First time visitor? Learn more.
  • No content found in .

  • Friday Open, and Good Energy News

    by coldwarrior ( 57 Comments › )
    Filed under Energy, Open thread at February 10th, 2017 - 8:25 am

    Have a great Friday, yinz.

     

    http://energytomorrow.org/blog/2017/02/03/americas-21st-century-energy-story

    Comments

    Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

    Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

    Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

    We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

    Play nice!

    57 Responses to “Friday Open, and Good Energy News”
    ( jump to bottom )

    1. eaglesoars
      1 | February 10, 2017 9:04 am

      sorry to go OT but this is a driveby. Soros and what to do about him has been discussed here recently, so I thought this might be of interest

      What to Do About George Soros

      And in real, honest to god fake news, we have

      Center for Global Strategic Monitoring

      Which may be a Russian play. The authors are real, the articles not so much.

      later


    2. 2 | February 10, 2017 10:16 am

      @ eaglesoars:

      This is a must read for me when I come up for air. You always post great stuff.

      As for the TRO, I will be interested if taken up by SCOTUS. I would be cautiously optimistic that that they would either (1) send it back to Robart to come up with some actual LAW to justify his TRO rather than buzzwords and campaign rhetoric (2) Uphold the TRO as a function of the Presidential plenary powers regarding immigration. I seem to recall when it came down to pure law, the Supreme Court slapped Obama’s hand 9-0 in 2014 for his so-called recess appointments to the NLRB. Neither Robart’s initial TRO or the disgraceful partisan decision by the 9th Circuit has a basis in law.

      However, I will be interested to see if now that Sessions is in charge, the U.S.DOJ will request an en banc hearing of ALL the 9th Circuit justices (don’t get your hopes up – rarely granted). And this time, you don’t send some AUSA doofus to argue it. You send a seasoned attorney from the Solicitor General’s office, that will take Robart’s ridiculous TRO to task and basically advise the Circuit this is not a matter for the judiciary.


    3. 3 | February 10, 2017 10:40 am

      Hmmm, energy… 5 to 6 TRILLION barrels of oil locked up in the Green River Formation. Uncle Sam is squatting on it.


    4. 4 | February 10, 2017 10:58 am

      @ doriangrey:

      I wonder if a Trump EO can return it to the State. I’m growing very weary of the Federal land grabs. The Feds should have to petition a state to take the land into “custody” and should have to provide a reasonable explanation for doing so. Eminent Domain laws should apply here.


    5. Deplorable Idapig
      5 | February 10, 2017 11:46 am

      Deplorable Barbarian wrote:

      @ doriangrey:
      I wonder if a Trump EO can return it to the State. I’m growing very weary of the Federal land grabs. The Feds should have to petition a state to take the land into “custody” and should have to provide a reasonable explanation for doing so. Eminent Domain laws should apply here.

      I know per the Constitution they can only grab land if it’s in the national interest. In the past it meant building a fort there. Now they build shacks and call them ranger stations. That’s why when that Oregon standoff happened and they “occupied” the ranger station it was basically an abandoned (read never occupied) shack. I also know that states have challenged the grabs in the past and have lost every time in court (of course).


    6. 6 | February 10, 2017 1:09 pm

      @ Deplorable Idapig:

      I was smartassing to a friend of mine on the phone last night (who wanted to talk 9th Circuit decision). I expressed the concern that while the series of checks and balances put in place by our founders has resulted in cross-check on lawmaking (Veto requires override but the mechanism is there), there is NO similar cross-check for a Supreme Court decision, as it’s authority is ultimate. Sure it’s the President who nominates and the Senate who confirms the justices, but once there, their power is unbridled. Once something is declared Unconstitutional, there is no recourse. What’s interesting is that the Founders did not give them this power. They appropriated it for themselves in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803).

      I said just for grits and shins, Congress should authorize two more justices for the Supreme Court, making it 11 total, let Trump fill the spots with Originalists, and then bring a case overturning Marbury v. Madison. Then the two “new” justices resign, Congress passes a law going back to 9 justices and finally all is as the founders intended.

      He told me I should write a novel.


    7. Guggi
      7 | February 10, 2017 1:30 pm

      Quote:

      “The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.
      7 Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all.8 We disagree, as explained above.”

      Does this mean that a terrorist attack has to be “successful” and that prevented terrorist attacks don’t count?


