Monday Open Thread | Sean Hannity Accused Of Sexual Harassment

Tulsa, OK – Columnist, attorney, and former Fox News contributor Debbie Schlussel appeared on today’s Pat Campbell Show and accused Fox News Prime Time Host Sean Hannity of the same type of behavior that lead to Bill O’Reilly leaving the beleaguered network earlier this week.

Among the allegations, Schlussel claims that while at an appearance in Detroit which they both attended, Hannity invited her back to his hotel room.

Schlussel says that after she turned down his advances, she was not invited back on his program.

“This kind of stuff is all over the place at Fox News and anything that has to do with Sean Hannity,” Schlussel said.

About SouthernGirl2

A Native Texan who adores baby kittens, loves horses, rodeos, pomegranates, & collect Eagles. Enjoys politics, games shows, & dancing to all types of music. Loves discussing and learning about different cultures. A Phi Theta Kappa lifetime member with a passion for Social & Civil Justice.
This entry was posted in Current Events, News, Open Thread, Politics, Sexual Harassment and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

62 Responses to Monday Open Thread | Sean Hannity Accused Of Sexual Harassment

  1. eliihass says:

    Don’t sleep on this woman…

    Part slick, part evil, part shyster, part fast talker, part Putin-bought…bigotry, evil, hate run thick in her blood…

    Like

  2. eliihass says:

    So, the Putin-installed buffoon is a world-class bloviating, bullying, corrupt, vacuous, know-nothing, nepotistic ignoramus surrounded by corrupt, greedy, self-serving plutocrats, assorted know-nothing white supremacists (including of the alt-right, hillbilly/Jim Crow varieties), and a couple of endlessly rehearsed, pre-programmed, vacuous, hollow, immoral, cheaply gold-plated shiny objects designed to alternately to deflect, distract and put a smiley face on corruption, evil and greed …

    And how do supposed ‘smart’ folks including world ‘leaders’ take on the buffoon…?

    They help normalize and legitimize him and his brood by shining them up and touting and elevating them on the world stage..

    How to ‘forge’ relationships with while wishing to cripple/thwart the hollow, still under investigation, Putin-selected buffoon playing pretend in the People’s House..? Elevate his vacuous daughter to world ‘leader’ status..

    Like

    • eliihass says:

      “…The White House was broadly criticized for seating Ivanka Trump, who at the time held no official government position, next to the German leader during a meeting on workforce apprenticeship, essentially elevating a family member with no political experience to the level of Europe’s most important leader.

      But for Merkel, a skilled 🙄political operator forging relations with the third U.S. president to gain power during her 12 years in office, it was a useful signal of how to work the Trump White House.

      She followed up by elevating Ivanka Trump even more, inviting her to speak Tuesday at the W20 Summit in Berlin alongside Queen Maxima of the Netherlands and International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde, among others, for a panel on women’s entrepreneurship.

      A White House official said the panel will be more in the weeds and wonky than sweeping and symbolic; Ivanka Trump has been prepping for weeks, immersing herself in McKinsey & Co. reports on women in the workforce, rather than searching for soaring language with a speechwriter.

      Her inclusion on a panel of world leaders gives as much insight into Merkel’s strategy for diplomacy with the U.S. president — who during the 2016 election called her “insane” and accused her of “ruining” Germany — as it does about the ambitious first daughter. But it provides Trump with her biggest international platform yet.

      It’s not a symbolic opportunity to speak truth to power abroad, the way Hillary Clinton did when she traveled to China as first lady in 1995 and proclaimed, “Women’s rights are human rights, and human rights are women’s rights.” Instead, Trump’s trip is seen here as an opportunity to ease fears among Europeans about the new U.S. administration.

      In Berlin, Trump faces a skeptical audience, one that views the new presidency with fear and suspicion and is unsure of what to make of the first daughter.

      “What does a daughter with no political experience have to do in the White House?” said Andrea Seibel, an opinion editor at Die Welt, the influential conservative-leaning Berlin daily, where editors huddling in the newsroom Monday afternoon planned to give front-page coverage to the visit.

      “We have family clan experiences in autocracies,” Seibel said. “Ivanka Trump isn’t elected, she is a daughter. She didn’t say anything in the elections when he was saying nasty things about women and migrants. She is his voice, but somehow she has a nicer face.”

      And a White House official said Chrystia Freeland, Canada’s minister of foreign affairs, and Queen Maxima have both reached out with requests for public events with Ivanka Trump. (Both are participants in Tuesday’s W20 summit.)

      She will be accompanied by three White House aides: Dina Powell, the deputy national security adviser and senior economic counselor; communications adviser Hope Hicks; and her newly named chief of staff, Julie Radford.

      Even with Europe’s future in turmoil, Ivanka Trump’s visit dominated front pages in Berlin. “Who knows,” said Oliver Michalsky, deputy editor-in-chief of Die Welt. “Maybe she’ll become America’s first female president.”

      http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/24/ivanka-trump-berlin-germany-237534

      Like

      • eliihass says:

        “White House director of strategic communications/communications adviser” Hope Hicks…remember her…?

        Like

      • eliihass says:

        “…From the antechamber to Donald Trump’s office on the 26th floor of Trump Tower, I was fetched by Hope Hicks. She was apologetic for the wait and a little nervous about what I’d come to discuss—namely, her.

        The 27-year-old press secretary was clad in a teal dress, and she dug her stilettos into the colorless carpet as she showed me into the office, a room festooned with enough Trump memorabilia to suggest a serial killer’s shrine. There before me sat Trump himself, behind his giant desk, upon which there was nothing resembling a computer, a PalmPilot, or even an Etch A Sketch.

