt-trump-meeting

There's also a pretty good chance he's already thinking of some way to weasel out of it.



I think that too

What Would He Say wrote:The Don, has really outraged ppl...and we are NOT the `Country he has been tweeting about...

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38064664

He is the gift that keeps on giving....really bad mannered behaviour, telling another Country who to pick as U.S Ambassador....

I read that the Hamilton thing was used as some form of diversion from Trump Uni settlement.....One can only imagine in 3/4 years time IF he fails to bring home the bacon....WHAT would he use to rally a disgruntled nation, to divert attention....World War 3.....

News channels must be elated...everyday something, and his shoes are not even under the WH bed yet...Fasten your seat belts....

They are crazy

But ppl are still able to talk

Despite all happened lately
In Turkey

The big purge


They got back the HORRIBLE law to marry young girls you just raped
To make all quit

Sorry but easier to me


Trump, marcia indietro che gela i sostenitori

NEW YORK - Marcia indietro tutta, anche su Parigi? Donald Trump sta infliggendo una doccia fredda ai suoi sostenitori, prendendo le distanze da varie promesse della campagna elettorale. Già diversi siti e commentatori della destra radicale sono furiosi perché ha detto di non voler continuare le indagini su Hillary Clinton. Nei comizi le folle urlavano entusiaste "Lock her up" (mettetela in carcere), e perfino in un duello televisivo lui glielo disse in faccia, che avrebbe nominato uno "special prosecutor" per incriminarla. Scherzava. Ma fin qui, la retromarcia è comprensibile, perfino prevedibile. Si possono dire cose durissime in campagna elettorale, poi quando uno ha vinto volta pagina, e sotterra l'ascia di guerra. Tanto più che Hillary agli ultimi conteggi ha preso due milioni di voti in più di lui, accanirsi con inchieste giudiziarie contro di lei oltre che una brutta vendetta sarebbe un gesto che acutizzerebbe le divisioni di una nazione già lacerata.

Ma Parigi? Qui la questione è molto più delicata. Non solo Trump ha più volte detto di considerare il cambiamento climatico "una bufala" (o addirittura "un'invenzione dei cinesi per danneggiare la competitività dell'industria americana"); non solo ha promesso più volte di stracciare quegli accordi; inoltre ha inserito quelle promesse in un più generale piano di riabilitazione delle energie fossili, petrolio e carbone.

Oltre ad essere perfettamente in linea con la tradizione repubblicana (i Bush padre e figlio erano espressione della lobby Big Oil), quelle promesse gli valsero voti cruciali, ad esempio tra i minatori delle montagne Appalachian. Wall Street sale dalla sua elezione, anche perché le multinazionali energetiche festeggiano. La Famiglia Koch, potentato petrolchimico di destra che aveva avuto una certa freddezza verso Trump, ora lo appoggia. Insomma retrocedere sull'anti-ambientalismo non gli sarà facile.

Un'avvertenza ulteriore. La frase "possibilista" su Parigi, Trump l'ha pronunciata in queste ore nel corso di un incontro con la direzione e redazione del New York Times, quotidiano liberal che lo ha osteggiato e continua ad essere fortemente critico verso di lui. Trump - anche in questo fedele al suo modello Berlusconi? - ha una certa tendenza a plasmare la sua oratoria sui gusti di chi lo sta ascoltando. Gli piace piacere. Adora accattivarsi l'audience che ha davanti. Se domani sera lo intervistasse un giornalista alla O'Reilly o alla Hannity su Fox News, sarebbe capace di dire cose molto diverse da quelle che ha appena detto al New York Times.




