That phrase really tickles me. It doesn't appear to be really necessary to be 'up to speed with things' does it?
That's not really the way it works - you just have people to attend important meetings/briefings on your behalf and they tell you the 'good' stuff - that way you can stay tweeting insults/rubbish/threats to heads of other countries whilst on the home front you can devise lavish extravaganzas for your fans so that they can buy tickets at extortionate prices to meet you in person.

Piece of cake being a president.

More hilarious delusion from liberals who can't accept the election result.

At 12 noon on 3 January the Senate will have a temporary Democrat majority for an hour or so while the terms of 34 outgoing senators expire and the newly elected 34 mostly Republican senators are being sworn in. Instead of swearing in the newly elected senators these petitioners want the VP Joe Biden to convene a special senate session to confirm Obamas choice of Supreme Court justice Merrick Garland before the Republicans reassume the majority by 1pm or so as the new senators are sworn in..

Yes - cos that is really going to happen. The Republicans would just filibuster it if nothing else.

https://www.dailykos.com/campaigns/p...ce=20161207sp3

whats that got to do with the election result ?

and having a pop at them for trying to find a way to appoint a guy who the republicans have been blocking for the best part of a year despite being qualified for the position doesn't really make sense

Because based on the election results the Republicans control the senate and the senate must ratify the Supreme Court nominee. Having 66 senators only voting and denying a say to those who have a more recent mandate using some procedural manoeuvre cos they are being sworn in would be an affront to the voters decision in terms of the senate.

Whoever was picked via that process would have no credibility - justices of the Supreme Court are potentially for life not just for Christmas.

The Republicans didn't want Garland so Obama should have nominated some one they could confirm. Cos that is how the constitution works - Presidents nominate justices and the senate representing individual states confirms.

the point remains the republicans spent a year blocking the process using whatever means available to them to do so

the above idea was probably ridiculous and never going to happen but it isn't really any more pathetic than the republicans blocking an appointment for so long

and tbh it wasn't even a serious proposal, just an online petition from some random website

Except the senate havent giving Garland a hearing so there is a precedent that they've lost their right.

Of course I understand nuance, don't be so patronising, they didn't pick someone this time around who was a good enough candidate did they, so they have to find someone better next time around.

The key factor to if the Democratic Party gets back into power, will be who they select as thei nominee, plus how well Trump does on office, you need a strong opposition candidate, if you are to be worthy of getting back into office, look for example at Labour over here, many people way that Corbyn is not a good enough candidate to challenge May to become Prime Minister, so no matter what she does, someone needs to step up and challenge her.

sick going round in circles with you

have a nice day ...

Okay Mick Foley I will!

Are we going round in circles, if so, it takes two to do just that.

0.03% in three states I read on Medium.


Reality? Damn! I thought we were living an episode of the Simpsons!

i think i know who ned flanders is

That assumes Trump does not make a complete shambles. Michael Moore made a very good comment a few days ago about Trumps refusal to see the daily security briefing. Namely what will be the reaction should there be another 9/11 which could have been stopped had he done so.

Trump among his many other faults is arrogant - and with that comes the risk that he will not see something important. Will Teflon Donald survive that, looking at the wives, brothers, sisters and children of those who have died.

We need Ned Stark, not Ned Flanders!

Arrogance combined with ignorance, which the Donald has in spades, is a particularly unfortunate combination.

There was literally no one Obama could've nominated that the Republicans would've confirmed. They were simply never going to let him have a final Supreme Court pick. I don't think the Democrats should try and 'sneak' him on to the court now, but it's not fair to suggest that somehow the Republicans have acted reasonably in all this. They've behaved appallingly over the last eight years. It's worked for them, no doubt about that, but that doesn't make their behaviour any less despicable.

One of the very worst things about the results of the last election (and god knows there are plenty of terrible things to choose from) is the way the GOP's bad behaviour has been rewarded. Eight years ago, they basically said 'screw America', we're going to oppose everything Obama tries to do. Never mind the mess the country was in, their only priority was their political wellbeing. They blocked and obstructed and made governing almost impossible. It was borderline treasonous. And it's paid off in spades. The electorate rewarded them for it. Now they rule the roost and can carry out all the awful, hateful stuff they want to. And the Democrats, being a moderately sensible, grown up party, will try to cooperate. It's incredibly depressing.

