RedSpawn

http://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/city-amazon-proposed-attract-company-hq2-georgia/WVuopYRd6WFQE3w7JjcdnO/. There is a new form of municipal prostitution in America and Amazon's public campaign to have "thirsty" cities give away or sell land to Amazon at "bargain basement" prices to facilitate the construction of its new 2nd headquarters is an all-time low. Now some of the oldest state governments and newest municipalities are wearing fishnet pantyhose, shiny new leather mini-skirts, and red lipstick to woo Amazon. Just a sad state of affairs. . . .

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/head-air-force-academy-powerful-speech-racism?utm_term=.glrr6vMDl#.qkY29NlEM It's dangerous when racism and tribalism erodes the fiber of our nationalism. How can a military member hate another serving member because of his race and then serve his duty to protect his fellow man?

http://www.investopedia.com/news/equifax-tries-save-face-free-credit-freeze/ At least Equifax is offering free credit freezes for its own debacle. Our Congress needs to have a pow-wow and create some regulations that treats the almagamation of our credit and personal data as a national security matter requiring stringent and vigorous internal controls. For this much credit fraud exposure to exist as a result of professional negligence with respect to a business enterprise's network security is unacceptable by 1st world standards!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4919774/Trump-tweets-destroyed-Puerto-Rico-criticism.html There is something very eerie and strange about how the media has covered Harvey, Irma, and Maria. It almost appears that since there aren't "creature comforts" on Puerto Rico and there are very limited flights to Puerto Rico (and the suffering on the island could be worse than being presented by the government), agencies aren't going to cover the full scope of this tragedy. No reporter wants to go to an ISLAND with limited gas, very limited electricity, hungry people, very few viable food outlets and very few flights to leave if the sojourn becomes unbearable. We aren't getting the full story on Puerto Rico. Something tells me that FEMA resources are spread as thin as hell between Irma, Harvey, and Maria but the government won't admit it because it has a classic case of plausible deniability. "You're doing one heck of a job, Brownie". Paint some more lipstick on that pig.

Agreed. Here is the priceless video of Tom Price on CNBC saying that the charter jets should not be used by government officials. Hypocrisy at its finest.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/09/29/trump-fire-tom-price-hhs-secretary-president-says-hell-decide-tonight/716209001/ HHS Secretary Tom Price has resigned from office in disgrace.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/09/29/daily-202-putting-tom-price-s-charter-flights-in-perspective/59cd5e8f30fb0468cea81c73/?utm_term=.a9a79c76fcd1 So we are saying that Pruitt had to call President Trump before he took the charter flights that costs thousands more than a traditional train fare? I am not sure about the review and approval process as it relates to travel for federal employees. Who is blessing the expenditure before Pruitt steps foot on the charter plane? My initial thought is there is a certain "delegation of authority" financial amount Pruitt has to approve expenditures in his department before he has to expressly seek "secondary approval" from another federal executive above him. If the amount of the expenditure is within his delegation of authority assigned to him by the P.O.T.U.S., then he doesn't have to seek additional approval. This is why I think we need to cut jobs at the federal government AND INCREASE THE staff and budget ASSIGNED TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL who found this messy situation. Inspector Generals are the ones who pull the curtain back and show us the ugly underbelly of our government system. They create a level of accountability the federal government sorely needs--especially as it crumbles under its own weight of bureaucracy.

AMEN! We have our noses all up in the Asia-Pacific Rim and are wagging our finger in a sanctimonious manner to China to tell them to handle this situation or we will. We can't be the global police in every foreign policy matter. We have to allow China to make its own call in this region without considering our nuclear arsenal as a viable solution to a rogue state. As a country, we need to put the cowboy diplomacy away (ka-pow, ka-pow, ka-boom, ka-boom) and follow China's lead instead of dictating the endgame in the region. The nuclear option is not even an option. It is a highway exit with no return access or a dead end street with no "U" turns allowed. China has responded to this melodrama in a coolheaded and patient way. They have even snickered at our immature Rocket Man characterization of King Jong Un. Cool heads will prevail. Someone needs to remind our snake oil salesman of this adage.

No, I don't even think of Russian oligarchs. This is your garden variety of graft, corruption, and malfeasance. A simple monthly review of expenditure reports can help management control spiraling costs. However, management can not control what it does not review or measure--especially when management has expensive tastes and believes coach class seats should be reserved for the masses not for government officials.

