"An additional $251 million was shifted from a yearslong project to destroy lethal chemical agents and chemical munitions in order to comply with the Chemical Weapons Convention. $344 million is being taken from a group of Air Force programs, where the Pentagon identified contract savings, and $224 million is being used from savings related to a military retirement system, the officials said. $78 million from the Coalition Support Fund, which is money used to reimburse coalition partners — mainly Pakistan — for logistical and military support for American military operations. $604 million, is from the Afghan Security Forces Fund, which keeps the Afghan army and other security forces afloat."
All for 80 miles of fence? Alrighty. At least the terrified old white Trump supporters will sleep easier at night.
8 ( +11 / -3 )
Time for more praise from Trump?
5 ( +5 / -0 )
Blacklabel: Cool, I guess I am gonna roll over to to see Prime Minister Abe this afternoon and start negotiating deals on behalf of the US government. Wish me luck.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
I have no problem standing with the rule of law. No need to beg.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
Blacklabel: So you CAN just negotiate with another government on behalf of your country when you are an unelected citizen like Kerry?
4 ( +4 / -0 )
Impeqch. We know he is a criminal. Let the GOP stand next to him and take it on the chin during the process. Embrace the humiliation.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
Finally we are focusing on the important things and not the deficit.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
Whew. At least Trump didn't give any new concessions.
2 ( +5 / -3 )
Can someone tell me what's going on? Did Trump pull out of a nuclear deal that was working, apply sanctions, then announce he wants to sit down with Iran to work out a nuclear deal?
8 ( +8 / -0 )
Bass4funk:. When you add up the numbers of these so called individual shootings it amounts to a very massive amount monthly.
Great. But I don't have any plans to walk around bad neighborhoods in Chicago. I do have plans to go to Vegas, shopping malls, work, and I have family in schools.
Banning white male gun owners, just temporarily until we figure this thing out, makes the most sense to me personally.
-1 ( +3 / -4 )
I don't see many blacks from Chicago doing a lot of mass shootings. Seems be be almost exclusively white males.
Its just a temporary ban, until we get this thing figured out.
0 ( +3 / -3 )
Just ban white males from possessing guns for a brief period, just until "we get this thing figured out" I believe is the terminology.
-1 ( +4 / -5 )
This is literally one of the few things I have faith that Trump can change. He doesn't seem to have the usual friction (allies) or butt kissing (dictators).
But I'll believe it when I see it. The better option would have been to create a coalition of multiple countries, but he doesn't have the skills to do that.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Black: All losers! right?
Well their stock went down, just like everyone else’s, because Trump can’t seem to get a deal done with China. If you want to blame someone for their losses, blame Trump.
And I’m guessing Trump has more bankruptcies than all of those people combined.
Your boy is a .500 hitter who got bailed out of his losses by his dad or he wouldn’t have money today.
4 ( +5 / -1 )
As for his Tweets, he's talking about depreciation. Back in the 80s you could depreciate part of the value of your building every year and count it as a loss. Real estate owners abused it by taking massive depreciation early in ownership which greatly reduced their taxes by offsetting the real profits with accounting losses. They've since changed the laws to stop that. And everyone did it because there was no reason not to, not just Trump.
But the thing about depreciation is that it doesn't have anything to do with going bankrupt. Trump did that part himself.
Trump's built some pretty cool things in the world and has done some pretty cool real estate deals. And then you have the Taj Mahal, pretty much the textbook example of how not to do real estate. It should be taught at universities. And he did it while depreciating the building in the process to avoid taxes.
The fact is that he was given $400,000,000, socialized his losses, and got fame from his successes. At best he's a .500 hitter who would have been put out of business long ago if it weren't for his father's bailouts.
6 ( +6 / -0 )
Blacklabel: The IRS would have those details each year that his taxes were successfully and legally processed.
Great. So if Trump owes Russia $800,000,000 in personally secured loans, I'm glad his accountant put the number in the right column and the IRS confirmed it. We can rest easy knowing that.
Well, I guess that wraps up the discussion.
