Tuesday Open Thread | Kenneth “Babyface” Edmonds Week

                                                          Kenneth “Babyface” Edmonds


Whip Appeal!

“Whip Appeal” is a song by American musician Babyface. It served as the third single from his second album, Tender Lover. Written by Babyface and Perri “Pebbles” Reid, “Whip Appeal” was released on February 22, 1990 by SOLAR Records and Epic Records.

Whip Appeal” peaked at number six on the US Billboard Hot 100 singles chart in April 1990.[2] It also reached number two on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart and number 39 in Canada.[3][4] The song received a Grammy Award nomination in the Best R&B Vocal Performance, Male category and a Soul Train Music Award nomination in the Best R&B/Soul Single, Male category.[5][6] In a 1990 Newsday article, journalist John Leland described the song as “suggestive but not rude” and called it “the risque love ballad that has eluded Prince the last few years.”[7] This version finished at #83 on Billboard’s year-end chart for 1990.


Babyface met Tracey Edmonds, his wife from 1992 to 2005, when she auditioned for a role in the “Whip Appeal” music video. “She made it but couldn’t be in it because she got the chicken pox. I didn’t see her again for a couple months,” Babyface said. During casting for his next video, “My Kinda Girl”, he recalled asking, “‘Do you remember the girl who caught the chicken pox? She was real pretty.’ The very next day, Tracey, her mom and brother happened to be driving down the street that I was on. It was like a ‘meant to be’ kind of thing.”[8] The video features actress Holly Robinson Peete (she introduced herself as ‘Holly Robinson’), as the sultry radio host at the beginning of the video. The music video was directed by Jim Yukich, who previously directed many videos for Phil Collins as well as his band Genesis.


This entry was posted in Current Events, Media, Music, Open Thread, Politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Tuesday Open Thread | Kenneth “Babyface” Edmonds Week

  1. Ametia says:

    Just remember folks, anything that President Obama BUILT is his LEGACY

    Anything the orange POS #45 DESTROYS is his LEGACY

  2. rikyrah says:

    Sean Spicer Isn’t Taking the Russia Issue Seriously
    by Martin Longman March 28, 2017 3:45 PM

    I was interested to see how White House press secretary Sean Spicer would respond to the swirling mess around House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes’s bizarre secret late night visit to the White House last week, as well as to the breaking news that the White House initially attempted to thwart the testimony of former acting Attorney General Sally Yates.

    If I thought he was going to take these issues seriously, I was disappointed. At one point, Spicer told the assembled reporters that if the president had Russian dressing on his salad they would report it as a Russian connection.

    He also went back on a promise to inform the press who it was who signed Devin Nunes into the White House complex.

    His line on Sally Yates was somewhat defensible but also largely beside the point. Spicer noted that they ultimately did not exert an executive privilege to prevent her testimony and that they have no problem with her testifying in the future. Yet, that doesn’t explain why Devin Nunes cancelled her scheduled appearance before the House Intelligence Committee immediately after Yates’s attorney informed the White House that she intended to testify to precisely the things the White House was threatening her not to discuss.

  3. rikyrah says:

    Trump Isn’t Getting His Border Wall
    by Martin Longman March 28, 2017 12:38 PM

    There’s been a lot of speculation that President Trump’s heart wasn’t really committed to repealing Obamacare. He agreed to go along with the strategy of tackling the issue first, perhaps because he didn’t realize the odds against success, but his passion supposedly lies elsewhere. It’s a plausible argument, I guess, but he did talk rather relentlessly about repealing Obama’s signature law on the campaign trail.

    The only issue I can think of that Trump talked about more was building a wall on our Southern border, and making the Mexicans pay for it. Regardless of where his true passion lies, a failure on both of these top themes of his run for the presidency would put a boulder-size dent in his reputation as a dealmaker.

    Of course, just as there was a plan to repeal Obamacare, there has been a plan to fund the wall, too. But there are problems.

    One problem is that that plan doesn’t entail the Mexicans signing the checks. Another problem is just emerging now. It doesn’t look like Congress wants to stick to the plan.