    8. troutski
      8 | February 10, 2017 1:49 pm

      @ Guggi:
      It seems to me the court is saying DJT you have determined based on BHO evidence that these countries are dangerous. But they haven’t killed us in large numbers yet so we shouldn’t restrict their entry into our country.

      I fail to see how a district court has that view. It’s like Ford motors have a production line stopped because a dealer doesn’t like the color of the car they are rolling out. These are judges who think they have too much power and need to be fired.


    9. 9 | February 10, 2017 2:01 pm

      @ troutski:

      And of course, the MSM and pundits were able to frame this from Day 1 as a “Muslim Ban.” It’s interesting that a District Judge in Massachusetts got it right – he said “I see nothing in this Executive Order mentioning Muslims.”

      The Government attorney at the 9th was pretty awful, frankly. Of course, I know the 9th and have attended numerous oral argument in San Francisco. Trust me – they have pretty much made up their minds before hand. Their questioning showed it. Since when, I ask you, is campaign rhetoric evidence?


    10. Deplorable Idapig
      10 | February 10, 2017 2:08 pm

      Deplorable Barbarian wrote:

      @ Deplorable Idapig:
      I was smartassing to a friend of mine on the phone last night (who wanted to talk 9th Circuit decision). I expressed the concern that while the series of checks and balances put in place by our founders has resulted in cross-check on lawmaking (Veto requires override but the mechanism is there), there is NO similar cross-check for a Supreme Court decision, as it’s authority is ultimate. Sure it’s the President who nominates and the Senate who confirms the justices, but once there, their power is unbridled. Once something is declared Unconstitutional, there is no recourse. What’s interesting is that the Founders did not give them this power. They appropriated it for themselves in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803).
      I said just for grits and shins, Congress should authorize two more justices for the Supreme Court, making it 11 total, let Trump fill the spots with Originalists, and then bring a case overturning Marbury v. Madison. Then the two “new” justices resign, Congress passes a law going back to 9 justices and finally all is as the founders intended.
      He told me I should write a novel.

      There’s actually nothing in the Constitution declaring how many justices should be on the supreme court, just that congress could set that number. The first supreme court had 6 (one chief justice and 5 associate justices) so you could keep it at 11 if you wanted.

      And the balance against the supreme court is congress and the president. Laws originate in congress and the president signs them. If the supreme court rules something unconstitutional they have to say WHY so congress can go back and rewrite the bill. At least, that’s how it’s supposed to work!

      That’s what happened with the disastrous Keelo decision. Congress went back and rewrote something that was already guaranteed in the constitution – property rights! Which is why you don’t hear of peoples houses being grabbed up anymore!


    11. Guggi
      11 | February 10, 2017 2:49 pm

      troutski wrote:

      These are judges who think they have too much power and need to be fired.

      Two keyterms: Gouvernement des juges (government of the judges)
      and Roscoe Pound (social Engineering)


    12. Deplorable Idapig
      12 | February 10, 2017 3:31 pm

      Guggi wrote:

      troutski wrote:
      These are judges who think they have too much power and need to be fired.
      Two keyterms: Gouvernement des juges (government of the judges)
      and Roscoe Pound (social Engineering)

      Both of which are unconstitutional with our form of government, but I catch your meaning.


    13. 13 | February 10, 2017 3:37 pm

      @ Deplorable Idapig

      True, but look at California and their Supreme Court and gay marriage.
      Bill passed saying that Traditional Marriage is the law in Caifornia.
      Supreme Court strikes it down, advising that Traditional Marriage ONLY needs to be made an amendment to the California Constitution.

      Okay, Prop 8 – makes recognition of Traditional Marriage ONLY an amendment of the California Constitution. Passes.

      State of California SUED in District Court (which has NO jurisdiction over the issue of marriage under the enumerated powers). Neither Gov. Schwarzenkennedy NOR AG Jerry Brown will defend Prop 8 in the Federal Court, despite having been passed by the electorate, because they don’t agree with it. Dereliction of duty. Organizers have to defend. Assigned to Judge who fails to disclose that he has vested interest in outcome – being gay himself.

      Goes to SCOTUS and we’re screwed. Permanently. Never mind that the voters did everything asked of them.