        Hicks, meanwhile, settled into a $5,000 red velvet Knoll lounge chair. She affixed a smile to her face, and then said nothing more to me. Hicks is a product not of Washington but of the Trump Organization, a marble-walled universe where one’s delightful agreeability and ferocious loyalty are worth more than conventional experience.

        I wanted Hicks to help me understand just how all this had come to pass, how a person who’d never worked in politics had nonetheless become the most improbably important operative in this election. But she declined my request to talk. Instead, she arranged something more surreal: I could talk about her with Donald Trump, in front of her.

        Trump, of course, has little experience with subjects other than Trump, which he made clear when I asked him about Hicks’s quick ascent to his inner circle. “Bill O’Reilly last night said it is the greatest political event…The most incredible political event in his lifetime! That’s pretty big. You know, who knew this was going to happen? So…” He pivoted, reluctantly, to the topic at hand. “Hope’s been involved from the beginning, and she has been absolutely terrific.”

        Hicks’s job—a sui generis role of outsize importance that she half invents on the fly—involves keeping the media at bay and operating as Trump’s chief gatekeeper. But she’s also summoned in critical moments of confusion to play instigator and score-settler. It was her job to facilitate Trump’s rebuke of the Pope after His Holiness questioned the Christianity of anybody who would build a border wall (kind of Trump’s thing). And it was she who helped malign a female reporter who’d been manhandled by Trump’s campaign manager, immediately claiming she was a lying attention hound. Hicks was also called on this spring to explain why Trump, over the course of three days, advocated four positions on abortion. She tried without success to quell the confusion, declaring, finally, that President Trump would end abortion, simple as that: “He will change the law through his judicial appointments and allow the states to protect the unborn.”

        Still, for all the grenades Hicks has to both jump on and lob, it’s a more quotidian skill set that seems to impress the boss. “If you see her phone going”—he raised both hands and mimicked Hicks answering several devices—“ ‘This is Hope. This is Hope. This is Hope.’ ” He hung up the make-believe phones. “She gets a call a minute, probably,” he said, seemingly pleased with this antiquated barometer of his own popularity.

        Hicks’s big job in politics started—not that long ago—with a comparatively tiny gig in Trump Tower. In 2012, two years after she’d graduated from Southern Methodist, Texas, Hicks was working for a New York PR shop when she was dispatched to help one of the firm’s major clients: Ivanka Trump.

        At the time, Trump’s daughter was expanding her fashion line, and Hicks was enlisted to pitch in—and even do a bit of modeling, appearing online in a practical mint-colored dress, black clutch, and heels, all from the Ivanka Trump collection.

        Hicks grew close to Ivanka and began dressing like the heiress, who seemed worthy of the emulation. Conveniently, as Hicks ingratiated herself to Ivanka, she won over The Donald as well—helped by the eager-to-please disposition she’d displayed since childhood.

        One day in late January of last year, Hicks was summoned to Trump’s office. There she found Michael Cohen, Trump’s ball-busting attorney, and Sam Nunberg, a nervy political adviser and protégé of Trump confidant Roger Stone. On the speakerphone was Corey Lewandowski, a journeyman operative whom Trump had just hired for a purpose unclear to Hicks.

        To the assembled, Trump said simply: We’re going to Iowa. Hicks …wondered only one thing, half in jest: What do people wear in Iowa? Soon she was at the Iowa Freedom Summit, fielding media requests and improvising in the role of real-deal political press secretary.

        The demands of her schedule led to a breakup with her boyfriend of six years. And while she technically still lives in Greenwich—with her sister, Mary Grace—when she’s not traveling on Trump Force One, Hicks stays in New York, in a Trump apartment provided by the campaign.

        Getting cocooned in Trumpville can test one’s psyche or dent one’s reputation. Maybe even put one on a self-destructive streak. In May, Hicks, thinking she was e-mailing Trump strategy notes to a campaign staffer, sent them instead to a reporter. Days earlier, she’d landed in the New York Post after she was spotted on East 61st Street, screaming at Lewandowski. The spectacle was dismissed as an interoffice dispute. Though if that’s to be believed, the emotional scene, as described to me by people who saw it—Hicks’s fists balled, her face streaked with tears—makes you wonder what the hell goes on in the Trump War Room.

        Outside the campaign, Hicks’s colleagues gossip about whether she’ll regret her heady first brush with politics. “She made a choice to work for the most fascist candidate in recent American history,” one political spokesperson told me. “Everyone who knows her tells her to stop doing this and putting her name on stuff.… She is going to regret everything she’s said and done. And I don’t think she knows it yet.”

        When I sat with Trump in his office—a few days before he locked up the nomination—I asked him if she would someday serve in a Trump administration. “Oh, yeah, sure,” he said, deciding on Hicks’s future while she smiled silently and helplessly beside me. “In either capacity, either there, or she’ll stay here, but, uh,” he said, “I think she wants to go there.”

        http://www.gq.com/story/hope-hicks-mystifying-triumph-donald-trump

        Like

  3. eliihass says:

    But, but what do you think about him personally…what’s your relationship with him…😏😐

    Like

  4. rikyrah says:

    THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 4/21/17
    Trump real estate an opening to do a deal with US president
    Steve Reilly, investigative reporter for USA Today, talks with Rachel Maddow about the legwork he and his colleagues did to catalog the real estate holdings of Donald Trump’s companies, exposing an unprecedented means of conveying money directly to a U.S. president.

