Was the supposed evidence of Assad planning to launch a chemical attack in Syria just another of Trump's countless and consistent lies, perhaps his attempt to (again) divert attention from uncomfortable news about him here at home? An effort to boost or steer attention from his abominable poll results in the Pew global survey that reveal extreme distrust of this president's abilities, and our country's image as a reliable ally suffering badly?
What if Trump decides some overnight when he's alone and in the throes of whatever psychological torment he suffers, that launching a surprise nuclear attack on some region of the Middle East (which, as he revealed he was ignorant of, DOES include Israel) will help his poll numbers, give him a self-perceived "win," or garner the kind of attention he craves, will his supporters still deny the danger of leaving this disturbed man alone with the nuclear codes?
China National Petroleum Corp has suspended sales of fuel to North Korea over concerns the state-owned oil company won't get paid, as pressure mounts on Pyongyang to rein in its nuclear and missile programmes, three sources told Reuters.
And when he was asked by a right-leaning reporter about it, here's what happened....
*snip*
A reporter for Fox News asked Sanders Monday if he still thought the probe into his wife was "politically motivated" now that other news outlets have reported on the investigation.
"Well I'm glad that you're interested in the fact that the Republican leadership is proposing legislation which would throw millions of people off of health insurance," Sanders told the reporter in a brief clip aired by Fox News.
*snip*
Is Bernie losing his hearing? Does he not understand the language anymore?
Would be nice if Kamala would nail him for not answering questions.
President Donald Trump accused former President Barack Obama of stealing his terminology when Obama said last week that there was a 'fundamental meanness' at the core of the Republican health care bill.
During an interview on "Fox and Friends" Sunday morning, Trump was asked about Obama's Facebook post condemning the Republican health care plan, and the President responded by saying Obama used the descriptor after he originally did.
"Well he actually used my term, 'mean.' That was my term," Trump said. "Because I want to see -- and I speak from the heart -- that's what I want to see, I want to see a bill with heart."
When White House press secretary Sean Spicer was asked about Trump's use of the word "mean" in reference to the bill last week, Spicer said he wouldn't comment on rumors about what the President may or may not have said behind closed doors.
Trump's statement on "Fox and Friends" makes clear the news reports about his conversation were accurate, and not rumors as Spicer initially described them.
:::end quote:::
If he thought the House bill was "mean" wonder what he actually thinks about the Senate bill.
EasTexSteveSo, why would Obama or the democrats suddenly give a cr@p about "vast damage" to the healthcare system? They obviously didn't care in the first place, or they wouldn't have foisted the disasterous Obamacare on the taxpayer in the first place.
"The decision is ke...See MoreAn appellate court in Arizona ruled that DREAMers cannot receive in-state tuition. Each state can determine whether it can give these tax-supported benefits, the court held.
Under the ruling, illegal immigrants that have Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status may not pay the in-state tuition rate.
"The decision is key because in-state tuition is yet another benefit that acts as a magnet for illegal aliens choosing to make the reckless and irresponsible decision to bring their children illegally across our sovereign borders," Immigration Reform Law Institute's (IRLI) executive director and general counsel, Dale Wilcox told Breitbart Texas.
Even though many knew when he was campaigning that he couldn't live up to his own hype, so many believed him.
He cares nothing about our country or its citizens. He only cares about himself and lining his pocket.
:::quote:::
A promise made before Christmas is fizzling before the Fourth of July.
In December, then-President-elect Trump told hundreds of workers at the Carrier manufacturing plant that he had worked out a deal to save their jobs.
But it's not working out that way. A steady downpour today did little to wash away the fact that the jobs of 600 union employees are going south.
"They're going to Monterrey, Mexico," said Robert James, president of the local union.
Reynolds said he felt betrayed, since Mr. Trump told workers during his December visit to the plant that 1,100 jobs would be saved.
"And by the way, that number is going to go up very substantially as they expand this area, this plant," Mr. Trump said. "So the 1,100 is going to be a minimum number."
Blasting companies for moving American jobs abroad was a feature of the Trump campaign, and saving the Carrier jobs was touted as a sign of Mr. Trump's bargaining prowess.
"You're going to have a good Christmas," he said at the plant.
But the truth is that 400 of the 1,100 jobs Mr. Trump mentioned were white-collar positions that were never going away.
Only 700 union jobs were saved. Six hundred others will be lost, and Carrier is not paying a price. The company actually received a $7 million incentive package from Indiana to keep the plant open with a reduced work force.