Fast
Translation



Trump, backed off that freezes the supporters

NEW YORK-reverse all, even for Paris? Donald Trump is inflicting a cold shower to his supporters, distancing himself from various campaign promises. Already several sites and commentators of the radical right are furious because he said he did not want to continue investigations of Hillary Clinton. Loud crowds enthusiastic rallies "Lock her up" (put it in prison), and even in a televised duel him told him in the face, which would have named one "special prosecutor" to incriminate you. Joked. But so far, the reverse is understandable, even expected. You can say things very hard in campaigning, then when one won page turns, and bury the hatchet. All the more so since Hillary the last counts took two million more votes than him relentlessly with judicial investigations against her as well as a nasty revenge would be a gesture that Calderon is the divisions of a nation already torn.

But Paris? Here the question is much more delicate. Not only Trump has repeatedly said to consider climate change "hoax" (or even "an invention of the Chinese to damage the competitiveness of American industry"); not only has promised several times to tear up those agreements; also publish those promises in a more general plan of rehabilitation of fossil fuels, oil and coal.

Besides being perfectly in line with Republican tradition (the Bush father and son were an expression of the Big Oil lobby), those promises earned him crucial votes, such as between the miners of the Appalachian mountains. Wall Street rises after his election, in part because energy companies are celebrating. The Koch Family, who had a right petrochemical potentate certain coldness towards Trump, now supports. I mean back on anti-environmentalism won't be easy.

A further warning. The phrase "possibilist" for Paris, Trump it delivered during these hours during a meeting with the directors and editors of the New York Times, liberal newspaper which has opposed and continues to be strongly critical of him. Trump-even in this true to its model Berlusconi? -has a tendency to shape his oratory on the tastes of those who are listening. He likes pleasure.




Adores captivate the audience in front of him. If tomorrow night he interviewed him a journalist at O'Reilly or Hannity on Fox News, would be able to say very different things than those who just told the New York Times.



Exactly Like Berlusconi

fava wrote:

ladybugcngc wrote:

Donnamarie wrote:Anyone who has the time should read this.  A breakdown of the huge conflicts of interest posed by Trump's real estate and financial dealings.  If anything brings down his presidency this could be it.  Makes me wonder if on some level Trump's motivation to be President was to somehow embellish his worldwide businesses.

http://time.com/4578431/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interest-list/

Can you explain how his business interests could bring him down.  Are you talking about misuse of his interest?  His business interests in and of itself?  Both?

Also, getting any kind of consideration from a foreign government (and in some countries, the banks, etc. are part of the government) is an impeachable offense under the emoluments clause of the Consititution.

I find it interesting that the news media would use Donald Trump personal interest. 

What about Bush/Chaney and Halliburton?  The use of our military to expand their oil production in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc…, with NO compensation to those who continue to serve, Veterans, or the people of this country.  Not to mention the humongous deficit created by a war (that started under the Bush/Chaney administration) that has NOT been defined and has NO designated end.  There is no way anyone can convince me Bush/Chaney do not have personal interest and reaping benefits from the conflict in the Middle East.   Why don’t the news media talk about this?  Oh that’s right they are paid by U.S. Oil/Corporate Business.


I ask the question:  Did President Obama receive a bonus for bringing 10,000 Syrian refugees to the United States.  A country where ISIS a murderous group, affiliated with Syria, hides in plain sight, and has imposed mass murder against the citizens he governs. 

it's me wrote:Sorry but easier to me


Trump, marcia indietro che gela i sostenitori

NEW YORK - Marcia indietro tutta, anche su Parigi? Donald Trump sta infliggendo una doccia fredda ai suoi sostenitori, prendendo le distanze da varie promesse della campagna elettorale. Già diversi siti e commentatori della destra radicale sono furiosi perché ha detto di non voler continuare le indagini su Hillary Clinton. Nei comizi le folle urlavano entusiaste "Lock her up" (mettetela in carcere), e perfino in un duello televisivo lui glielo disse in faccia, che avrebbe nominato uno "special prosecutor" per incriminarla. Scherzava. Ma fin qui, la retromarcia è comprensibile, perfino prevedibile. Si possono dire cose durissime in campagna elettorale, poi quando uno ha vinto volta pagina, e sotterra l'ascia di guerra. Tanto più che Hillary agli ultimi conteggi ha preso due milioni di voti in più di lui, accanirsi con inchieste giudiziarie contro di lei oltre che una brutta vendetta sarebbe un gesto che acutizzerebbe le divisioni di una nazione già lacerata.