    Like

  5. rikyrah says:

    THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 4/21/17
    Trump real estate a potential means to pay money to a president
    Rachel Maddow highlights the investigative journalism done by USA Today in tracking down every property owned by Donald Trump’s companies, the sales of which pose a potential conflict because the profits would go to Trump as president of the United States.

    Like

  6. rikyrah says:

    THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 4/21/17
    New Trump hire resurrects corruption questions
    Rachel Maddow revisits the questions that surrounded a Donald Trump Foundation donation to the campaign of Florida A.G. Pam Bondi coinciding with her decision not to join a lawsuit against Trump University, now that a top lawyer for Bondi, Carlos Muniz, has joined the Trump administration.

    Like

  7. rikyrah says:

    Shea Moisture Slammed After New Ad Prominently Features White Models
    Where is the representation?
    Blavity Team

    Shea Moisture, oh Shea Moisture…..where did we go wrong?

    The prominent brand in our community has spurred major criticism for straying away from its target demographic — black women.

    …………………

    Reception to the ad has been the furthest from kind.

    Black women built SheaMoisture. And not the “I was teased for having good hair” Black women. Black women will take it right on down too.

    — Kimberly N. Foster (@KimberlyNFoster) April 24, 2017

    Wouldn’t be the first time erasure has taken place in our history.

    “HEY! We want to use Shea Moisture too!” pic.twitter.com/9qfoGBKZAf

    — Ira Madison III (@ira) April 24, 2017

    Here’s the real question.

    I didn’t know white women used Shea Moisture. Like…the products are in the “ethnic” beauty section in stores. They know where that is?

    — ChelsJ (@Chels_J24) April 24, 2017

    At the end of the day , t’s about serving your demographic.

    Pretty sure white ppl been using shea moisture so it’s not about that. The ad could’ve been more inclusive. Core customers not even in it.

    — Auntie AshNic (@ashnicjam) April 24, 2017

    Like

  8. Like

  9. rikyrah says:

    Why I’m Not Interested in Being “Shattered”
    by Nancy LeTourneau April 24, 2017 2:10 PM

    Because I read so much news every day to do this job, I don’t have a lot of time or energy to read political books. That means that I need to have a pretty compelling reason do to so. I haven’t read the book that is the talk of the town right now by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes titled “Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign.” After reading a lot about the book, I’ve decided to give it a pass for several reasons.

    First of all, it is clear that the authors got a few facts wrong. Some of those mistakes are minor, like the fact that they mis-stated Christina Reynold’s role in the campaign. But one of the revelations that has been highlighted in almost every review—that the Clinton team didn’t poll for the last three weeks of the campaign in key states like Michigan and Wisconsin—has been declared 100% wrong by Brian Fallon, the campaign’s communication director.

    Second, on a related note, Pamela Engel documented that there has been a big push-back against the book from Clinton campaign staffers who say that it doesn’t describe their experience. There could be many reasons for this. But it is undoubtably true that each individual will have their own take on their own experience. So there will be thousands of takes on what did/didn’t happen. It seems clear that Allen and Parnes focused their book on a particular take from some of these people.

    Third, Kevin Drum does a good job of challenging the book’s assertion that Clinton ran a particularly horrible campaign. Everyone has their own opinion about how to approach that question (i.e., “she lost to Trump!”). But given his insistence on data, Kevin looks at Alan Abramowitz’s model, which suggests that “Hillary Clinton did way better than any winning candidate of the past three decades, outperforming her baseline by 2.4 percent.”

    Fourth, as I’ve listened to the authors talk about the book and read reviews like the one by Matt Taibbi, I am struck by the fact that they put a negative spin on things that actually impressed me about the Clinton campaign. For example, I think the fact that Hillary did a thorough autopsy of her 2008 mistakes was a good thing. I know that, for myself, the first question she needed to answer early on in the primaries was whether or not her campaign would correct what she got wrong last time. That was most notable in who she would bring on her team. Leaders like Robby Mook and Maya Harris were huge improvements over the likes of Mark Penn. For me, that signaled that Clinton had learned something, which is the only step towards growth.

    Like

  10. rikyrah says:

    Donald Trump’s ignorance keeps getting in the way
    04/24/17 12:54 PM
    By Steve Benen

    There’s much to discuss in Donald Trump’s stunning interview with the Associated Press, but it’s worth pausing to pay special attention to the president’s explanation for his criticism of NATO.
    “They had a quote from me that NATO’s ‘obsolete.’ But they didn’t say why it was obsolete. I was on Wolf Blitzer, very fair interview, the first time I was ever asked about NATO, because I wasn’t in government. People don’t go around asking about NATO if I’m building a building in Manhattan, right? So they asked me, Wolf … asked me about NATO, and I said two things. NATO’s obsolete – not knowing much about NATO, now I know a lot about NATO – NATO is obsolete, and I said, ‘And the reason it’s obsolete is because of the fact they don’t focus on terrorism.’”
    For now, let’s put aside NATO’s counter-terrorism work and instead focus on Trump’s welcome concession: when he first started publicly discussing his perspective on the alliance, he didn’t “know much” about NATO. After all, his focus was on New York real estate, not international affairs.

    He did, however, pontificate anyway, criticizing NATO while seeking the nation’s highest office.
    We could, of course, focus on why a presidential candidate didn’t “know much about NATO” in 2016 – it seems like the sort of thing a would-be national leader would have firm opinions on before launching a White House bid – but I’m just as intrigued by the idea that Trump was comfortable publicly criticizing one of the key pillars of global security in recent generations without actually knowing what he’s talking about.

