steeler wrote: 
Don't worry... we're in good (small) hands.
 
Trump reportedly called his national security adviser at 3 a.m. to ask if the US wanted a strong or weak dollar

 black321 wrote: 
The debt — and what to do about it — is a hard issue to wrap one's head around.  Many variables in play, all of which bring many other policy issues into the debate.  For example, the tax cuts passed in December add to the deficit, but supporters of those tax cuts contend that, in the long run, they will reduce the deficit because the tax cuts will spur the economy.  Another example is the current immigration debate.  Trump and supporters contend that reducing illegal immigration will have a positive impact on the economy, which, in turn, would help reduce the deficit.

Contrary to the assertions of many, virtually no one is in favor of Big Government for the sake of Big Government.  No one wants the U.S. to be running a huge deficit.  The debates are about what funding should be cut and what funding should be maintained or even increased. The Trump administration is advocating to rebuild the military.  There is a cost to that.  Similarly, Trump advocates building The Wall.  Again, a cost to that.             

 black321 wrote: 
Well, if we are on track for bankruptcy and restructuring, then we certainly have the guy with the right(hah) experience....

 meower wrote: 
well i applaud you if you are doing more to protest our debt...but it doesnt seem to be a very big issue for most.  Guess it's not as hot a topic as immigrants, trade wars and NK.  Those have differing levels of import, but i think as a nation overall, none is as great as the growing debt.  Forget about all the rest if we dont do something about it.  

 black321 wrote:

 
:/

speak for yourself

 black321 wrote: 





Indeed, this is the first time I have heard of this deficit deal. Is this a new thing? Damn Trump, he even unbalanced our budget.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
and thanks Obama, and bush...and all the congressmen/women who continue to pass irresponsible budgets...and we the people who's biggest protest is to complain on music boards...

Thanks Donnie!

Outside the Red Hen, fire and ire on social media come to life

Manafort Trial Is to Go Forward, but Judge Warns Mueller to Stay Within Authority


...

In a preliminary hearing last month, Judge T. S. Ellis III challenged the charges of bank fraud and tax evasion against Mr. Manafort, saying he saw no relationship between the case before him and “anything the special counsel is authorized to investigate.”

But in the 31-page opinion issued on Tuesday, the judge said that “upon further review,” it was clear to him that the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, had “followed the money paid by pro-Russian officials” to Mr. Manafort — a line of inquiry that fell squarely in his authority.

Judge Ellis continued to express misgivings about special prosecutors in general, saying that he could only hope that Mr. Mueller did not abuse the powers given to him. “Although this case will continue, those involved should be sensitive to the danger unleashed when political disagreements are transformed into partisan prosecutions,” he wrote.

He also wrote, “To provide a special counsel with a large budget and to tell him or her to find crimes allows a special counsel to pursue his or her targets without the usual time and budget constraints facing ordinary prosecutors, encouraging substantial elements of the public to conclude that the special counsel is being deployed as a political weapon.”

Still, he decided that Mr. Mueller’s team had stayed within its mandate in investigating tens of millions of dollars in payments to Mr. Manafort, even though the pattern of financial fraud laid out by prosecutors began in 2006 and the payments came from political forces in Ukraine. The special counsel’s authorization to investigate “any links” between the Trump campaign and the Russian government covered the payments to Mr. Manafort from Ukraine’s pro-Russian president, Viktor F. Yanukovych, and his political allies, he ruled.

Do Trump Tweets Spur Hate Crimes?
Study makes strong case that president’s Twitter activity encourages anti-Muslim crimes

 VV wrote: 
Prepare for re-election.  Unfortunately its inevitable.  

 Lazy8 wrote: 
I couldn't agree more. However; as the heat gets turned up through an ever growing list of repeated crises caused by Trump... I'm not sure how those crises don't result in more polarization, more frustration and ultimately more uncivil behavior. You can only bite your tongue for so long.
 
Even though I didn't vote for him I did start off with wanting Trump to at least prove himslef as an adequate leader... but I'm now at the point where I want him removed ASAP before he causes any more lasting damage to the presidency and America.  

 

 Lazy8 wrote: 
I agree but rarely find the words for it. Being who I am, though, I do lean heavily on posts like this... Altho it's much more in-your-face than I typically allow, it's also better presented than the "go jump in a lake"–related string of words I am usually thinking.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
thanks for this

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
bravo. 

 Beaker wrote: 
This distills it down pretty well:

Civility.

That’s the card you’re pulling now?
That’s where you’ve landed?
That’s your go-to play at this stage of the game?
It’s a little late for you to roll that out now, isn’t it?

 Beaker wrote: 
Funny, but that was my initial impression of you as you clearly seem to have a bug up your ass about all Dems.

This is a learning moment for Sanders to reflect on all the damage she does to the country by shamelessly supporting all of Trump's lies. Sometimes there are negative consequences to being the mouthpiece of an inept and divisive adminstration where crisis management is part of the daily agenda. If she is denied a meal from time to time then that's a very small price for her to have to pay for her enablement. And oh by the way... that's not over the line.