    14. RIX
      14 | February 10, 2017 4:20 pm

      Greetings from Las Vegas, I am leaving Las Vegas. The 9th Circuit ruling was no shock, the only question was
      would it be unanimous? It was. I believe in separation powers and blah , blah , blah, but in my view this is
      judicial tyranny, nothing co-equal going on. The Preident has plenary authority in these matters .
      It is statutory law , and the court did not need to look at intent, or the Constituion, thst was decided in the
      50’s. Judicial activism at its worst.


    15. eaglesoars
      15 | February 10, 2017 7:39 pm

      I am very tired, way too tired to dig into this and figure it out.

      Can someone explain to me what’s going on? The Trump admin decided it’s going to write a completely new EO regarding immigration and will have it out next week. Then, apparently immediately after that announcement, a judge in San Francisco, who remains unknown, jumps in and orders that the plaintiffs and the admin submit briefs by next Thurs as to whether they think the case should be heard by the full panel of 11 judges of the 9 circuit, i.e., en banc.

      Why would a judge do this? Is this good or bad? I don’t get it.


    16. eaglesoars
    17. rain of lead
      17 | February 10, 2017 7:58 pm

      https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/02/10/ninth-circuit-court-now-demands-it-be-protected-from-itself/#more-128440

      In the interim of the slow case proceeding, ANY instance of violence and terrorism provides President Trump the opportunity to use his bully pulpit -and Twitter- to hang the occurrence, foreign or domestic, like a millstone around the neck of Democrats up for elected office in 2018.

      There is no downside on the domestic security agenda for President Trump; however, the Democrats are fraught with fear that something might just happen. Ultimately, THIS, the politics behind the entire construct, is the reason for the ninth circuit tonight asking for an en blanc hearing of their own judicial ruling.


    18. Deplorable Idapig
      18 | February 10, 2017 8:17 pm

      @ Deplorable Barbarian:
      I know – the citizens of California did everything right and they were let down badly. I’m a Californian and voted against gay marriage a couple times myself before leaving the state. My Mother voted in all of them including the amendment to change the constitution. Most the the shenanigans had no place happening and someone should have called them on it. That judge had no business interfering in something that was none of his concern. It wasn’t a judicial matter.


    19. eaglesoars
      19 | February 10, 2017 8:19 pm

      @ rain of lead:

      I don’t know enough to agree or disagree with their analysis for the rationale of going for an en banc by the court itself. Are there lawyers writing for TCH?


    20. eaglesoars
      20 | February 10, 2017 8:38 pm

      William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection gives his take.

      We can all speculate on why a Judge would do this. The Judge may be upset with the panel ruling, which has been extensively criticized, and expects that a larger en banc review may reach a different result.

      That would make sense because the TRO and denial of a stay creates an outrageous result:
      []
      En banc review would take time. Normally it would take months, but perhaps since initiated by a Judge, it would be expedited. Unless expedited, it’s something of an exercise in futility since the District Court is on an expedited schedule for a preliminary injunction ruling (the next stage in a case after a TRO).

      Perhaps that unnamed Judge, however, recognizes the timing problem and is sending a signal to the Supreme Court that this might be a case where the Supreme Court needs to grant the stay of the TRO.

      There have been conflicted reports tonight as to whether Trump will seek SCOTUS review. Initial reports said Trump would not seek SCOTUS review, then later reports said the issue is not decided yet.


    21. Deplorable Idapig
      21 | February 10, 2017 8:42 pm

      eaglesoars wrote:

      William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection gives his take.

      We can all speculate on why a Judge would do this. The Judge may be upset with the panel ruling, which has been extensively criticized, and expects that a larger en banc review may reach a different result.
      That would make sense because the TRO and denial of a stay creates an outrageous result:
      []
      En banc review would take time. Normally it would take months, but perhaps since initiated by a Judge, it would be expedited. Unless expedited, it’s something of an exercise in futility since the District Court is on an expedited schedule for a preliminary injunction ruling (the next stage in a case after a TRO).
      Perhaps that unnamed Judge, however, recognizes the timing problem and is sending a signal to the Supreme Court that this might be a case where the Supreme Court needs to grant the stay of the TRO.
      There have been conflicted reports tonight as to whether Trump will seek SCOTUS review. Initial reports said Trump would not seek SCOTUS review, then later reports said the issue is not decided yet.

      Well, if he’s looking at SCOTUS now he’s taking a chance they’ll tie 4-4 which means the 9ths decision is the final one. Or he could wait until he gets his guy on there for a better chance at a 5-4 ruling in his favor. Of course Roberts could screw the pooch on that one too!