    Like

  11. rikyrah says:

    Trump administration can’t keep its story straight on ‘Dreamers’
    04/24/17 09:00 AM
    By Steve Benen

    While individual deportations are rarely the basis for national news, last week’s story about Juan Manuel Montes was different. The 23-year-old Montes, who’s lived in the United States since age 9, was taken into custody last week and returned to Mexico – making him the first example of a “Dreamer” to be deported since Donald Trump became president.

    As USA Today reported, Montes was “twice granted deportation protections” under the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which Trump has so far left in place, but which didn’t seem to protect the young man last week.

    It therefore came as something of a surprise late last week when the Republican president said “Dreamers” – who get their name from the “Dream Act” that GOP lawmakers blocked in Congress – should “rest easy” about his immigration policies. Trump told the Associated Press that he’s “not after the Dreamers, we are after the criminals.” He added, “That is our policy.”

    Trump might want to let his attorney general know.

    [Attorney General Jeff Sessions], in an exclusive interview Sunday on “This Week,” told ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos, “There’s no doubt the president has sympathy for young people who were brought here at early ages.”

    He also said the Department of Homeland Security’s “first and strongest priority – no doubt about it” is to arrest unauthorized immigrants who have committed crimes. “They’re focusing primarily on that,” he said.

    Like

  12. rikyrah says:

    The ‘Never-Mind-What-Trump-Said’ foreign policy endures
    04/24/17 11:00 AM
    By Steve Benen
    ……………………………………………………..

    In reality, Trump didn’t really know anything about the agreement, and as the New York Times reported over the weekend, “this dumb deal” has now been reaffirmed by Trump’s administration.

    Vice President Mike Pence assured Australian leaders on Saturday that the United States was committed to the countries’ “strong and historic alliance,” and he reaffirmed that the Trump administration would honor a refugee deal that President Trump disparaged in a January phone call with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. […]

    On Saturday, Mr. Pence confirmed that the deal was still on. “Whatever reservations the president may have about the details of agreements reached by the prior administration, we’ll honor this agreement, out of respect for that enormously important alliance,” he said at a joint news conference with Mr. Turnbull in Sydney.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. rikyrah says:

    FOUND AT BJ:

    Kay says:
    April 24, 2017 at 11:55 am
    We should all start referring to Trump’s wall as a spite fence.

    Spite fence is a term used in American property law to refer to an overly tall fence, structure in the nature of a fence, or a row of trees, bushes, or hedges, constructed or planted between adjacent lots by a property owner (with no legitimate purpose), who is annoyed with or wishes to annoy a neighbor, or who wishes to completely obstruct the view between lots. The fence or row of trees usually serves no purpose to the owner.

    The country is being run by a pack of mean-spirited assholes who are motivated by anger and resentment.

    We’re a nasty, small, petty country now. The only “infrastructure” we can manage is a stupid useless wall that goes nowhere and does nothing productive but boy it makes a good “fuck you” statement!

    Like

  14. rikyrah says:

    Nate Silver‏Verified account
    @NateSilver538
    These were the lead news stories (per @memeorandum) over the final 19 days of last year’s campaign. Anything stand out?

    Like

  15. Like

  16. rikyrah says:

    Why Do Trump and Republicans Want to Waste Money On a Border Wall?
    by Nancy LeTourneau
    April 24, 2017 10:37 AM

    …………………………..

    You’d think that he would use the flip side of that argument for things the Trump administration wants to spend money on. And yet when asked about Congressional support for funding the president’s border wall, he said that GOP leadership was on board because “they know it’s a priority for the president.” In other words, Trump made a campaign promise and now it’s time to pony up the money for it, regardless of whether or not it works.

    That quote from Mulvaney was part of an article by the Wall Street Journal that found this:

    Not a single member of Congress who represents the territory on the southwest border said they support President Donald Trump’s request for $1.4 billion to begin construction of his promised wall, according to a Wall Street Journal survey, testing the administration’s ability to reach a deal on government funding next week.

    Most lawmakers representing the region—both Democrats and Republicans—said they are opposed and many said they have unanswered questions. A few were noncommittal, but not a single member of the House or Senate representing the region expressed support for the funding request. That includes nine members of the House and eight senators across four states: Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.

    Like

  17. rikyrah says:

    Uh huh
    Uh huh

    Senate investigation into Russia scandal faces GOP resistance
    04/24/17 11:30 AM
    By Steve Benen

    Nearly a month ago, the top two officials on the Senate Intelligence Committee held a press conference to discuss their probe of the Russia scandal, and one could almost hear the sigh of relief from the political world. Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Ranking Member Mark Warner (D-Va.), acting very much like grown-ups, said their investigation was on track, and operating in a cooperative, methodical, and bipartisan way.

    The point wasn’t subtle: while Rep. Devin Nunes’ (R-Calif.) bizarre antics had derailed the House Intelligence Committee’s efforts, Burr and Warner wanted to reassure the public that we could have confidence in the Senate Intelligence Committee’s work.

    So much for that idea. Yahoo News’ Michael Isikoff reports today that the Senate’s probe has not only failed to make progress, but it’s also “increasingly stymied by partisan divisions that are jeopardizing the future of the inquiry.”