    The White House made an initial request earlier this month for $1.4 billion in border wall funding as part of a package that boosts defense spending by $30 billion, with the thought that it would hitch a ride to the broader government funding bill due next month

  4. rikyrah says:

    The Real Killer of Trumpcare Was Conservatives’ Self-Deception
    by Steven Waldman March 28, 2017 1:30 PM

    As Republicans focus on whom to blame for the collapse of Trumpcare, they have ignored the most important culprit: self-deception.

    For seven years, they have run a campaign against Obamacare that was full of exaggeration and distortions. Over time, they and their voters came to believe all sorts of things that weren’t true – and those false assumptions ended up crippling their ability to repeal and replace Obamacare.

    Let’s go through them:

    Obamacare was one of the worst things ever to happen. As soon as Barack Obama proposed the Affordable Care Act, we saw an arms race of hyperbole. It was insufficient to oppose it; one had to do so in a truly memorable way. So we ended up with comments like:

    “Obamacare is really I think the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery.” (Ben Carson)

    “This is the end of prosperity in America forever.” (Glenn Beck)

    “[Obamacare] will bankrupt our nation, and it will ruin our economy.” (John Boehner)


    These sentiments have bombarded conservative voters for roughly 2,500 straight days. In this context, the stubbornly negative reaction from the Freedom Caucus was totally logical and predictable. When a law is worse than slavery, you really ought to just repeal it. The fact that Paul Ryan accepted a lot of the structure of the ACA made it even worse.

    The Freedom Caucus rebellion wasn’t caused by disloyalty or disunity; it was caused by seven years of hyperbolic rhetoric.

    Premiums are skyrocketing because of Obamacare and so a Republican plan would lower premiums. Republicans walked into a trap of their own setting: if Obamacare was what was causing premiums to rise, then their plans can and should make premiums go down. Or as Donald Trump put it: Rates will “go down, down, down.”

  5. rikyrah says:

    Yates Was Warned. Nevertheless, She Persisted
    by Nancy LeTourneau March 28, 2017 2:40 PM

    The words that sparked the resistance movement to rally in support of Sen. Elizabeth Warren when McConnell tried to silence her now apply to Sally Yates. If you remember, she is the woman who served as the Deputy Attorney General in the Obama administration and was initially asked to stay on as the Acting Attorney General for Trump until he fired her for refusing to defend his travel ban.

    Prior to her firing, she warned the White House that the statements made by Michael Flynn about his contacts with the Russian Ambassador were not true and could potentially be used as blackmail against him, a warning that the White House chose to ignore until the information became public and Flynn was fired.

    Yates was planning to testify about her knowledge of some of these events to the House Intelligence Committee that is currently chaired by Rep. Devin Nunes. But apparently the White House has been attempting to stop her from doing so.

    According to letters The Post reviewed, the Justice Department notified Yates earlier this month that the administration considers a great deal of her possible testimony to be barred from discussion in a congressional hearing because the topics are covered by the presidential communication privilege.


    One of the cliches to emerge from the Watergate scandal was, “It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up.” With the recent activities of Rep. Nunes and now this, it is increasingly looking like the White House is engaged in a cover-up. Regardless of what evidence is available for the probe into whether or not the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, they are sure acting like they have something to hide.

    We don’t know how important Yates’ testimony will be. But obviously she is determined to persist, even after being warned. So if or when she is able to testify in an open hearing, the White House just ensured that it will be considered yuuuuuge.

  6. rikyrah says:

    Did the White House try to block the former A.G. from testifying?
    03/28/17 01:04 PM
    By Steve Benen
    In the early days of Donald Trump’s presidency – which is to say, just a couple of months ago – Sally Yates was the administration’s choice to serve as the acting U.S. Attorney General, though that did not last. Ten days into her tenure, Trump fired Yates after she directed the Justice Department not to defend the president’s Muslim ban, which she considered unconstitutional.

    All of this unfolded on Jan. 30. Four days earlier, however, Yates notified the White House that the Justice Department had evidence that then-National Security Advisor Michael Flynn lied about his post-election talks with Vladimir Putin’s government and may be vulnerable to a Russian blackmail campaign.

    Yates is now eager to talk to congressional investigators about those developments. The Washington Post reports that the White House has “sought to block” that testimony.