Ma Parigi? Qui la questione è molto più delicata. Non solo Trump ha più volte detto di considerare il cambiamento climatico "una bufala" (o addirittura "un'invenzione dei cinesi per danneggiare la competitività dell'industria americana"); non solo ha promesso più volte di stracciare quegli accordi; inoltre ha inserito quelle promesse in un più generale piano di riabilitazione delle energie fossili, petrolio e carbone.

Oltre ad essere perfettamente in linea con la tradizione repubblicana (i Bush padre e figlio erano espressione della lobby Big Oil), quelle promesse gli valsero voti cruciali, ad esempio tra i minatori delle montagne Appalachian. Wall Street sale dalla sua elezione, anche perché le multinazionali energetiche festeggiano. La Famiglia Koch, potentato petrolchimico di destra che aveva avuto una certa freddezza verso Trump, ora lo appoggia. Insomma retrocedere sull'anti-ambientalismo non gli sarà facile.

Un'avvertenza ulteriore. La frase "possibilista" su Parigi, Trump l'ha pronunciata in queste ore nel corso di un incontro con la direzione e redazione del New York Times, quotidiano liberal che lo ha osteggiato e continua ad essere fortemente critico verso di lui. Trump - anche in questo fedele al suo modello Berlusconi? - ha una certa tendenza a plasmare la sua oratoria sui gusti di chi lo sta ascoltando. Gli piace piacere. Adora accattivarsi l'audience che ha davanti. Se domani sera lo intervistasse un giornalista alla O'Reilly o alla Hannity su Fox News, sarebbe capace di dire cose molto diverse da quelle che ha appena detto al New York Times.




Fast
Translation



Trump, backed off that freezes the supporters

NEW YORK-reverse all, even for Paris? Donald Trump is inflicting a cold shower to his supporters, distancing himself from various campaign promises. Already several sites and commentators of the radical right are furious because he said he did not want to continue investigations of Hillary Clinton. Loud crowds enthusiastic rallies "Lock her up" (put it in prison), and even in a televised duel him told him in the face, which would have named one "special prosecutor" to incriminate you. Joked. But so far, the reverse is understandable, even expected. You can say things very hard in campaigning, then when one won page turns, and bury the hatchet. All the more so since Hillary the last counts took two million more votes than him relentlessly with judicial investigations against her as well as a nasty revenge would be a gesture that Calderon is the divisions of a nation already torn.

But Paris? Here the question is much more delicate. Not only Trump has repeatedly said to consider climate change "hoax" (or even "an invention of the Chinese to damage the competitiveness of American industry"); not only has promised several times to tear up those agreements; also publish those promises in a more general plan of rehabilitation of fossil fuels, oil and coal.

Besides being perfectly in line with Republican tradition (the Bush father and son were an expression of the Big Oil lobby), those promises earned him crucial votes, such as between the miners of the Appalachian mountains. Wall Street rises after his election, in part because energy companies are celebrating. The Koch Family, who had a right petrochemical potentate certain coldness towards Trump, now supports. I mean back on anti-environmentalism won't be easy.

A further warning. The phrase "possibilist" for Paris, Trump it delivered during these hours during a meeting with the directors and editors of the New York Times, liberal newspaper which has opposed and continues to be strongly critical of him. Trump-even in this true to its model Berlusconi? -has a tendency to shape his oratory on the tastes of those who are listening. He likes pleasure.




Adores captivate the audience in front of him. If tomorrow night he interviewed him a journalist at O'Reilly or Hannity on Fox News, would be able to say very different things than those who just told the New York Times.



Exactly Like Berlusconi

It's me.  Are you OK?

Trump is a con artist he conned all these people so they would vote for him. They didn't pay attention to all the flipping he did when ever he said something. Now their surprised really.