    The committee has yet to issue a single subpoena for documents or interview any key witnesses who are central to the probe, the sources said. It also hasn’t requested potentially crucial evidence – such as the emails, memos and phone records of the Trump campaign – in part because the panel’s chairman, Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., has so far failed to respond to requests from the panel’s Democrats to sign letters doing so, the sources said.

    “The wheels seem to be turning more slowly than the importance of the inquiry would indicate,” said Richard Ben-Veniste, a member of the 9/11 commission and former Watergate prosecutor, one of a number of veteran Washington investigators who have begun to question the lack of movement in the probe.

    Like

  18. Like

  19. Liked by 1 person

  20. rikyrah says:

    As his 100th day nears, Trump grades himself on a generous curve
    04/24/17 10:02 AM—UPDATED 04/24/17 10:12 AM
    By Steve Benen

    Last weekend, Donald Trump, annoyed by national protests about his secret tax returns, declared, “The election is over!” A day later, Kellyanne Conway argued that Democrats should move forward “instead of still talking about the election.”

    You probably know what’s coming next. In a pair of tweets, there was the president yesterday, responding to the latest national polling by pretending they offer flattering news.

    “New polls out today are very good considering that much of the media is FAKE and almost always negative. Would still beat Hillary in popular vote. ABC News/Washington Post Poll (wrong big on election) said almost all stand by their vote on me & 53% said strong leader.”

    Hmm. I’m not at all sure what Trump means by “still” in his claim about the popular vote. My fear is the president continues to work from the assumption that he actually received more votes than Hillary Clinton, which is obviously demonstrably wrong.

    I can appreciate why Trump feels insecure about the legitimacy of his presidency: not only did more Americans choose his rival, but he was elevated to the office thanks to the help of a foreign adversary’s illegal espionage operation. (I’ve been told that an increasing number of D.C. Democrats often joke among themselves, “Twinkle, twinkle little czar; Putin put you where you are.”) But ridiculous claims about the popular vote aren’t going to help matters.

    Like

  21. Liked by 1 person

  22. Backwards ass ignoramus clowns.

    Like

  23. rikyrah says:

    Swing Left‏ @ swingleft 27m27 minutes ago
    We intend to elect Democrats in 53 swing districts in 2018. So we researched all 53 and published 53 primers.

    Like

  24. Like

  25. rikyrah says:

    DHS’s Kelly takes an evolving line on Trump’s border wall
    04/24/17 10:30 AM—UPDATED 04/24/17 10:42 AM
    By Steve Benen

    Few officials in Donald Trump’s administration have been as candid in downplaying talk of a border wall as Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly. Soon after taking over the cabinet agency, for example, Kelly acknowledged that an actual wall won’t be built.

    During his confirmation hearings a few weeks earlier, Kelly, a retired Marine general, sounded a skeptical note about the entire concept, testifying that “a physical barrier in and of itself will not do the job.” Despite his boss’ promises, Kelly also told Congress earlier this month that the idea of a full border wall, stretching from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico, is “unlikely” to ever be built.

    Donald Trump, of course, strenuously disagrees with this – a point Kelly has apparently been reminded of. Consider this exchange on CBS’s “Face the Nation” yesterday between host John Dickerson and Secretary Kelly.

    DICKERSON: Mr. Secretary, I want to start with the government, which is going to run out of money next week. One of the items of debate is, the president wants money for the border wall. Is a border wall so important right now that it is worth risking a government shutdown?

    KELLY: Well, I certainly think a border wall is essential, as do almost everyone that lives along the border. So, yes, I think it’s certainly worth hard negotiation over.

    Like

  26. rikyrah says:

    The select few who have Donald Trump’s ear
    04/24/17 09:30 AM
    By Steve Benen

    Politico reported over the weekend that Donald Trump likes to leave large blocks of “private time” on his presidential schedule, which are regularly devoted to “spontaneous meetings and phone chats with ex-aides, friends, media figures, lawmakers and members of his Cabinet.” For most modern presidencies, this isn’t exactly a normal practice, but it’s the way Trump has operated for years.

    Whether or not this is a good thing appears to be a matter of perspective, and Politico spoke to members of Team Trump who were “split on whether the freewheeling set-up, which can allow friends and unofficial advisers to whisper in the president’s ear on policy issues, is productive.”

    It matters quite a bit who, exactly, is doing the whispering. With this in mind, the New York Times had an interesting piece over the weekend.

    As Mr. Trump’s White House advisers jostle for position, the president has turned to another group of advisers – from family, real estate, media, finance and politics, and all outside the White House gates – many of whom he consults at least once a week. […]

    Mr. Trump’s West Wing aides, like President Bill Clinton’s staff two decades before, say they sometimes cringe at the input from people they can’t control, with consequences they can’t predict. Knowing these advisers – who are mostly white, male and older – is a key to figuring out the words coming from Mr. Trump’s mouth and his Twitter feed.

    Like

  27. rikyrah says:

    Trump’s Attorney General Says DREAMers Can Be Deportedhttps://t.co/sAheNzGA4z pic.twitter.com/HET3oS15Ke

    — BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) April 24, 2017

    Like

  28. rikyrah says:

    These robotics students were told ‘to go back to Mexico’. The taunt only fueled their success.https://t.co/adtB5z0nig

    — Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) April 24, 2017

    Just a few months ago, not many knew about these five fourth-graders from a low-income community in Indianapolis.

    But now, the Panther Bots, a thriving robotics team at Pleasant Run Elementary School, have become the face of a success story about a group of kids who were taunted with racial slurs but were too determined to let that affect their confidence. Earlier this month, they found themselves being honored on the Senate floor of the Indiana Statehouse. The group travels to Louisville on Sunday to compete in a worldwide robotics contest.