    22. Deplorable Idapig
      22 | February 10, 2017 8:44 pm

      rain of lead wrote:

      https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/02/10/ninth-circuit-court-now-demands-it-be-protected-from-itself/#more-128440
      In the interim of the slow case proceeding, ANY instance of violence and terrorism provides President Trump the opportunity to use his bully pulpit -and Twitter- to hang the occurrence, foreign or domestic, like a millstone around the neck of Democrats up for elected office in 2018.
      There is no downside on the domestic security agenda for President Trump; however, the Democrats are fraught with fear that something might just happen. Ultimately, THIS, the politics behind the entire construct, is the reason for the ninth circuit tonight asking for an en blanc hearing of their own judicial ruling.

      If anything happens with any of these people coming in, it would be my hope that the gop would hang it around the neck of every democrat incumbent in 18.


    23. rain of lead
      23 | February 10, 2017 8:47 pm

      @ Deplorable Idapig:

      eh, stupid party, so who knows


    24. Deplorable Idapig
      24 | February 10, 2017 9:10 pm

      rain of lead wrote:

      @ Deplorable Idapig:
      eh, stupid party, so who knows

      Yeah – the only people they know how to fight is each other!


    25. eaglesoars
      26 | February 10, 2017 9:50 pm

      The crew at Instapundit seem to be voting in favor of the idea that at least one judge on the 9th Circuit isn’t a total asshole and wants a chance to blow holes in the 3 judge panel’s decision.


    26. eaglesoars
      27 | February 10, 2017 9:54 pm

      developing…

      mob of hundreds outside Mitch McConnell’s home, reading Coretta Scott King leter


    27. Deplorable Bumr50
      28 | February 10, 2017 10:05 pm

      @ eaglesoars:

      Hundreds counting assembled media?

      I’m skeptical of Philip Lewis’ count.


    28. eaglesoars
      29 | February 10, 2017 10:15 pm

      @ Deplorable Bumr50:

      even tho it’s dark the pics do show a lot of people


    29. Deplorable Bumr50
      30 | February 10, 2017 10:36 pm

      @ eaglesoars:

      OK. I’ve seen more.

      Hoping for a quick public response and a strong statement.

      Here’s hoping Mitch has some cajones left after he shut down Lieawatha.


    30. eaglesoars
      31 | February 10, 2017 10:44 pm

      Ok, it’s just been posted to the 9th circuit website. It’s an explanation for the media to explain the therms and procedures.

      I tried to copy/paste but it scrambled so you can read it there. It’s one page in plain English


    31. Deplorable Bumr50
      32 | February 10, 2017 10:50 pm

      @ eaglesoars:

      sua sponte

      In bench, of their own accord.

      If a majority of the active, non-recused judges
      vote in favor of rehearing en banc, then the case is reheard by the en banc court. If the vote
      succeeds, the en banc court assumes control over the case.

      If the vote fails, the three judge panel retains control of the case. In either event, an order is issued
      announcing the results, but the votes are not disclosed.

      How many judges vote on this?


    32. eaglesoars
      33 | February 10, 2017 11:01 pm

      Deplorable Bumr50 wrote:

      Hoping for a quick public response and a strong statement.

      yeah, I’m all out of fucks to give about ‘strong statements’. Time to crack heads and throw butts in prison – not a cell overnight while waiting for bail to show up – prison.

      The left has suffered no consequences for this bullshit – and not just the loud crowd intimidation tactics, e.g., Betsy DeVos today, but the people like Shannon Coulter who started the #Grabyourwallet campaign against Invaka Trump. Where are downside incentives to make these people think twice? There aren’t any, there never have been, and it’s about time there were.

      For example, it should be spread far and wide where Shannon Coulter works (all we know is that she does something in marketing). Threaten HER livlihood, HER peace of mind, publicly shame HER and make sure her children, if any, know all about it.

      A woman who owns a chain of gyms has gone public with the fact that she found out Ivanka attended one of her classes under an alias. She has made public that she ‘reached out’ to Ivanka to talk to her ‘about my people’ and how Ivanka’s racist father treats them.

      These people need to be held up to ridicule, scorn and inflicted with the same harm they intended to inflict on others. This public virtue signaling used as a weapon should result in destruction of these people in ways that are unmistakable to anyone else thinking this might be a good idea. Make it a very very bad idea, a nearly suicidal idea.