Great article, IM. Thanks for the translation

Thanks party

And


Not really
Lady

it's me wrote:Thanks party

And


Not really
Lady

Friendship hug   Hugs make everything better.

Now this is very very interesting................!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/wisconsin-michigan-pennsylvania-election-hillary-clinton-hacked-manipulated-donald-trump-swing-a7433091.html

PAN - This is a mess! All these last ditch attempts to change the outcome of the election are, IMO, giving people false hope. There is statistical probability that the swing state votes were manipulated, but no proof. By the time the "experts" analyze the data - and Trump challenges it - the whole mess would probably end up in court and drag on for months. I don't know where that leaves us as far as having a president goes. Maybe Obama would have to stay on until it was all settled. (By the way, he is not in favor of a challenge as it would disrupt the transition.)

As far as getting electors to change their votes, well, that's unlikely, too. Most of them are party loyalists and won't vote for Hillary under any circumstances. They realize that a vote for anyone but Trump is, basically, a vote for her so little is likely to change.

Trump has backpedaled from some of his positions and many media and political types are bending over backwards to give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he's trying to win over some of the 2 MILLION votes Hillary beat him by. I personally believe that if anything brings him down it will be his business dealings and his refusal to understand that he can't do business as usual while he is President, He seems to have no understanding of the concept of conflict of interest.

Whatever happens, this election has put a pall over the whole holiday season. People are stressed and anxious and, if you live in NY they are furious - you can't get around in Manhattan because of gridlock made 10X worse by the Secret Service "protection" of Trump Tower. They're right. This city is one place where the jackass-elect really needs protection!

LizzyNY wrote:PAN - This is a mess! All these last ditch attempts to change the outcome of the election are, IMO, giving people false hope. There is statistical probability that the swing state votes were manipulated, but no proof. By the time the "experts" analyze the data - and Trump challenges it - the whole mess would probably end up in court and drag on for months. I don't know where that leaves us as far as having a president goes. Maybe Obama would have to stay on until it was all settled. (By the way, he is not in favor of a challenge as it would disrupt the transition.)

As far as getting electors to change their votes, well, that's unlikely, too. Most of them are party loyalists and won't vote for Hillary under any circumstances. They realize that a vote for anyone but Trump is, basically, a vote for her so little is likely to change.

Trump has backpedaled from some of his positions and many media and political types are bending over backwards to give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he's trying to win over some of the 2 MILLION votes Hillary beat him by. I personally believe that if anything brings him down it will be his business dealings and his refusal to understand that he can't do business as usual while he is President, He seems to have no understanding of the concept of conflict of interest.

Whatever happens, this election has put a pall over the whole holiday season. People are stressed and anxious and, if you live in NY they are furious - you can't get around in Manhattan because of gridlock made 10X worse by the Secret Service "protection" of Trump Tower. They're right. This city is one place where the jackass-elect really needs protection!

Friendship hug 

So true, Lizzy. From November 8th onwards it seemed to me to be an unhappy place  and lots of people were very keen to talk about it!

And yes, the traffic's a nightmare - worse than ever this time - and the odd protest march caused little disruption in comparison.


Glad to see Women in the World is getting behind this

http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2016/11/22/more-than-100000-plan-on-attending-womens-march-on-washington/

Donald Trump jr. held talks on partnering with Russsia to end Syria conflict.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3965528/Donald-Trump-Jr-held-talks-partnering-Russia-end-Syria-conflict-Israel-portfolio-Jared-Kushner-emerges-amid-concerns-growing-Trump-family-influence.html

These conflicts between politics and business Trump will have to face, really worry me.
Maybe he'll try to avoid them, to think really presidential (although I can't imagine that), but to talk with the 'Deutsche Bank' about surcharges due to illegal stock trading, while on the other hand he owes them millions on businesses, will generate conflicts - or will at least always leave a bad taste in our mouth...