    In early February, after the students won a local robotics challenge — a steppingstone to qualify for a state robotics championship — a couple of competitors from other schools were heard screaming, “You need to go back to Mexico!”

    After news of the racial slur incident came out last month, scores of strangers have shown their support for the Panther Bots. More than 200 people raised about $12,000 to help send the team to the world competition. The teammates have received notes, cards, buttons and CDs from artists from around the country. They also received a banner wishing all the teams headed to the world championships good luck. On it was a special message to the kids: “We support Panther Bots.”

    Like

  29. rikyrah says:

    PHUCK OUTTA HERE

    Sessions: “Can’t imagine” Democrats would shut down the government over objection to “a downpayment on a wall that can end the lawlessness.” pic.twitter.com/gFzicbEVGh

    — ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) April 23, 2017

    Like

  30. rikyrah says:

    The Budapest Bridge: Hungary’s Role in the Collusion Between the Trump Campaign and the Russian Secret Service https://t.co/HxDvQYEoFz

    — Laura (@SheWhoVotes) April 24, 2017

    Liked by 1 person

  31. rikyrah says:

    Nationalist candidates have done pretty badly since Trump won. Wilders & Le Pen faded down the stretch run. Hofer underperformed in Austria.

    — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) April 23, 2017

    Like

  32. rikyrah says:

    Remarkable result in France: the Obama-supported pro-West candidate beat the Trump-Bannonite, the gov’t-slasher, the Putinite & the Chavista

    — Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) April 23, 2017

    Like

  33. rikyrah says:

    Le Pen’s party has received a hefty loan from a Russian bank

    Macron’s organization has suffered from more than 4000 hacking attacks

    Hmmm

    — Pussy Riot (@pussyrrriot) April 23, 2017

    Liked by 1 person

  34. rikyrah says:

    John Oliver on Ivanka and hubby

    Like

  35. TheWarner says:

    I believe everything Debbie Schlussel said in that recording.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. rikyrah says:

    March for Science reflects awakening of civic consciousness
    04/24/17 08:30 AM—UPDATED 04/24/17 08:35 AM
    By Steve Benen

    The timing was striking. On Friday afternoon, for no apparent reason, the Trump administration asked U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy to resign. This was not a case in which Obama-era officials are replaced with new political appointees after an election; the surgeon general serves a four-year term, and Murthy still had roughly two years remaining.

    Why would Donald Trump dismiss an accomplished and successful physician without explanation? Perhaps because the president lacks a meaningful appreciation for science – a point that was driven home nicely the day after Murthy was shown the door.

    Lovers of science got their day in the rain Saturday as they rallied around their passions, delivering applause for the technology that brought their smart phones to the obvious theme of climate change on Earth Day. And while the March for Science was on the surface nonpartisan, politics bubbled up again and again. […]

    Because it was a march, protest signs abounded, from the funny (“I just came for the pi” and “Without science, it’s just fiction”) to the sincere (“Science Saves Lives”).

    ………………………..

    And while that may sound like a modest total, let’s not forget that (1) this was one of over 600 satellite Marches for Science around the world, many of which also brought out thousands of people; and (2) this total, if accurate, would mean Saturday’s March for Science in the nation’s capital was on par with the largest Tea Party rallies held at the height of the so-called conservative “movement.”

    There’s also the context to consider. In the immediate aftermath of Trump’s unexpected election, Americans took to the streets in protest of the Republican and his agenda, and in recent months, the civic engagement has been unlike anything seen in at least a generation: the historic Women’s March, the recent Tax Day March, well attended national events in support of the Affordable Care Act, and now the March for Science.

    If the right is waiting for progressive-minded activism to quietly fade away, my advice to conservatives is simple: keep waiting, because it doesn’t appear to be happening.

    Like

  37. rikyrah says:

    The Media’s Latest Campaign to Normalize Trump
    After the Syria strikes, the press has mistakenly found new respect for Trump.

    by Mike Lofgren April 24, 2017

    One of the more annoying features of the most annoying presidential campaign in history was the mainstream media’s attempts to normalize candidate Donald Trump. Possibly this treatment arose because the press didn’t initially take him seriously enough to characterize him and his positions with the appropriate degree of horror. Sure, he’s crazy, but what are ya gonna do, they seemed to shrug. Meanwhile, he was good for ratings.

    After a brief hiatus of barely concealed horror following his inauguration, the media is back to normalization, albeit with a new tack. As opposed to the campaign coverage’s tactic of normalization-by-trivialization, the new approach is one of strange new respect for a man who has grown into the job.

    The occasion for this reappraisal was Trump’s ordering up a strike by 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles on the Shayrat airbase in Syria. For all the theatrics of this military action, the strategic results were a lot less than would have met the eye of a credulous consumer of mainstream U.S. media accounts.

    Nine Syrian aircraft were reported destroyed by the strike – as opposed to the 20 initially claimed by the Pentagon – but whatever the number of aircraft actually destroyed, Syrian aircraft took off from the base within 24 hours. More important, the cruise missile strike did not change the dynamic of the Syrian civil war to any measurable degree. To the extent the strike was simply checking a box and moving on, it may dampen whatever appetite existed in Washington to attempt to end the conflict and limit civilian suffering.