      Until they get some serious hurt landing on them, they won’t stop.


    33. eaglesoars
      34 | February 10, 2017 11:01 pm

      Deplorable Bumr50 wrote:

      How many judges vote on this?

      11


    34. lobo91
      35 | February 10, 2017 11:05 pm

      State Department Has Nearly Doubled Intake Of Refugees From 7 Travel Ban Countries Since Judge Halted Ban

      Since Trump’s travel ban was halted last week, the intake of refugees from the seven targeted countries has more than doubled.

      Analysts said that the move is a coordinated effort by the State Department to let in as many refugees from these countries as possible, in case the ban is reinstated by the Supreme Court.

      The travel ban halted all citizens from predominantly Muslim countries Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya and Yemen from entering the U.S. for at least 90 days – regardless of their immigration or residency status in the U.S.


    35. eaglesoars
      36 | February 10, 2017 11:08 pm

      oh one more thing. That ‘crowd’ and Chaffetz’ town hall – I don’t believe for one minute that they weren’t bused in and were outsiders sent to disrupt. That needs to be stopped too. I just haven’t figured out how. Yet.


    36. eaglesoars
      37 | February 10, 2017 11:10 pm

      @ lobo91:

      what does ‘doubled’ mean in actual numbers? It went from 4 to 8 or from 4000 to 8000? What are we talking about here?


    37. Deplorable Bumr50
      38 | February 10, 2017 11:10 pm

      @ eaglesoars:

      Shaming is definitely the way to go.

      eaglesoars wrote:

      11

      Thanks!

      I have to work tomorrow because the people I work for are morons.

      G’nite!


    38. lobo91
      39 | February 10, 2017 11:17 pm

      eaglesoars wrote:

      @ lobo91:

      what does ‘doubled’ mean in actual numbers? It went from 4 to 8 or from 4000 to 8000? What are we talking about here?

      In the week since the ban has been halted, 1,186 refugees have been let into the country – 882 of them from the seven travel ban countries.


    39. Deplorable Bumr50
      40 | February 10, 2017 11:17 pm

      @ eaglesoars:

      Still up.

      I think what happened is that whoever the Trump admin. foolishly hasn’t fired started processing visas at 3000% their normal work rate.

      http://www.weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Screen-Shot-2017-02-10-at-10.27.27-PM.png

      Either that or it’s a “brain drain.” Or political favors.

      Tillerson needs to clean house at State, but it’s more of the “4 to 8” variety.


    40. Deplorable Bumr50
      41 | February 10, 2017 11:21 pm

      eaglesoars wrote:

      oh one more thing. That ‘crowd’ and Chaffetz’ town hall – I don’t believe for one minute that they weren’t bused in and were outsiders sent to disrupt. That needs to be stopped too. I just haven’t figured out how. Yet.

      Get to the bus drivers.


    41. eaglesoars
      42 | February 10, 2017 11:24 pm

      Deplorable Bumr50 wrote:

      Shaming is definitely the way to go.

      not enough. Lawsuits. The Process Is The Punishment. For example, Ivanka could sue the owner of the gym for violating her privacy (which she clearly intended to protect by using an alias) and her name to further her own brand. Ivanka is a brand in her own right and using it w/o permission in order to profit from it is probably illegal somehow. Even if Ivanka loses, it’s going to cost that gym owner $$$ to defend and might stop a few other people from jumping on the “Let’s trash Ivanka” bandwagon. As for Shannon Coulter, if Ivanka can bring a suit saying that #grabyourwallet campaign was intended to inflict financial harm – as it clearly was – and was successful, as Nordstrom’s claim declining sales prompted it to no longer carry the line confirms – that’s another lawsuit. Let’s see if Ms. Coulter’s pockets are as deep as her mouth is big.

      Pain serves a unique purposed. It teaches you to avoid whatever causes it.