    The Trump administration sought to block former acting attorney general Sally Yates from testifying to Congress in the House investigation of links between Russian officials and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, The Washington Post has learned, a position that is likely to further anger Democrats who have accused Republicans of trying to damage the inquiry.

    According to letters The Post reviewed, the Justice Department notified Yates earlier this month that the administration considers a great deal of her possible testimony to be barred from discussion in a congressional hearing because the topics are covered by the presidential communication privilege


  7. Ametia says:
  8. Ametia says:

    We must remember that FOX and Co. are part of the GOP-TRUMP CABAL. And any thing they air is part of the design to DISTRACT from TRUMP & RUSSIA.

    #45 has made it plain & clear that he only watches FOX CABLE and reads BRIETBART online.

  9. Ametia says:

    Ain’t this some BULL?

  10. Ametia says:

    Barry Jenkins to Adapt Colson Whitehead’s ‘The Underground Railroad’ for Amazon

    Whitehead’s 2016 novel envisions the Underground Railroad as an actual subterranean rail network.

    A month after “Moonlight’s” “Best Picture” Oscar win, director and writer Barry Jenkins will move from film to streaming television for his next project: a series adaptation of writer Colson Whitehead’s National Book Award-winning 2016 novel, “The Underground Railroad.”

    Variety reported yesterday (March 27) that the still-untitled one-hour drama series is in development at Amazon. “It’s a groundbreaking work that pays respect to our nation’s history while using the form to explore it in a thoughtful and original way,” Jenkins told Variety about the book. “Preserving the sweep and grandeur of a story like this requires bold, innovative thinking, and in Amazon, we’ve found a partner whose reverence for storytelling and freeness of form is wholly in line with our vision.”


  11. Ametia says:

    Former Obama Official Outlines What Parts Of Obamacare Need Strengthening
    March 27, 2017·4:28 PM ET
    Heard on All Things Considered

    Kavita Patel worked for the Obama administration and helped draft the Affordable Care Act. She tells NPR’s Kelly McEvers about the single biggest area of the health care law that she sees as in need of strengthening.


  12. rikyrah says:


    Judge Gorsuch and What Could Have Been
    Since the 1970s, I spent my career hoping to one day witness the return of a liberal Supreme Court. Now I’ll never have the chance.

    by Thomas Geoghegan March 28, 2017

    The conservative judge Neil Gorsuch is very likely soon to be a Supreme Court justice. Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, has declared his intention to filibuster. But even in the unlikely event that the Democrats rally behind him and Republicans don’t simply respond with the “nuclear option,” whoever replaces the late Justice Antonin Scalia will be to the right of center—guaranteeing that a majority of the Court continues to be conservative, as it has been since the 1970s.

    As liberals face this reality, how many grasp how much the country would have changed with a left-of-center Court? For the first time in my adult life as a lawyer, the liberal moderates would have outnumbered the conservatives. Now that opportunity is gone, forever, in my lifetime. During the presidential campaign, it often depressed me how many of my friends thought of Hillary Clinton as the status quo candidate. Yes, there would have been the same Obama-type gridlock between the White House and the Congress. But while the Supreme Court may be the passive branch, it is also the one branch that is free of gridlock. Indeed, it is in some respects the most powerful of all branches, because it can change the Constitution.

    As Democrats agonize over Gorsuch’s confirmation, let’s think for a moment just how much we lost. With a five to four majority of liberal justices, how would the country have changed?

    By a five to four vote, gerrymandering of congressional districts would have been struck down. Even more than “money in politics,” gerrymandering decides who controls the House of Representatives. A center-left Court might have made a redistricting system based on independent, non-partisan commissions the law of the land

    Of course, a liberal Court, would have been likely to reverse Citizens United. More importantly, it might have revisited an earlier, even more pernicious precedent, Buckley v. Valeo, the 1976 case that established that money is a form of speech. Now, if the Democrats ever do regain legislative majorities and pass campaign finance reform — say, at some point in the next twenty years — a conservative Court will cite Buckley and Citizens United to strike it down.

