Maraya1969
Maraya1969's JournalJust thought of this song and how it always gave me hope. Maybe it's right for now.
Not exactly the same but the gist is.
This is the portrait of Donald Trump that his charity bought for $20,000
In 2007, Donald Trump bought a six-foot-tall portrait of himself at a fundraiser auction, and paid with $20,000 from his namesake charity, the Donald J. Trump Foundation.
In recent weeks, The Washington Post has reported other instances in which Trump may have violated those rules.
He used $258,000 from the foundation to pay off legal settlements that involved his for-profit businesses. He spent $12,000 from the charity's coffers to buy a football helmet signed by then-Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow.
And he spent $10,000 to buy another portrait of himself in 2014. In that case, Trump paid $10,000 for the portrait. It was later found hanging on the wall of a sports bar at Trump's Doral golf resort.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/11/01/this-is-the-portrait-of-himself-that-donald-trump-bought-with-20000-from-his-charity/?utm_term=.1f5775af6d42
So I go to the lawyer with my mom who has Aphasia to try and take care of this trust issue
that has been a problem between me and my brother for 4 years now. That is when since she gave him power of attorney after her stroke. I don't want money, just transparency which my brother completely refused for about 3 years and then, after this lawyer sent him a letter he gives me bits and pieces of information and there are always things missing.
So I asked my mom if we could change something legally to force him to keep everything transparent.
That is why we went to the attorney today.
So we go in and mom talks but then has trouble so I tell him the issue and then he says he thinks that she needs to get a note from her doctor saying she is capable of making this decision and then he says it is to make sure I am not manipulating her.
She has APHASIA! She is not stupid. She understands everything that is said!
She still works at her church thrift store on Saturdays and she still plays Bridge. She lives alone, cooks, drives and just made another knitted Christmas stocking for her newest grand baby.
And this asshole wants her to go to her doctor to get a note saying she has enough marbles to make a fucking decision!
I've read about people treating people with disabilities and if they are dumb or mentally challenged.
So we left, kind of with the agreement that she will see a doctor to get a fucking note.
We both were upset about him asking her to get a note saying the she was capable of making a decision!
I want to write and email but I'm not sure how to go about it. God forbid the asshole thinks I am trying to manipulate anything!
Serial killers and trophy hunters like TRUMP'S KIDS are " terrifyingly similar" Please tell people!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ingrid-newkirk/the-pastime-of-psychopath_b_8084410.html(EDIT: - This article is about TROPHY hunters. It is not about people hunting deer or anything else that is hunted for food. I see a huge difference between the two and the article specifically talks about the ones that fly to exotic lands to kill for the sake of killing. I do not judge people for hunting like my grandfather's hunted and I realize that if you eat meat you are eating something that has been killed. THIS ARTICLE IS IS ABOUT SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!)
Serial killing and trophy hunting are terrifyingly similar. As wildlife researcher and author Gareth Patterson* points out, both types of killers often immerse themselves in violent imagery. Hunting magazines are designed to titillate hunters and help fuel violent fantasies of stalking and killing prey. They are full of pictures of hunters standing victoriously over animals they have slain, the obvious message: Kill something—or, rather, someone—and you, too, can achieve greatness.
Patterson notes that both types of killers enjoy the excitement of planning their kills and building anticipation while they stalk their eventual victims more than the actual act of killing. And how many times have you heard hunters say, “It’s more about the hunt than the kill”? They describe in detail their love of being outdoors, seeing their intended prey for the first time, tracking them down, cornering them and conquering them. Perhaps, like many serial killers, they’ve actually become addicted to the adrenalin rush they get from controlling their victims’ fates.
According to John Douglas, one of the FBI’s first criminal profilers, serial killers who take souvenirs from their victims do so to prolong their violent fantasies. Some take jewelry or locks of hair, while others take photographs or body parts. Trophy hunters proudly display their victims’ severed animal heads on their walls and share photos of themselves on social media grinning beside their corpses. Like serial killers, trophy hunters are compelled to prove their status as a person who has power over life and death. Between hunts, both value their souvenirs as a way to remember the power they once held over another living being.