Barmar, of course it's an idiom, but I don't think you can disassociate the literal from the figurative here. Bitch has a meaning and its derogatory. Son of a bitch has an idiomatic meaning applying to the objectional person and it too is derogatory. Then again, maybe you have a point. A Double entendre isn't Trump's wheelhouse; he may think it's a French cuisine. He is too busy trying to draw faulty parallels. I think Trump needs to avoid this vulgar language because it's a slippery slope when he mixes a deadly cocktail of politics, sports, racial tension, heritage, and plausible deniability. SURGEON'S GENERAL WARNING: This cocktail may cause a racial tension headache.

Winston, wait it gets better. He then uses a Jamaican athlete, Usain Bolt, who shows respect for the US flag during the playing of the national anthem at the London 2012 Summer Olympics, as a prime example of a fine African-American knowing his place and behaving appropriately. https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-apos-attempt-using-074828646.html Please get Trump out of the Twitterverse! His politricks are not working. If he doesn't even have the time to conduct a proper due diligence and uses a faulty comparison, he should avoid any and all forms of rhetoric and electronic communications.

When the President of the United States can call a dissenting black athlete a son of a bitch in a public rally: Exactly what is he calling the dissident? A malcontent and a jerk perhaps? Ummm, so what is he calling the mother of the dissident? A b!tch, perhaps? And what is a b!tch per definition? A vulgar term that is generally thrown at a female jerk, and has been extended and sometimes unfairly used to describe strong willed, assertive, and mouthy woman who characteristically challenge or emasculate men. So, is calling him a "son of a bitch" throwing shade to the strong willed, assertive, mouthy mother who birthed the disagreeable, misbehaving athlete? Hmmmm. Perhaps, especially with the assumption that the apple doesn't fall from the tree. Does it make sense for a President of the United States to disrespect and disparage a black athlete AND his mother because he strongly condemns and vehemently disagrees with the athlete's unpatriotic behavior in a NFL game? Is it possible to hate an athlete's politics without personalizing the anger and showing contempt for both the athlete and his family? Tough question. The NFL pays this black athlete millions of dollars to play a professional sport; this act of generosity makes him a well-paid black citizen by any financial measure. These athletes have celebrity status and upper crust prestige in the black community. A black athlete should respect the fact that he works for the NFL which is an American franchise owned by a majority of rich white men and that he is handsomely compensated to do his job with a "team player" attitude and an unquestioned measure of loyalty. Therefore, there is a tacit expectation that he dutifully performs his job tasks without much back talk or controversy to show gratitude. When you see a well paid black athlete take a stand against the United States government and use a televised NFL game as a platform to showcase his perceptions of injustice, said athlete has moved from a beloved sports figure to "an uppity Negro" in a post-Jim-Crow Era. An "uppity Negro" is defined as a black person who uses his status to blatantly challenge racist societal norms through civil disobedience. Uppity Negroes (ab)use their status to take a stand and highlight problems to effect political change. And the appropriate way to handle an uppity Negro is to make vulgar comments about him and his family in a political rally and suggest that the owners of the NFL fire him. That way, he will know his proper place on the socioeconomic ladder if he ever thinks about challenging the dictates of the establishment again. The best way to handle an uppity Negro is to make him an unemployed Negro. The logic of our snake oil salesman is impenetrable and worrisome to say the least.

The problem is some folks believe that truth is not absolute but relative. They also believe truth is a function of belief, so if I don't believe God exists then He doesn't. However, this is faulty thinking. If I don't believe in gravity, I am not given the powers of levitating on this Earth. Just because I don't believe in gravity, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It just means that I am not ready to recognize a universal law that we have tested time and time again with physics and mathematics. Just because I don't believe that objects on Earth fall at a rate of 9.8 meters per second squared doesn't mean that the law is invalid. It just means I am blocking out a scientific truth that I refuse to recognize. Beliefs do not create truth. They help to explain our stories, but our stories are told from a narrator's perspective not from a universal or omniversal one. Narratives matter but narratives don't create absolute truths ....they create beliefs that don't pass academic, mathematical, or scientific scrutiny. Some things we don't know in this world. And some things we do and belief systems matter, but belief systems don't create reality, they help us to explain what we observe or perceive. While you can always create your own narrative, your narrative may not be based on facts or laws or reconcile with verifiable evidence which makes it conjecture, suspect, and unpersuasive.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/senate-pentagon-spending-bill.html?mcubz=3 Just to be clear. Our military is getting a $700 billion budget for FY2018 which is 70% of the double-stacked pallets of $100 bills in the image below. Oh yeah, and a final note, a bureaucracy that receives about $700 billion ANNUALLY can not provide "clean" financial statements that its own internal auditors will approve. This has occurred for the last 17 years. That is, the financial statements are unreliable since the Department of Defense's internal controls over financial reporting have too many material weaknesses to be in conformity with governmental accounting standards. Just wow. http://slideplayer.com/slide/8041902/25/images/8/One+Trillion+dollars+And+finally...+$1+trillion+dollars%E2%80%A6.jpg