  13. rikyrah says:

    How the Failure to Repeal Obamacare Is Affecting Wall Street
    by Nancy LeTourneau March 28, 2017 8:30 AM

    Most people who work in corporate America don’t have to worry about health insurance. So the failure of Republicans to repeal Obamacare was not likely to affect them directly. But Matthew Zeitlin says that it has Wall Street investors nervous.

    As Republican attempts to kill Obamacare flamed out spectacularly, investors began rethinking an assumption that caused markets to rally for months: perhaps the Trump administration and its allies in Congress, they suddenly realized, won’t pull off the sweeping tax cuts that many have been expecting.

    Since the election, investors have been betting that unified Republican control of Washington will make it rain for big businesses and the wealthy. The “Trump Trade” helped push the S&P 500 up by 12% between election day and March 1, and executives and major investors have spoken glowingly of a new optimism in the US economy.

    But that thinking — and the market rally that came with it — has begun to recede.

  14. rikyrah says:


    Quick Takes: Will Trump Face a Government Shutdown On His 100th Day?
    by Nancy LeTourneau March 27, 2017 6:07 PM

    * While we’ve all been focused on the disaster of the Republican failure to repeal Obamacare and what that means for tax reform, a deadline is fast approaching. Last December, Congress passed a continuing resolution to keep the government funded. The trouble is, it runs out on April 28th. That means that Congress has exactly one month to figure out a budget, pass another continuing resolution, or face a government shutdown. The timing is interesting. Trump’s 100th day in office hits the very next day – April 29th.

  15. rikyrah says:

    How a Tricky Tactic by Congressional Republicans Destroyed Trump’s Agenda
    by Martin Longman March 27, 2017 1:01 PM

    You’ll be hearing a lot about something called the budget reconciliation process this week. My colleague is already on it. It’s wonky, confusing, and probably boring to most people, but if you want to understand it (and you should), the best place to start is by reading this explainer by David Reich and Richard Kogan of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. I refer you to them, in part, because I don’t want to have to explain it all myself but I need you to understand some basics in order to follow what I have to say about the resulting politics.

    One part of the Republicans’ legislative plan for this year involves something that has never been done before. Back in November, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell held a press conference to announce that he and House Speaker Paul Ryan would be passing two budget resolutions in one year. Forbes headlined this as “GOP To Use Previously Unheard Of Tactic To Slam Dunk Trump Agenda.” It looked like some kind of mad genius Jedi mind trick stuff, and it was hatched because the Republicans were trying to figure out how to enact things through the Senate without having them filibustered by the Democrats. The only way to do that is to attach instructions to privileged budget resolutions that only require a simple majority to pass. The instructions will tell one or more committees to figure out how to (usually) improve the budget by reducing spending. Then later in the year, those changes can be voted on again with a simple majority. It’s the second vote that is the reconciliation, because it reconciles the budget with what was intended at the beginning of the year. I can feel your eyes glazing over already, so let’s just put it this way: if you want to get around a filibuster, one way to do it is to attach your bill to the annual budget resolution.

    But there are a bunch of limitations to what can be included in a budget reconciliation bill. It has to affect revenues, for example.

    Under Senate interpretations of the Congressional Budget Act, the Senate can consider the three basic subjects of reconciliation — spending, revenues, and debt limit — in a single bill or multiple bills, but it can consider each of these three in only one bill per year (unless Congress passes a second budget resolution). Consequently, in the Senate there can be a maximum of three reconciliation bills in a year, one for each of the basic subjects of reconciliation.

    This rule is most significant if the first reconciliation bill that the Senate takes up affects both spending and revenues. Even if that bill is overwhelmingly devoted to only one of those subjects, no subsequent reconciliation bill can affect either revenues or spending because the first bill already addressed them


    As I wrote over the weekend in my Trump Built His Own Prison piece, it’s not going to be a simple pivot for the president from his original plan to enact his agenda with nothing but Republican votes to asking the Democrats to join him on things like infrastructure and tax reform. In fact, I don’t think he’s capable of making that pivot and the Democrats are in no mood to welcome him with open arms.