    Liked by 2 people

  38. rikyrah says:

    Democratic Resolve in Georgia, Montana and Beyond
    by D.R. Tucker April 24, 2017 7:55 AM

    Ten years ago, then-Representative Martin Meehan (D-MA) resigned from the House to become chancellor of the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. Meehan’s Congressional seat had not been held by a non-Democrat since the early-1970s, and the prospects of the Republican Party capturing the seat in a special election seemed rather remote.

    However, Republicans did not shrug their shoulders in resignation, conceding the race even before it began. Instead, the GOP rallied behind Jim Ogonowski, an anti-immigration zealot, in an attempt to pull off a blue-state upset over Democratic opponent Niki Tsongas, the widow of former Bay State Senator Paul Tsongas (who himself held Meehan’s Congressional seat in the mid-1970s). Ogonowski’s hate-mongering, terrorism-exploiting efforts nearly paid off, as E. J. Dionne noted in an October 2007 column:

    ………………..

    If Republicans are willing to pursue victory in the face of long odds, why don’t Democrats do the same? There’s nothing wrong with angling for an upset victory: that is, in essence, what Ogonowski’s fellow Bay State Republican Scott Brown did in 2010…and what Donald Trump did in 2016. The idea that Democrats should now regard the Sixth Congressional District race in Georgia or the at-large Congressional District race in Montana as potentially lost causes is without merit.

    Of course, if Democrats decide to make a serious effort to reclaim red-state territory, the question of to what extent ideological flexibility should be allowed in Democratic candidates must be resolved. The controversy over Vermont Senator (and yes, non-Democrat) Bernie Sanders’s support for an anti-choice Democratic mayoral candidate in Omaha, Nebraska is indicative of the conflicts that could come.

    Like

  39. rikyrah says:

    Desperately Insecure, President Trump Holds a Fan Rally To Avoid a Comedy Roast
    by David Atkins
    April 23, 2017 6:35 AM

    I have noted here before my distaste for the White House Correspondents’ Dinner as a vapid show of light camaraderie between newsreaders masquerading as journalists, and the politicians they are supposed to be holding to account. I have also said that it’s probably better for the event if the President does not attend, as his absence would allow comedians and the press more flexibility in being openly critical of him rather than merely poking fun at him in jest. For his part, Trump might gain some plaudits for ending an increasingly distasteful Beltway tradition.

    But it’s one thing for Trump to skip the dinner. It’s quite another for him to do so in order to hold another of his feel-good revivalist campaign rallies.

    The rally is reportedly designed to distract from a one-two punch of bad news for Trump: the WHCA dinner itself, as well as coverage of Trump’s woefully underwhelming first 100 days in office. But there’s some question as to just how effective that will be. First, Trump rallies are nothing new. The President will likely say some incendiary things in order to grab media oxygen, but coming off as even more unhinged than normal won’t help him much. Trump’s biggest hurdle in the short term isn’t a lack of popularity (though that clearly doesn’t help.) It’s his inability to win consensus from Republicans in Congress–to say nothing of Democrats–for his legislative agenda. Trump doesn’t face re-election for another four years, and the biggest threat to his not lasting that long is the mounting scandal over Russian election interference and the Trump campaign’s possible collusion therein. So keeping even in a cable news cycle or two is mostly meaningless.

    The bigger danger for Trump is that holding a pep rally at a time when his agenda is stalled and the press is openly hostile, makes the President look vain and weak. It gives him the impression of a man so afraid of a roast that he runs from it into the arms of his adoring fans. It reeks of cowardice. A celebrity who behaved that way would endure endless ridicule from the gossip magazines, and Trump is a tabloid celebrity who leveraged his outlandish personality into the White House.

    It won’t matter much in the long run, but Trump’s actions once again show him as a thin-skinned man with no work ethic, no sense of humor and no ability to withstand even mild criticism. It will be a fitting miniature capstone on the molehill of his first hundred days’ achievements.

    Like

  40. rikyrah says:

    Clearing the Field for Clinton Was Democrats’ Biggest Mistake in 2016
    by David Atkins
    April 22, 2017 7:00 AM

    The recent release of the Clinton campaign expose Shattered is causing yet another round of introspection about what Democrats did wrong in 2016 and how to fix the problem. The Clinton campaign’s own failures of targeting and messaging are already the subject of much discussion and have been rehashed ad nauseam. Matt Taibbi’s take on the navel-gazing, operative-centric view of the pundit and consultant classes is probably the best of the book’s reviews so far and well worth reading. A large number of powerful people still have a difficult time accepting the movements that coalesced behind Sanders on the left and Trump on the right as legitimate, authentic populist forces rather than a group of discontents mesmerized by cults of personality around Pied Piper candidates. They often cannot concede that there would still have been a massive movement of anti-establishment anger even had Sanders and Trump never run at all.

    Which leads us to one of the least discussed failures of the establishment that helped lead us to this juncture: the effort to clear the field for Hillary Clinton. Sanders and Clinton supporters are still furious with one another to this day, as can be seen from the often hostile reactions on both sides to the unity tour currently ongoing between Tom Perez and Senator Sanders. Clinton backers accuse Sanders supporters of being racist and sexist fifth column betrayers of the party, while Sanders’ fans accuse Clinton’s of abandoning core economic principles and depressing youth turnout. Wildly unfair attacks are levied on both sides.

    But the ongoing hostility isn’t the fault of either camp’s supporters. It’s the fault of the establishment that tried to clear the field for Clinton.

