The me too movement and the current publicity over Rob Porter has had me wondering about the situation of firing someone over abuse allegations in their personal life, which they haven't been convicted of or charged with. The behavior is reprehensible and I'm not saying that I think it should be tolerated. And, I can see where the decision in the entertainment industry, where the offender is high profile, is straightforward because of bad PR. I guess the same factors apply to working in a White House position.

But, in general, should someone who has been accused of abuse in their personal life be unemployable? In Porter's case, Kelly is at fault for vouching for his character, when he knew about the allegations. But, on the list of horrors of the Trump administration, for me this is about number 50,000.

I think this off with their heads mentality yields an environment, where it's possible to frame a potentially innocent person, like Al Franken. Porter doesn't appear to be innocent, and I'm glad for the Trump administration to be sustaining damage for ANYTHING, but when I see the amount of time MSNBC has given to this yesterday and today, I don't really view it as a positive thing.

What do you think?

Did anyone just see this? The press conference opened with a word from President Trump and while Huckabee stood at the podium, the Dotard spoke on two large screens on either side of the podium about how great his tax cut was and that he's making America Great again more quickly than anyone could have expected.

This seemed pretty 1984'ish. The press conference is in the White House - Trump is in the White House today But, they have him spewing his we're winning talking points on tv screens instead of just walking into the next room to the podium. I'm sure they'd rather not have him in front of the press, likely giving answers about Steve Bannon and the quotes from the new book that will pour more gasoline on the fire. But, this is ridiculous.

I was disappointed that the Democrats didn't seem to stage more dramatic filibusters of the tax bill, or if they did, they didn't generate much coverage. They really needed to use enough apocalyptic language to generate more coverage, laying down the gauntlet that shorting the treasury (which is already in deficit) by trillions of dollars is going to squeeze out Medicare and Social Security later down the road.

I suspect that Trump's infrastructure bills will just be tax breaks for his crony developers to do glitzier projects while core infrastructure goes mostly unattended (replacing old lead pipes isn't the kind of sexy thing that Trump can put his name on). IMO, every infrastructure hearing needs to be a place where the Democrats drive home how the treasury has just been sacked and that the Republicans have wasted the money that could have been used for infrastructure. Every infrastructure debate should be treated as a negotiation to undo tax law changes that most benefit the wealthy in order to pay for them.

That likely won't succeed, but the messaging needs to repeatedly drive home the specifics of tax law changes that that send money back to billionaires and what that is depriving us of. If you look at the Gallup Daily Tracking poll, Trump's popularity has improved after the tax bill. The Democrats need to drive home what it actually does and lay the groundwork that will make it difficult for Ryan and the Rethugs to claim that "entitlement reform" is needed. The public need to be hit over the head with the message that it's the Republican tax cut for the wealthy that's the reason the Medicare and Social Security will be coming up short and that the remedy isn't program cuts, it's undoing the irresponsible tax code changes.

I saw this on a message board & worked on the Freedom Trail in Boston when I was in college, so realized where this was going in a sentence or two. But, it's a good response to right wingers who attack Black Lives Matter.

In Boston, during a verbal dispute, an unarmed teenage boy was forcefully hit in the head with the butt of a rifle by local law enforcement.

Word of the incident spread quickly and a large number of locals gathered in the street where the incident had happened to protest almost immediately.

As the crowd grew, angry protesters shouted slogans; some business owners, fearing property damage, shut their doors. The local authorities called for uniformed backup; backup came, well armed.

The assembly was deemed "unlawful," and the crowd was ordered to disperse. The protesters began to throw snowballs in response.

"In response, multiple uniformed law enforcers fired on the crowd. The first protester to die was a black man and the authorities justified the shooting by claiming that they "feared for their lives".

The year was 1770, the authorities were British soldiers, the protest would later be called the Boston Massacre, and the first protester killed in that conflict was Crispus Attucks, a black man considered by many to be a heroic American patriot and the first casualty of the American Revolution.

If, while reading this story, you found yourself siding with the authorities and thinking that the protesters should have dispersed when ordered, and/or that the protesters armed with snowballs and sticks deserved to be met with deadly force by armed law enforcement, be aware that you chose the side of the tyrant King George III not the American patriots."