    In fact, I want to reiterate this point:

    Of course, so far I’ve been ignoring the elephant in the room, which is the federal and congressional investigations of his campaign’s connections to the Russians. He needs the Republicans to be united enough behind him to create a line of defense that can hold. Having insulted so many key congressional Republicans, and running a foreign policy that is not trusted by the Republican establishment, and having made enemies of the Intelligence Community and the media, Trump can ill afford to give Republicans a reason to abandon him. That effectively cuts him off from running to Schumer and Pelosi and asking them to help him enact new tax reforms, infrastructure investment, and trade policies.

    I do not feel sorry for him. But I also can’t see how he can navigate out of the prison he’s constructed for himself. He’s barely been in office for two months and he’s already cut off every possibility for success.

    His administration had a plan. That plan is not going to work. The problem is, the way they pursued their initial plan has blocked them from finding a viable Plan B.

  16. rikyrah says:

    Wow: Former Fox News CFO offered immunity to testify before federal grand jury https://t.co/ppDhQ64N8V

    — Gabriel Sherman (@gabrielsherman) March 28, 2017

  17. rikyrah says:

    Embattled Nunes paralyzes House Intelligence Committee
    Congressman Jim Himes, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, talks with Rachel Maddow about how Committee Chairman Devin Nunes has not kept the committee updated on intelligence he talked with the media and White House about, and has postponed hearings, leading Himes to call for his recusal. Duration: 11:35

  18. rikyrah says:

    Icahn, as Trump advisor, aims to help himself to millions
    Rachel Maddow notes that Carl Icahn, appointed by Donald Trump to the unaccountable position of “special advisor,” is advocating for a regulation rule change that would benefit his bottom line by hundreds of millions of dollars.

  19. rikyrah says:

    As his presidency falters, Trump’s support hits new lows
    03/28/17 08:00 AM
    By Steve Benen
    It’s only natural to wonder whether the public at large is noticing Donald Trump’s failures as president. For people who follow current events fairly closely – folks, I assume, like you – the Republican’s many troubles probably seem obvious, but what about the electorate in general?

    The latest report from Gallup suggests Americans are, in fact, noticing.

    President Donald Trump’s job approval rating fell to 36% for the three-day period of March 24-26, following Republican House leaders’ failed effort to pass a new healthcare bill that would have replaced the Affordable Care Act. […]

    Trump’s current 36% is two percentage points below Barack Obama’s low point of 38%, recorded in 2011 and 2014. Trump has also edged below Bill Clinton’s all-time low of 37%, recorded in the summer of 1993, his first year in office, as well as Gerald Ford’s 37% low point in January and March 1975.


    What’s more, the trend isn’t the result of a national crisis or an economic collapse; this is solely the result of the American public disapproving of what they’re seeing from the White House. And under the circumstances, it’s not hard to understand what’s driving those attitudes: Trump’s health care push was a fiasco; his campaign team is under an FBI investigation; his misguided Muslim ban has flopped in the courts (twice); his National Security Advisor was forced to resign; the Russia scandal continues to raise questions about the legitimacy of his presidency; he’s alienated a wide variety of U.S. allies around the globe; and his assorted conspiracy theories have contributed to questions about his stability.

    Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley told the Washington Post the other day, “This is the most failed first 100 days of any president…. I don’t know how it can get much worse.”

    As much as I respect Brinkley’s work, I happen to believe it can get worse. Not only is the Russia scandal moving forward apace, but there are additional hazards on the horizon, including a possible government shutdown next month, the unraveling of Trump’s regressive budget plan, and a fight over tax reform that’s likely to end badly for the president and his party.

  20. rikyrah says:

    Is the House Intelligence chairman trying to discredit himself?
    03/28/17 08:55 AM—UPDATED 03/28/17 09:12 AM
    By Steve Benen
    Yesterday was not a good day for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.). The beleaguered Republican publicly acknowledged that the day before his bizarre press conferences last week, which was intended to bolster an odd Donald Trump conspiracy theory, Nunes made a secret trip to the White House.

    In other words, a top Trump ally, eager to defend the president, quietly visited the White House and talked to a Trump administration source. He then leaked ambiguous and secret information intended to help Trump to the media, then briefed the president on the findings before sharing it with his own committee colleagues.

    A growing number of officials have decided they just can’t work with this guy anymore.

    Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, called for its chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes, to recuse himself from “any investigation” into President Donald Trump’s campaign and transition team after news of the Republican’s secret White House meeting on the issue emerged.