Here's another case of that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5_vtHuyRpM

The Dakota pipeline. He's involved

Christiane Amanpour received the Burton Benjamin Memorial Award on November 22. The award recognizes her work in forwarding the cause of press freedom.  I hope everyone will take about 15 minutes to listen to her inspiring and sobering words.

https://www.cpj.org/awards/2016/christiane-amanpour.php

Thank you Donnamarie.

15 minutes well spent. Especially liked - let's get up to some good trouble. This woud have so please my dear mother who believed we all all all had an obligation to speak up and where necessary for the preservation of good - get our hands dirty, take risks and get into "good trouble".

oldweston wrote:Thank you Donnamarie.

15 minutes well spent. Especially liked - let's get up to some good trouble. This woud have so please my dear mother who believed we all all all had an obligation to speak up and where necessary for the preservation of good - get our hands dirty, take risks and get into "good trouble".

Oldweston "good trouble" where do you draw the line?  Please give me an example of "good trouble".  

There is a school of thought that operates in the perspective: lies, deception, misleading, misguiding, violating laws of the land, imposed violence to execute moral judgement are good, caring, loving actions able to clean and make life better.  "It's all good" is their claim.

Hitler's actions are seen by some as good trouble.

I am unable to find a good and polite way to answer this directly. So I will refrain.

The speech, the link is above, provides a road map should you be seeking clarification of the point I made.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". Edmund Burke.

oldweston wrote:I am unable to find a good and polite way to answer this directly. So I will refrain.

The speech, the link is above, provides a road map should you be seeking clarification of the point I made.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". Edmund Burke.

I listened to the speech connected to the link provided. I can understand why answers to my questions would result in extremely harsh responses.  Words are extremely powerful; the truth is "good trouble" can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

I would think Christiane was not referring to violence, deception or lies when she spoke of "good trouble".  Congressman John Lewis, who she quoted, is an eloquent speaker and a highly respected Member of Congress.  He believes in standing up for civil rights.  He believes in constructive activism and protest.  Not violence. Sometimes laws may need to be broken but not at the expense of people being physically harmed.  I think Christiane's audience got what she meant.  I did.

Edmund Burke said it well.  Thanks oldweston!

What Christiane and John Lewis think does not change how others view "good trouble".  While they may NOT see violence as a means to an end, others do.   Like most journalist, I found Christiane's comments measured.  However, I do believe we start with telling the truth and go from there.

The current school of thought is: the breaking of laws can bring about change for the good.  That perspective is twisted and extremely dangerous.  The truth is we can work within the laws, to bring about change that extends to everyone a fair and equitable life.  

In order to get rid of evil, we first have to define what evil is.

The school of thought that operates in the perspective they have the Biblical right, Biblical grace, Biblical flexibility, to lie, deceive, mislead, misguide, violate laws of the land, impose violence to execute moral judgement, and those who believe they are the righteous sent by god to avenge what they perceive to be unholy, unrighteous, unjust are the evil among us.  If we do nothing to challenge these perspectives we will find ourselves in global chaos like none other.

ladybugcngc wrote:

The current school of thought is: the breaking of laws can bring about change for the good.  That perspective is twisted and extremely dangerous.  The truth is we can work within the laws, to bring about change that extends to everyone a fair and equitable life. 

If our founding fathers agreed with you we'd still be a British colony. I am not a proponent of violence, but there are times when laws have to be broken to achieve justice.

Brilliant stuff from Christiane. Thank you so much, Donnamarie.

Interesting isn't it that the numbers for the News York Times and Washington Post's subscribers have shot up since Trump started to attack them? And I am amongst them!

We live in very dangerous times, and I dread to think what the hopeful blue collar workers of mid America will do when they realise none of the jobs they've been promised do not materialise because they've all been automated. They simply won't be there

..........and the UN Security Council is about to look like this...........!?

Putin,
Trump,
Xi Jinping
France - maybe Marie LePen!?
Theresa May