This is a long article, that I realize some might not take time to read, but if you want understand how Russia might totally disrupt our nation without firing a single missile, read it carefully.
:::quote:::
Bracing for the next round, Yasinsky says, is like "studying for an approaching final exam." But in the grand scheme, he thinks that what Ukraine has faced for the past three years may have been just a series of practice tests.
He sums up the attackers' intentions until now in a single Russian word: poligon. A training ground. Even in their most damaging attacks, Yasinsky observes, the hackers could have gone further. They could have destroyed not just the Ministry of Finance's stored data but its backups too. They probably could have knocked out Ukrenergo's transmission station for longer or caused permanent, physical harm to the grid, he says—a restraint that American analysts like Assante and Lee have also noted. "They're still playing with us," Yasinsky says. Each time, the hackers retreated before accomplishing the maximum possible damage, as if reserving their true capabilities for some future operation.
Many global cybersecurity analysts have come to the same conclusion. Where better to train an army of Kremlin hackers in digital combat than in the no-holds-barred atmosphere of a hot war inside the Kremlin's sphere of influence? "The gloves are off. This is a place where you can do your worst without retaliation or prosecution," says Geers, the NATO ambassador. "Ukraine is not France or Germany. A lot of Americans can't find it on a map, so you can practice there." (At a meeting of diplomats in April, US secretary of state Rex Tillerson went so far as to ask, "Why should US taxpayers be interested in Ukraine?")
In that shadow of neglect, Russia isn't only pushing the limits of its technical abilities, says Thomas Rid, a professor in the War Studies department at King's College London. It's also feeling out the edges of what the international community will tolerate. The Kremlin meddled in the Ukrainian election and faced no real repercussions; then it tried similar tactics in Germany, France, and the United States. Russian hackers turned off the power in Ukraine with impunity—and, well, the syllogism isn't hard to complete. "They're testing out red lines, what they can get away with," Rid says. "You push and see if you're pushed back. If not, you try the next step."
What will that next step look like? In the dim back room at ISSP's lab in Kiev, Yasinsky admits he doesn't know. Perhaps another blackout. Or maybe a targeted attack on a water facility. "Use your imagination," he suggests drily.
ChalkyAre you using the same logic you used to avoid answering these questions?
"How would having to *change doctors* adversely the economy? Is there *evidence* that you can provide that verifies that the misleading statement President Obama made did such?"
The way out of this mess is seen in the research on California's sin...See MoreThe "secret" Trumpcare is an impossible task. Obamacare, Romneycare and all other programs that use private insurance must have - as Obamacare does - 1. An individual mandate 2. No preexisting conditions and 3. Subsidies for the poor. Without any one the system collapses.
The way out of this mess is seen in the research on California's single payer plan - the Healthy California Act. California currently spends $370 billion/year. Covering everyone would normally increase costs to $400 billion. However, with a single payer system and with everyone covered, the costs are expected to drop to $331 billion.
The state would still have to raise about $106 billion. So California will increase taxes and save the citizens money. A strange concept for conservatives! Yet, all across the country, if you asked people if they would like to pay more in taxes and not pay an even larger insurance premium, you would hear a resounding "Yes!"
Information from the article: Single-Payer Healthcare for California Is, In Fact, Very Doable
But more, Frijole says "Their budget is about $180 billion," Yet, the article says "Roughly 70% of the state's current spending is paid for through public programs, including Medicare and MediCal. This funding — totaling about $225 billion — would continue, as is required by law. It would simply flow through Healthy California rather than existing programs."
California's "state budget" does not include the Medicare and MediCal (their Medicaid) funding from the Federal Government. Clearly, Frijole does not have a grasp of the math on this one!
Plus, the article I am quoting was written by the guy who did the research. What research have your authors done? Tell us where they got their numbers.
Yet, you need to look at the big picture. Socialism is the solution to "risk management" and has been for hundreds of years. It started with what the present day Amish do when someone's barn burns down. They all pitch in, and the barn is rebuilt at little or no cost.
Still today, when everyone faces a "potential" loss that they cannot manage, the people get together and trade that potential huge loss for a guaranteed small loss. More simply put, you pay insurance premiums. That is, as in socialism, everyone pays and only those in need take.
Yes, if my house burns down, other people's money is used to rebuild my house! And guess what, the system does not run out of other people's money!
PS: About California having a "massive debt ever-increasing", once again, you are not researching before you write. I wish you would stop doing this! Look at the graph to see what I mean.