Now ponder that.

Feel free to pass along. I just did

<div style="position:relative;height:0;padding-bottom:56.25%"><iframe src="?ecver=2" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0" style="position:absolute;width:100%;height:100%;left:0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>

I heard Lawrence O'Donnell raising this theory this morning at like 2 am. McConnell is a slippery, shrewd motherfucker and the Republican bill was polling at like 12%. Failing to pass it makes them and Trump look bad, but the alternative of their succeeding would have had a much worse impact on them in the midterms. Now, instead of owning people's dissatisfaction with health care, they can claim that they made a sincere effort to change it, sabotage the current system, and keep their ignorant base bitching about Obama.

Lawrence O'Donnell referred to it as a well known legislative tactic of moving a dead cat off of your porch. Republicans had promised to repeal and replace Obamacare, so they had to appear to make a sincere effort, but they were politically better off without the tar baby they would have taken on if their historically unpopular legislation had passed.

Trump clearly wanted AHCA to succeed to narcissistically claim a victory, but is it possible that McConnell realized that passing AHCA would have been catastrophic to them in the midterms?

I'm very happy that it did not pass and that millions won't lose coverage. I hope that somehow, Collins, Murkowski & McCain can be brought along to oppose the insane mega tax cut bill that is coming, but I'm skeptical about that.

I haven't seen any information on this and it seems like it would be a significant question. Has anyone heard any speculation on how the NY Times got access to Trump, Jr.'s emails about the Trump Tower meeting offering Russian dirt on Hillary? It seems that either someone was hacked, or someone on the distribution list of the email is leaking. Could it be the Russians that released it, to make Trump more compliant and show that they're willing to crush him? Does Mueller have the emails from intercepts and someone on the committee leaked them?

It could be that information has been provided on this that I didn't notice, but it seems like a pretty intriguing issue that I haven't heard in the coverage.

It seems like a lead pipe lock that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia & that the result of Robert Mueller's investigation will eventually be severely damaging to Trump. Trump has already demonstrated his willingness to cross any bounds, attack any messenger, try to sell the most blatant falsehoods to get by.

Given the inevitable result of Mueller's investigation and that he doesn't have the protection of the special counsel statute that used to exist, and that he can be terminated by the Justice Dept., it seems to me to be a certainty that Dump will try to terminate Mueller. He's probably waiting for an opportune moment where they can cook up some bullshit scenario to try to discredit Mueller with while doing it, that the 35% of zombies that like the CNN wrestling video will buy into.

What do you think is the likelihood that Trump will try to terminate Mueller? What is the chance that he will succeed? Firing Comey cost Trump in that Mueller was appointed, but that was still probably worth it to him, because Comey had greater resources and subpoena power at the FBI than Mueller has, and Trump bought time while Mueller assembled staff and got up to speed. I think Trump is bound to decide that he'd rather fight the consequences of firing Mueller than face the evidence that he will eventually present.

EDIT: THE OLD LAYOUT OF GOOGLE NEWS CAN NOW BE ACCESSED AT THEOLDGNEWS.COM

I've used Google News as my PC homepage since it started in 2004, I think. Last night, they implemented a new layout, which really destroys using the service for me. There was great information density and I could see dozens of stories at a glance across my screen, links to different sources providing the same story.

The new format seems geared toward phones and I can see two stories with TONS of white space on the sides and need to scroll endlessly and still don't find the info easily that was on a single widescreen PC screen before. Are any other Google News users frustrated with this change today? Are there alternate news aggregator sites that you like? I really loved Google News - lots of news at a glance from lots of good sources. But, the update is such a big downgrade that it's likely time to move on to something else.

Open with video of Trump saying that he would not cut Medicaid and give the stats on how much this bill cuts it, emphasize how many people will lose coverage, how many of them are elderly, how a tax cut for the very rich is embedded in this bill. Run the ad frequently in the states of Republican Senators, specify in each ad the relevant lobbyist money that that Senator has taken. Emphasize that this bill is being rushed through with 1 week for debate, so that the people won't have a chance to understand it and object to what it is.

I guess we'd want to save the money that would cost for the 2018 races, it would be nice to associate the Rethugs with the stink of this from the outset.