Agreed. With his casual racist and divisive remarks, sometimes he's the Grand Wizard. Soon enough, we will learn that the Wizard has no special powers or magic at all; he's a well meaning fraud. He's a normal insecure person (just like everyone else) and feeds his insecurities in a variety of ways. The seemingly endless faux pas and eye-rolling scandals help fuel the national ratings for our American political reality show, "The Apprentice — P.O.T.U.S. Series" starring Donald Trump. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax/files/60/6040d693-a1c0-4f0b-ac41-0c210d508e3a.jpg Hopefully, we will see that the promise of America is never in the President but in the energies and ingenuity of her people. We look to our President to solve our Wizard of Oz like problems and put us on the yellow brick road to prosperity but he can't take that journey for us. He should only create policies that allows everyone reasonable access to that yellow brick road, but he can never void the hard work and sweat equity that success requires as payment. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=85199 It's chilling that Ronald Reagan spoke these words on 11/03/1980 and here we are with bigger government, woefully inadequate political leadership, and more intimidating, worrisome problems on 09/25/2017. Stay tuned for the next episode.

I am not sure that is distinctly Trumpian. This behavior sounds like classic elitism combined with a dash of American materialism to me. Wikipedia Trump is the result of America's cognitive bias about wealth. We assume that wealthy people have a "good" reason why they are wealthy and it must be because of their entrepreneurial ingenuity, wisdom, character and "specialness" that they have jaw-dropping displays of wealth. We also assume that wealthy people are the ones who deserve 1st consideration to the White House because middle-class and poor people are too busy with their nose to the grindstones in the daily rat race to be of much service in government leadership. They aren't special; they're normal and barely keeping their heads above water and making a wave to carry themselves to safety. The Office of the President is reserved for "special" people; typically those "special" people are wealthy or highly connected people who can hob knob with other uppercrust people in Washington. And we are clear that this bias has been unhealthy for our governmental institutions and our broad and personal economy but we don't question our misplaced assumptions about wealth nor do we question why and how we got to a HRC versus Trump election for 2016! True, Trump may be a con-man but he is a savvy con man who has effectively established a bankable brand in the American marketplace because he understands our biases and manipulates them for personal gain. THAT's what successful marketers do! People overlooked his character issues because his alleged wealth as a businessman "MEANS SOMETHING" in a materialistic America. He must be doing something right because his material wealth says so. He is a household name! Furthermore, his "straight shooter" mentality was provocative and a refreshing change for a political climate built on too much political correctness, appeasement, and insincere social niceties to appeal to a broad base. Trump tells it like it is even if his view is shallow, immature, petulant, misguided, sexist or racist. And people reward Trump for this alarming "authenticity" because too many politicians hide their true selves and belief systems behind meticulously constructed semantics and firmly cemented social masks.

I disagree. Propaganda sells belief systems. Our acquisition of attitudes and beliefs comes from several sources but mass media is one of them. Advertisers and mass marketers understand the psychology of the human mind and the importance of making a value proposition based on the belief system of the reader/viewer/consumer. Belief systems are the stories we tell ourselves to define our personal sense of reality. If you understand the belief system (not agree with it but understand it), you can find common ground rather quickly. This is why he who controls the narrative controls the universe. People base their reality on the narrative so creators tend to run the world. Consumers just subsist in it and benefit or suffer from the intended and unintended consequences of all of these amazing creations. I think racists can be just as gullible as religious zealots, I think Democrats can be just as gullible as Republicans. Tap into the belief system and all types of mind boggling manipulations are possible.