If a 11/9 happens then of course it will be on Trumps head, just as the previous 11/9 was on Bush's head.

He will have to take briefings more seriously than reportedly he does currently (it is still all rumours and speculation at the moment on that front), as the safety of the nation is of course paramount.

Your 'support' of Trump becomes more transparent by the post - it was Trump himself who said he did not see a need for a daily brief as he saw no point in reading the same thing every day - hardly a rumour or speculation. Or is the latest pro-Trump tactic to deny anything that Trump says which turns up to be stupid as just a rumour.

see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7468456.html



(Our Queen manages to read a daily briefing,- so if a 90 year old great grandmother can do it - it should not be too much for Donald Trump! - it is not as if he has to run a business at the same time and it is part of the job he has applied for).

If there is a 9/11 and Donald Trump refused to read the security briefing which warned about it then he will be in far more trouble (and should be)

My support or lackthereof of Trump, is really not here nor there, but for the record, I am not his biggest fan, and think he will do a lot of things wrong, but also differently to what we are used to seeing from past Presidents, now will that be a good thing or not, only history will be able to judge that.

But the thing is, other past Presidents, have not exactly had a perfect record in office either, so let's see how things pan out this time.

If another 11/9 were to happen, that would of course be ungodly, and terrible on every level, and of course Trump would get the blame, just as Bush has done with the previous one.

When you actually say something substantive against Trump rather than the vague 'I am not his biggest fan'


Nobody is expecting perfection, but everything that Trump has done shows up a stunning level of ignorance, and points to acting in the interests of Trump and his fellow businessman and not the normal man in the street.


It is Trumps arrogance which is the issue - he is too 'smart' to be told things so when it goes wrong - as Michael Moore puts it - if the car crashes because he did not get behind the wheel and that is his job - then he deserves every bit of approbation that will come his way - even impeachment if the Republican party had the guts to do it.

If Trump does something wrong, then of course I will call him out for it, but he isn't even in office yet, so he cannot really be said to have done anything wrong as of this moment, all we have is what ifs or, what he might do.

As I say, if another 11/9 happens on his watch, or things go pear shaped, then too right will he deserve all of the inevitable criticism that will come his way, but hopefully please Lord, I hope that we don't have another event anywhere near that sort of scale.

How about the people he's choosing for his administration? Do you 100% approve of all of them?

How's about having as secretary of state someone with a financial interest in oil and gas in Russia. Ever read Red Notice - do that and you might have an idea what the Russian authorities do to those that 'cross' them? Do you not think that might be a tinsy-wincy little conflict of interest?

Do you think that stepping down from running the Trump Hotel business is enough to remove any conflict of interest. (I have heard nothing of any stock he might have).

You think there is nothing wrong with ignoring security briefings for a week because you are too smart to be bothered

Seeing Linda McMahon there is a bit strange, after seeing here on screen for so many years I must admit, the others do concern me slightly, but I am willing to give them all a chance before judging them.
Let their own actions be their downfall, rather than what people might be saying about then before hand, is what I am going to do.



I do admit, that he does have to sort things out between himself and his businesses, but I don't think America has seen a person, who has never held office before, become President in this manner, (Eisenhower was a general not a businessman) so it was always going to take a bit of sorting out, there is of course a time frame, hopefully it all gets sorted, as I don't think anyone wants to see a President going into office with lots or any conflicts of interest.

It is not exactly rocket science, and other president-elects have managed it - Trump has so far prevaricated on saying how he will divest himself of those businesses. The White House is well versed in arranging this - you put all stock in a blind trust and resign any chairman positions eezy-peezy. Even someone as ignorant as Trump can manage that!

Not that you have said anything about the secretary of state having financial interests in Russian Oil and Gas.

Or how's about firing off tweets that knock billions off the value of American businesses because he has a little disagreement with the management. It is said there are too many twits on twitter - one seems to be called Donald Trump!

The only time Donald Trump was right was when he said he was the wrong person to be President.

Hopefully this all gets sorted out, as it is a tricky situation, if it is not, then there will be very serious issues to be talked about.
The Sos issue is not exactly one that I would have immediately thought was suitable, but let's see what happens there, it certainly is a diverse pick to say the least, which is not really what should be happening.

Twitter can be used for good as well as bad, and being able to get his message out there straight away might not be a bad thing, if used rightly (and presumably he will transfer to the official Presidential handle, rather than his current personal one), and that is the key here.