    42. Deplorable Idapig
      43 | February 10, 2017 11:28 pm

      eaglesoars wrote:

      Deplorable Bumr50 wrote:
      Hoping for a quick public response and a strong statement.
      yeah, I’m all out of fucks to give about ‘strong statements’. Time to crack heads and throw butts in prison – not a cell overnight while waiting for bail to show up – prison.
      The left has suffered no consequences for this bullshit – and not just the loud crowd intimidation tactics, e.g., Betsy DeVos today, but the people like Shannon Coulter who started the #Grabyourwallet campaign against Invaka Trump. Where are downside incentives to make these people think twice? There aren’t any, there never have been, and it’s about time there were.
      For example, it should be spread far and wide where Shannon Coulter works (all we know is that she does something in marketing). Threaten HER livlihood, HER peace of mind, publicly shame HER and make sure her children, if any, know all about it.
      A woman who owns a chain of gyms has gone public with the fact that she found out Ivanka attended one of her classes under an alias. She has made public that she ‘reached out’ to Ivanka to talk to her ‘about my people’ and how Ivanka’s racist father treats them.
      These people need to be held up to ridicule, scorn and inflicted with the same harm they intended to inflict on others. This public virtue signaling used as a weapon should result in destruction of these people in ways that are unmistakable to anyone else thinking this might be a good idea. Make it a very very bad idea, a nearly suicidal idea.
      Until they get some serious hurt landing on them, they won’t stop.

      Good rant and I agree with all of it!


    43. eaglesoars
      44 | February 10, 2017 11:30 pm

      lobo91 wrote:

      882 of them from the seven travel ban countries.

      well, I don’t like it but it doesn’t set my hair on fire.

      Deplorable Bumr50 wrote:

      Get to the bus drivers.

      no. They’re earning a living, not them. Not going after the bus companies either, because they employ the drivers. they would just be collateral damage and innocent parties in the big picture.

      I’m sleepy. going to bed, nite.


    44. AZfederalist
      45 | February 10, 2017 11:59 pm

      Deplorable Bumr50 wrote:

      I think what happened is that whoever the Trump admin. foolishly hasn’t fired started processing visas at 3000% their normal work rate.

      Sure, for that government workers will work overtime and move quickly.

      Hmm, that’s what the Trump administration should do, re-assign State Dept employees to various State Motor Vehicle Departments and put the Motor Vehicle Department Employees in charge of visas for those 7 countries.


    45. AZfederalist
      46 | February 11, 2017 12:02 am

      eaglesoars wrote:

      lobo91 wrote:

      882 of them from the seven travel ban countries.

      well, I don’t like it but it doesn’t set my hair on fire.

      Remember it only took 30 to bring down the towers and the Pentagon. Larger number means greater attack surface and possibility of infiltration.


    46. 47 | February 11, 2017 12:52 am

      eaglesoars wrote:

      @ eaglesoars:

      Zip has this

      BREAKING: 9th Circuit Deciding Whether To Reconsider Travel Ban Decision

      If the 9th Circus is reversing itself, its for one reason and one reason only. Self preservation. They so over stepped their authority that they basically gave Trump legal justification to remove them from the bench. Possibly even gave him justification to have criminal malfeasance charges filed against them.

      First rule of Trump: Trump always places his opponents in a position where they can hang themselves by rejecting his first offer. Barack Obama and his sycophants always claimed (falsely I might add) that Barack was the smartest person in the room.

      Donald Trump never claims to be the smartest person in the room. He does warn people that he is intelligent, and very business savvy. He also very intentionally play the clown. Reality is, Trump very probably always is the smartest person in the room. Unless Steven Hawkins is in the room, in which case, who the smartest person in the room is up for grabs.


    47. 48 | February 11, 2017 12:54 am

      eaglesoars wrote:

      oh one more thing. That ‘crowd’ and Chaffetz’ town hall – I don’t believe for one minute that they weren’t bused in and were outsiders sent to disrupt. That needs to be stopped too. I just haven’t figured out how. Yet.

      RICO…


    48. troutski
      49 | February 11, 2017 1:48 am

      Anne Mahlum is the owner of Solidcore, a chain of gyms that has 13 locations in the Washington, DC area
      In a recent Facebook post, Mahlum said that Ivanka Trump signed up for one of her classes using an alias
      After finding out, Mahlum said she reached out to the first daughter’s team to schedule a meeting
      ‘I take my responsibility to protect and fight for my people very seriously,’ she said


    49. troutski
    50. troutski
      51 | February 11, 2017 1:52 am

      Looks like they took down their contact form and their twitter account


    51. troutski
      52 | February 11, 2017 1:53 am

      rsafety, huntington, United States, 23 minutes ago

      Why is it that a Christian Bakery can lose their business and pay big fines for refusing to make a cake that goes against their Christian beliefs yet, this snowflake has NOTHING happen to her? She also says: “I do know her father is threatening the rights of many of my beloved clients and coaches and as a business owner, I take my responsibility to protect and fight for my people very seriously”. And, exactly WHAT rights have President Trump threaten to beloved clients and coaches? Name one…….