Barmar, you have opened up a bevy of issues: America has historically used propaganda rather successfully to fool lower-income and lower class whites into believing that the political platforms were about them when the platforms were really about providing big businesses and "special interests" 1st class access to her institutions (legal, government, political, and educational). When America first was born, we had to worry about busting up trusts to promote the development of capital markets; to stop anti-competitive behavior; and to stop the consolidation of power into a few enterprising families who owned controlling interests in certain industries (e.g. cotton, tobacco, whisky, peanut, steel, oil & gas, utilities). We also focused very heavily on the development of the "public good" such as interstate highways, railroads and national defense. The body politic wanted these public goods too as it promotes jobs, interstate commerce and public safety, but their creation was to fundamentally address a business concern which would eventually trickle down to benefit the body politic and "the masses". Poor whites have constantly thought if they sided with the "business" political party that they would eventually reap the prosperity enjoyed by the upper class. If they would remain patient, they might eventually obtain and retain respectable stable employment and migrate from living in a trailer park to detached housing in a safe, affordable community. But that American dream deferred has become a dream denied. In an unforgiving and uncompromising global economy, the opportunities for greatness in America are slipping further and further away from their grasp. Politicians are no longer pied pipers who can easily play melodic or hypnotic tunes with their magical flutes to woo the body politic into unquestioned submission. The average American knows we aren't in Kansas anymore, they just may not know why! A lot of poor whites are realizing that they and generations before them have been taken for granted and exploited for political gain. They smell a rat. And enter stage left, snake oil salesman who has just the magical flute to lure the rats away from the village and allegedly drain the swamp. Problem is Trump is both the cause and cure.

Yes and when did they discover these attacks and what countermeasures, if any, were taken as a result of this finding? For example, did the Department of Homeland Security's delayed designation of state elections' information technology and communication systems as "critical federal election infrastructure" on 01/06/17 have anything to do with these 21 attacks? See link below. Ambiguity can be hazardous to the body politic and quite advantageous for the PTB. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/06/statement-secretary-johnson-designation-election-infrastructure-critical

True. Then again, there is the 2020 census to get that gerrymandering just right. . . but it's all about legislative control and right now, the Republicans have lots of it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/06/republicans-and-democrats-both-try-to-gerrymander-but-only-one-of-them-is-any-good-at-it/?utm_term=.f13062ba18eb

This is what ticks me off. I wish our federal government would take a more proactive stance on explaining the context of our foreign policy toward Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. I almost get the feeling that our foreign policy gets lost in the news shuffle by more salacious news topics like a teenager found dead in a freezer. Bush labeled Iraq an axis of evil and decimated Iraq for not surrendering weapons of mass destruction it no longer had. That was our pretext. We also eliminated Saddam Hussein under this threat and the world watched one of our biggest and costliest military intelligence failures. Now we have another member of the axis of evil going rogue. After watching what happened to Iraq, we are asking North Korea to stop their nuclear program and be a good neighbor and feel safe while being labeled an axis of evil by the world's largest military? Is that realistic? Russia has basically said, "We condemn North Korea's provocative actions but given the United States' aggressive cowboy diplomacy in the Middle East, we UNDERSTAND why they won't give up their nuclear program". Our cowboy diplomacy doesn't come for free. We have a federal government that spends trillions of dollars annually but refuses to put its foreign policy in a nice concise, transparent, historical context for public consumption. Where are the government officials "breaking down" our position and involvement on this matter to the masses? You won't find them as they believe our foreign policy is too "complicated" for the average American to digest so we don't receive a full and fair "Reader's Digest" version of our approach. Instead, we hear a cacophony of war drums.

Why do you sound so surprised that politicians can rise up against a "tyrannical" Supreme Court that sanctions same-sex marriage which is an affront to the established mores and principles of a Bible Belt South? Didn't a Georgia governor in 1956 suggest that this out of control court would prohibit states from outlawing mixed race marriages? The nerve. . .

Better gerrymandering at the state and local level is a good start!

OK. But if Hillary receives and potentially acts on advice from the First Gentleman ( who used to be a Former President), doesn't that fly in the face of the spirit of the 22nd Amendment? Technically, we didn't elect BC to a 3rd term, but he would just have a potentially material say in White House matters since his capable wife is in the Office of the President. And more likely than not, she will discuss thorny issues with those in her inner circle, including her husband.

Question: Do you honestly think Hillary would have thrown herself into the job with energy and good intent with absolutely no advice or direction from her husband at all? My problem with HRC, besides the character issue of her campaign receiving material support from the Democratic National Committee and never officially apologizing to Bernie Sanders for the lapse of judgment, is that it almost feels like her husband has a chance at 16 years affecting policy at the White House. I am not suggesting that HRC isn't her own woman. I am suggesting that the very fact that husband and wife can vie for the Presidency out of a nation of 330 million people smacks of what is wrong with our political system. HRC had a mentality that she should have ascended to the White House because of her sex, her pedigree, her political clout, and her family name. It's problematic in 30 years when you have the possibilities of: George H.W. Bush (4 years) (1989-1993) George W. Bush (8 years) (2001-2009) Bill Clinton (8 years) (1993-2001) Hillary Clinton (4 years) (2017-2021) Are we a constitutional republic because this Presidential list has dynastic overtones had Hillary won?