    “This is not a recommendation I make lightly,” Rep. Adam Schiff wrote in a statement of his counterpart on the committee investigating Russia’s inference in the 2016 election. “I believe the public cannot have the necessary confidence that matters involving the President’s campaign or transition team can be objectively investigated or overseen by the Chairman.”

    Other Democrats on the Intelligence Committee have reached the same conclusion, as have the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate, who also believe Nunes’ gavel should be taken away. The ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee described Nunes’ bizarre antics as “more than suspicious,” which seems quite fair given the circumstances.

    Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), a member of Nunes’ committee, went so far as to say this morning, in reference to his panel’s chairman, “[T]his is what a cover-up to a crime looks like. We are watching it play out right now.”

  21. rikyrah says:

    Republican failure in DC changes the game on Medicaid expansion
    03/28/17 09:27 AM—UPDATED 03/28/17 09:42 AM
    By Steve Benen
    Once Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) took office last year, one of the very first things he did was embrace Medicaid expansion through the Affordable Care Act. It’s worked out beautifully for the state and its residents.

    In the national picture, Louisiana became the 31st to implement the Medicaid expansion policy, and it seemed for a while that the remaining holdouts would succumb to arithmetic and do the same. Then Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election – and everything changed, at least initially.

    South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard (R), for example, was moving forward with plans to bring Medicaid expansion to his own state, but Mike Pence reached out to the Republican governor personally, and persuaded him to abandon the idea, since GOP officials were gearing up to destroy “Obamacare.”

    Now that the Republican plan has itself been derailed, interest in the Medicaid policy is suddenly on the rise once more. The Kansas City Star reported overnight:

    Kansas lawmakers ignored Gov. Sam Brownback’s wishes Monday and gave initial approval to a bill that would expand Medicaid to thousands in the state.

    The Kansas Senate voted 25 to 13 to expand KanCare, the state’s privatized Medicaid program, after a lengthy debate Monday afternoon.

    A final vote in the state Senate is expected today, where it will pass with bipartisan support, thanks to cooperation between Democrats and more moderate Kansas Republicans.

    The news coincided with news out of Georgia, where Gov. Nathan Deal (R) is suddenly showing an interest in the ACA’s Medicaid expansion policy, and in Virginia, where Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) is renewing his push for the same idea. In Georgia, the change would bring coverage to roughly 300,000 low-income people, and in Virginia, the number is closer to 400,000.

  22. rikyrah says:

    Republicans can’t even agree on whether to give up on health care
    03/28/17 10:28 AM
    By Steve Benen

    Irreconcilable divisions within the Republican ranks doomed the GOP’s health care plan, leaving Donald Trump and Paul Ryan with brutal setbacks. Complicating matters, party leaders now can’t agree on whether the health care fight is actually over.

    Friday afternoon:
    It was an admission of defeat that House Speaker Paul Ryan probably didn’t expect to make just three months into a fully Republican government: “Obamacare is the law of the land…. We’re going to be living with Obamacare for the foreseeable future.”

    Saturday afternoon:
    Vice President Pence on Saturday reaffirmed the Trump administration’s commitment to repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, saying President Trump “won’t rest” until the law is dismantled.

    Sunday morning:
    On Sunday morning’s Meet the Press, President Donald Trump’s budget director Mick Mulvaney declared that the White House is no longer trying to repeal Obamacare. “We’ve moved on to other things,” Mulvaney said. “The president has other things he wants to accomplish.”

    Monday afternoon:
    House Speaker Paul D. Ryan told Republican donors Monday that he intends to continue pushing for an overhaul of the nation’s health-care system by working “on two tracks” as he also pursues other elements of President Trump’s agenda. “We are going to keep getting at this thing,” Ryan said….

    Later on Monday afternoon:

    The chairman of the House tax committee declared Monday he is “turning the page” from health care to tax reform….
    For those keeping score at home, Republicans aren’t giving up on repealing the Affordable Care Act and implementing a conservative alternative. They’re also moving on. Except they’re not. But maybe they are.