    It is widely acknowledged that Democrats in positions of authority, including but not limited to President Obama himself, worked to clear the field of significant opposition to Clinton. President Obama directly pushed Vice President Biden out of the running, and other potential contenders from Elizabeth Warren to Cory Booker were discouraged from making a run. They did this under the misguided theory that a primary free of contention would give Democrats an advantage over a divided GOP field.

    Like

  41. Like

  42. rikyrah says:

    There Is Nothing Left of Trump’s Supposed Economic Populism
    by David Atkins April 22, 2017 4:17 AM

    Entire oceans of ink have been spilled over the question of how much of Trump’s support came from prejudice versus economic anxiety (hint: it’s both and they’re interconnected.) But no matter the answer, what’s clear by now is that Trump’s economic populist agenda on behalf of the white working class no longer exists if it ever did. His betrayals of Main Street on behalf of Wall Street have been gradual and numerous, but two executive orders yesterday seal the deal:

    President Trump signed a set of executive actions Friday ordering a review of significant 2016 tax regulations along with two separate reviews aimed at rolling back Dodd-Frank financial regulations.

    The president visited the Treasury Department to sign the actions, saying the administration wants to “help struggling Americans achieve their financial dreams, earn a great paycheck, have a job that they love going to every single day and have real confidence in the future.”

    He also teased that there will be a “big announcement” on tax reform next Wednesday.

    The first action is an executive order that directs the Treasury Secretary to review “all significant 2016 tax regulations to determine if they impose an undue financial burden on taxpayers, are needlessly complex, create unnecessary requirements, or exceed what’s allowed under law.”

    Trump has trussed up giveaways to Wall Street in worker-friendly language, but the intent is clear: to give the finance industry free rein to predate at will–though as Matt Yglesias notes, even the executive orders themselves are empty legislative husks designed to give Trump the illusion of accomplishments before the 100-day mark. Still, even an empty gift to Wall Street remains a gift.

    There is now nothing left of Trump’s promises to workers. Better healthcare and lower premiums than the Affordable Care Act? Nope. Pressure against Chinese currency manipulation and offshoring of jobs? Not anymore. Keeping advisers who listen to Trump’s base instead of Goldman Sachs? Suckers.

    Like

  43. rikyrah says:

    The Democrats delivered one thing in the past 100 days: disappointment -Cornel West

    So, the GOP threatens to take away healthcare from 24 million people….

    The Muslim ban….

    The Deportation of all of those non-criminals….

    He’s been like a ghost…..

    Couldn’t stop opening his mouth during the term of 44 and now he’s quiet as a church mouse pissing on cotton….but, can open his mouth to complain about DEMOCRATS?

    PHUCK OUTTA HERE!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  44. rikyrah says:

    I’m a White, working-class millennial. Bernie Sanders does not speak for me

    Trevor LaFauci
    April 24, 2017
    ………………………………………..

    But those among the White working-class aren’t the only ones who are struggling. This seems to be a concept lost on Bernie Sanders, or, at the very least one that he doesn’t want to acknowledge. It makes sense when you think about it: Sanders left his diverse Brooklyn community to head for the hills of homogenous Vermont where he could seek out other like-minded socialist thinkers. Sanders’ political philosophy has always been one of a class-based struggle where all the ills of society would be cured by simply establishing economic equality. In Sanders’ mind, economics trump all. Therefore, if we are able to create a system where everyone has the same financial situation then there would be nothing left to cause distress.

    Because of this worldview, Sanders cannot see how and why non-economic issues negatively impact our communities. He cannot see how the wealthy African-American attorney still will be ignored by a cab driver due solely to the color of his skin. He cannot see how the Muslim doctor still has patients who are hesitant to see her because of her hijab. He cannot see how the gay software engineer still worries that he could be fired from his job simply for loving whom he chooses. He cannot see how the Latino businessman still worries that one of his loved ones could be deported. And he cannot see the young college student who relies on Planned Parenthood for her affordable healthcare needs.

    These successful individuals have all achieved a level of financial security. Yet, they are not at ease. The reason is that there are greater societal issues unrelated to their financial security that take priority in their lives. This is why Bernie Sanders’ economic populism message fails to resonate with people of color. Yes, there are those who are struggling financially. But they are also dealing with numerous issues that cannot simply be solved simply by having a few extra bucks in their pocket. More money won’t end systemic injustices in our schools, courts, and prisons. More money won’t end racist policing practices. More money won’t end the threat of deportation. More money won’t end a professional business culture that refuses to provide an opportunity for advancement. More money won’t end more and more voting restrictions placed upon these communities. It is these concerns that go beyond simple matters of economics and touch the very fabric of our society.

    Bernie Sanders doesn’t see this because he has chosen not to see it. Because acknowledging the intersectionality of all these issues means that there is not a simple solution that can be placed on a bumper sticker. A “political revolution” that overthrows the millionaire and billionaire class still has to deal with all these issues for people of color. That, in itself, completely undermines Sanders’ message that economic equality is the only needed ingredient for a successful society. To acknowledge all these issues would mean that Sanders would have to expand upon his knowledge and understanding of class-based political systems and that is something he simply has no interest in doing. He has made his career, and more importantly his success, by waging class warfare against the wealthiest of the wealthy. This is the political hill that Bernie Sanders has placed himself on and it will ultimately be the hill that he dies on.

    Like

  45. rikyrah says:

    The only thing that the GOP believes in is the grift. And, for White women on Fox…they see the grift….

    Liked by 1 person

  46. rikyrah says:

    Well…well….well…..Mr. Hannity…LOL

    Liked by 2 people

  47. rikyrah says:

    Good Morning, Everyone 😄😄😄

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s