4 ( +5 / -1 )
extanker: but that there comes a point when Congress needs to realize that their efforts have yielded zero results and those efforts would be much better spent elsewhere.
I think the Dems need to move to impeach Trump. Not because I think they will be successful, but because I think they have a duty to. It's clear Trump tried to fire Mueller, and it's clear he tried to get the White House lawyer to lie for him about it. That alone should require more action that just press releases from Democrats.
And it's about time for the Dems to drop this notion that shame will somehow come into play and make things right again. We are seeing Trump supporters openly support his unethical and illegal behavior. They just don't get that Trump is temporary and the transfer of power from the Legislative to the Executive Branch will be permanent long after he's gone.
So, in some way, I agree with you. If the Dems aren't going to impeach him, they should drop it and move on and shift to policy leadership. But that would also make them complicit in reducing our government's checks and balances.
Going after Barr will serve no purpose.
Again, in a practical sense I can see why you would think that, but again, we can't have Barr be the new normal. We can't have an AG say, "Uh....I don't know" when asked if the President has asked him to investigate someone, and we can't have one ignore investigators when they tell them they are omitting critical things like context when talking to the American people.
I agree that none of these things will change much on the ground. Trump's taxes could have all kinds of dirty deeds. It won't dent his support from his base. It could show he owes Russia billions, pays 500 imported Chinese workers a year, and reduces his taxes to nothing while the working man pays. They don't care.
But, someday Trump will be gone, and so will all of us, and we've got to put on record that there were people who stood up against it. If things get too out of tilt with our government we need to keep reminding ourselves that it needs to change back again.
6 ( +7 / -1 )
Extanker:. It would be awesome if Congress would actually do some work for a change. They're going to have wasted 4 years failing to remove Trump from the White House and by the time they realize it, he'll have been re-elected because they've only shown how incompetent they can be the entire time.
I disagree. I think when a President tries to obstruct justice then asks the White House lawyer to lie for him, we need to have a discussion, not sweep it under the carpet and move on.
And remember, this isn't about Trump. It's about the Presidency. Trump fans might be happy that their guy is getting away with it, but they are setting a precedent for all future Presidents.
This is your real argument:
"The President shall have the right to fire Independent Councils in an effort to obstruct justice, and there shall be no consequences if he instructs the White House council to lie for his political benefit."
Telling me that this is the new normal and now it's time to move on to other things is something I will argue against.
7 ( +8 / -1 )
Serrano: If the plan was working, how come Iran is closer than ever to having a nuclear bomb?
Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. The nuclear deal was a success. All parties agreed Iran was in compliance. Iran stayed in compliance even after Trump pulled out.
FYI, that was a good thing.
Iran is making a gesture that they might pull out, which I suspect was Trump’s goal from the beginning.
3 ( +5 / -2 )
1 ( +3 / -2 )
The plan was working. All could tries agreed.
2 ( +4 / -2 )
More domestic terrorism from white, male gun owners?
1 ( +3 / -2 )
Trump once again undoes a plan by others that was working. Congrats. I suspect he wanted this reaction from Iran all along.
5 ( +8 / -3 )
The report cited "McGahn's clear recollection" that the president directed him to tell Rosenstein that "Mueller has to go." McGahn did not carry out Trump's order, the report said.
Trump also tried unsuccessfully to get McGahn to dispute media reports that the president had attempted to fire Mueller, the report said
4 ( +6 / -2 )
Bass:. I never said such a thing, but I do think that it would’ve been more fair to have it 50-50 then you would’ve seen us outrage and less accusations of partisan politics bias.
Then why not just say that? It's a reasonable statement. Calling them "angry" has no basis in fact, someone just made it up to be repeated.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
Bass:. Not one single lawyer on his team was a Republican or conservative
So you are upset that there were no angry Republicans included with the angry Democrats?
1 ( +2 / -1 )
I like Apple News since I get to pick and choose the content myself. I keep it a "political free" zone when I want a break from politics.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
Bass:. They sure aren’t smiling after the report came out, that’s for sure. ROFL!
You sure do have some good intel on these 19 people.
May I ask your sources?
3 ( +4 / -1 )
Posted in: Work of art