  23. rikyrah says:

    Trump wants a Russia investigation … directed at Clinton
    03/28/17 11:22 AM
    By Steve Benen

    As the Russia scandal involving Donald Trump and his team advances – we learned last week that the FBI is conducting an ongoing counter-espionage investigation into the Trump campaign – the president has a creative response to the allegations. Let’s call it the “Hey, look at Hillary Clinton” tack.

    Last week, apparently unable to think of a compelling defense, Trump declared via Twitter, “What about all of the contact with the Clinton campaign and the Russians?” In reality, of course, there’s no evidence of meaningful contact between Vladimir Putin’s government and the unsuccessful Democratic campaign, but Trump seemed to think it was important.

    Last night, after going nearly the entire day without tweeting, Trump returned to the subject. The Washington Post reported:

    President Trump sought Monday to pressure the House committee investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. election, arguing that the panel should be probing Bill and Hillary Clinton’s alleged ties to the country instead of those of his own campaign advisers.

    In a pair of evening tweets, Trump wrote that the “Trump Russia story is a hoax” and listed a string of alleged financial and other connections the Clintons have had over the years with Russia. He asked why the House Intelligence Committee is not investigating the former president and former secretary of state.

    “Why isn’t the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia,” the president declared, adding, “Russian speech money to Bill, the Hillary Russian ‘reset,’ praise of Russia by Hillary, or Podesta Russian Company.”

    For good measure, Trump also urged his followers to watch Fox News this morning, in advance of a segment on Russia and Clinton’s former campaign chairman.

    On the surface, little tantrums like these point to a shrinking president, lashing out with pitiful, almost child-like, responses to a serious international controversy. It’s easy to grow inured to the stream of nonsense, but having the sitting president of the United States call for a congressional investigation into his defeated opponent, for no credible reason, is alarming.

    It’s also worth noting that Trump doesn’t appear to have any idea what he’s talking about: there was no “Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia.”

  24. rikyrah says:

    With Trump, the buck always stops anywhere but with him
    03/27/17 04:30 PM
    By Steve Benen
    When Donald Trump’s Muslim ban failed miserably in the courts, the president was quick to assign blame – to everyone but himself. Now that the health care plan Trump wanted has also collapsed, he’s desperate to avoid responsibility, though he seems unsure who to point the finger at first.

    Trump’s first instinct, evidently, was to call the Washington Post to blame Democrats.

    “Look, I’m a team player,” Trump said of the Republican Party. “I’ve played this team. I’ve played with the team. And they just fell a little bit short, and it’s very hard when you need almost 100 percent of the votes and we have no votes, zero, from the Democrats. It’s unheard of.”

    Don’t brush past those last three words too quickly: “It’s unheard of.” Republicans pushed a bill that would have stripped tens of millions of Americans of their health coverage, slashed Medicaid, and handed massive tax breaks to the wealthy. Democrats were unanimous in thinking this was a ridiculous plan, and Trump thinks it’s “unheard of” for a party to stand together in opposition to legislation they find offensive.

    The president occasionally offers us a reminder that he’s quite new to politics, and has no real familiarity with recent history.

    Trump was, however, quite intent on giving Democrats credit for derailing the wildly unpopular GOP plan that House Republicans couldn’t pass despite their largest majority since the 1920s. In relatively brief White House remarks on Friday afternoon, Trump said, “We had no Democrat support. We had no votes from the Democrats. They weren’t going to give us a single vote, so it’s a very difficult thing to do…. With no Democrat support we couldn’t quite get there…. This really would have worked out better if we could have had some Democrat support. Remember, this, we had no Democrat support.”

    In reality, no one in the Republican leadership even tried to earn Democratic support; Democrats weren’t consulted before the bill was crafted; and there was nothing in the bill Democrats could tolerate. The GOP plan was to rely on its massive Republican majority, ignoring Democratic concerns, which (a) didn’t work; and (b) makes it kind of hilarious to hear Trump whine incessantly about the one group of people in Washington who didn’t have any real power over the process.

  25. Ametia says:

    How far backwards we gone. Washington full of old rich, crooked, lying white men running our country into the ground.

  26. rikyrah says:

    LMAO at This.Is.My.Jam😅😅😅

  27. rikyrah says:

    Good Morning, Everyone 😊😊😊

Leave a Reply