    52. troutski
      53 | February 11, 2017 1:55 am

      I think the Secret Service should make an example of the gym owner. This does put the first family in danger. Especially given the unstable minds of the left.


    53. Deplorable Bumr50
      54 | February 11, 2017 6:04 am

      eaglesoars wrote:

      Deplorable Bumr50 wrote:

      Get to the bus drivers.

      no. They’re earning a living, not them. Not going after the bus companies either, because they employ the drivers. they would just be collateral damage and innocent parties in the big picture.

      I’m sleepy. going to bed, nite.

      I meant refuse service to the loonies. I don’t think it would be bad for their business at all.

      Or have the bus “break down” halfway there.

      Not “go after” them.

      That came out wrong.

      Although I take your point.


    54. Deplorable Bumr50
      55 | February 11, 2017 6:09 am

      I usually ignore her, but found this back-and-forth funny.

      DUNHAM: I think it’s really important to remember that it is an incredible problem that 53% of women in this country — 53% of white women in this country voted for Donald Trump which means that they’re not only voting against the interests of their sisters, of women who may not look like them, who they may not understand but whose rights are just as important, but also remember that they are in that case voting against their own best interest. To me a part of feminism — it’s almost like being a parent to a teenager where they’re so mad at you, they think you’re such a piece of crap and you’re like, I know you hate me right now but the reason I’m doing this is because I love you and I want us all to be safe.

      BEHAR: But those women to their defense believe he’s going to bring back jobs, a lot of them, because they’re voting for their husbands and their family. How do you respond to that?

      DUNHAM: I think what’s really hard, obviously it pains me as a caucasian women to think about how many women didn’t think about women who looked different or had different life experiences than them. They didn’t look outside their own back yard when they made the choice to vote for Donald Trump.

      BEHAR: In their own back yard there are no jobs.

      DUNHAM: But what I was going to say is that —

      FARIS: Without food on the table it’s hard for them to see another perspective when they’re clearing no money and to pay for their healthcare. Do you know what I’m saying?

      DUNHAM: I’m sorry to interrupt you. I was raised not to do that.

      FARIS: No, no no I’m sorry. I actually interrupted you. I’m sorry.

      DUNHAM: I think it’s really important–Of course I understand what you’re saying. I also think it’s really important to understand so many women aren’t raised with the rhetoric of self-empowerment. The messages they’re hearing from Donald Trump may be very similar to the messages they’ve always heard from their fathers, from their brothers, from their husbands. They haven’t been given the message that they do matter. And so, while I think we have an incredible amount of work to do with enlightening those women, I also have sympathy for the societal structures that keep them from understanding what they need to keep themselves safe.

      Note that the abomination never does address the interviewers questions on jobs and income.

      I’m off to get income…


    55. 56 | February 11, 2017 9:31 am

      Deplorable Bumr50 wrote:

      I’m off to get income…

      Shame on you…


    56. Deplorable Idapig
      57 | February 11, 2017 11:39 am

      Deplorable Bumr50 wrote:

      Note that the abomination never does address the interviewers questions on jobs and income.

      I’m off to get income…

      Well, I’ve yet to discover exactly why Trump is supposed to be such a racist that minority women are any more likely to be victimized by Trumps policies than a white woman. I mean, isn’t their whole point that Trump is horrible because he grabbed women? And considering his taste in women wouldn’t it be white women who were more likely to be at risk than a woman of color? So, basically white women voted to victimize themselves, right?

      But that whole dribble is exactly why you shouldn’t listen to leftists in the first place. They are masters of deflection and never directly answer any questions. And if you ask them for proof they meander on to any number of other vague accusations without delivering any proof for those either. And if you stay focused (don’t allow yourself to be diverted off topic) they instantly ponce and attack YOU for some imagined slight/insult/perceived hate/etc etc etc.

      It’s like arguing with a petulant 2 year old or your dog. You know you’re supposed to be in charge and wonder where exactly you lost control of the situation.


    Back to the Top

    '
    The Blogmocracy

    website design was Built By David