It is disgusting what trump's people are saying out loud. Warming this is offensive
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/carl-paladino-trump-new-york-co-chair-causes-outrage-with-obama-comments/Trump's N.Y. co-chair causes outrage with Obama comments
I'm not going to put the comments here. What is important is people are saying these repulsive things out in the open now that asshole elect is "leader" I'm sure people like this have said this crap in private before
I can't believe the worms are crawling through the woodwork.
I specifically remember watching Wisconsin taking a vote to abolish unions without
the Democrats who had left the state specifically to stop the vote. What the republicans did was illegal and unconstitutional and yet they got away with it. I am speaking of a different situation where the senate has not fulfilled their duties, (regarding the Merritt Garland nomination) and the possible remedies for that non-action.
EDIT to add that I found the law that they ignored in a NPR article
"Republicans hold a 19-14 majority in the state Senate, but they need at least one Democrat to be present before taking a vote on the bill."
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/17/133847336/wis-democratic-lawmakers-flee-to-prevent-vote
The WI senate took the vote anyway, while one of the members was reading aloud about the illegality of it! They just ignored that and voted anyway. And that vote took and no one fought about the illegality of it afterward
Can anyone find this video? It may have been on a live feed. I've looked but found nothing
Also, there are others who agree with me that the president has the right constitutionally to appoint a Supreme court judge if the Senate refuses to act.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-can-appoint-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court-if-the-senate-does-nothing/2016/04/08/4a696700-fcf1-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html?utm_term=.a821fc065048
Obama can appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court if the Senate does nothing
"The Constitution glories in its ambiguities, however, and it is possible to read its language to deny the Senate the right to pocket veto the president’s nominations. Start with the appointments clause of the Constitution. It provides that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint .?.?. Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.” Note that the president has two powers: the power to “nominate” and the separate power to “appoint.” In between the nomination and the appointment, the president must seek the “Advice and Consent of the Senate.” What does that mean, and what happens when the Senate does nothing?
In most respects, the meaning of the “Advice and Consent” clause is obvious. The Senate can always grant or withhold consent by voting on the nominee. The narrower question, starkly presented by the Garland nomination, is what to make of things when the Senate simply fails to perform its constitutional duty.
It is altogether proper to view a decision by the Senate not to act as a waiver of its right to provide advice and consent. A waiver is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. As the Supreme Court has said, “?‘No procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional right,’ or a right of any other sort, ‘may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.’?”
The reason is this thread where every keep telling me that the president cannot appoint a Supreme Court justice without the consent and advise of the senate. I say that they have given their advise and consent by ignoring it and refusing to vote on it. It may be a stretch but if someone can find that video of those WI state reps voting illegally to abolish unions it will show that republicans do this shit all the time and why the hell can't we? This Supreme Court appointment is so vital considering what can happen in the next 4 years I believe certain rules need to be viewed at a different angle.
If the interpretation of the constitution may not be that a stone walled senate gives permission for the president to appoint the nominee then let the 2017 supreme court vote on it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8392563
EDIT - I have ADD and when I don't take my medicine for a while I write things that are obviously not clear and give the wrong impression. I apologize. Please bear with me. BUT I must add that my ideas are not new or different from others much more qualified than me. I may have not explained them as clearly as I could but nevertheless they are founded on good principle.
I am trying to make the point that the new 2017 Supreme court will immediately be broken down if President Obama cannot appoint Merrick Garland because trump will put up some narcissist and the republicans will immediately confirm him. Therefore I think in these unusual and dangerous circumstance that the constitution can and should be viewed from a different angle. Even if they can remove the justice after 2017 it will create a problem for them and stall them from appointment another justice.
If President Obama does not appoint the next Supreme court justice we will have a right winged
crazy person taking this spot in 2017. Someone who will vote to kill Roe V Wade and every other good thing this country has. The person will be a racist and greedy maleficent person just like Trump
Even if the rat bastard republicans stand watch in congress so he can't appoint one on recess he can appoint one with an executive power. Let them fight it next year. This is an extraordinary situation.
Or can someone pull the fire alarm in the House and he can do the appointment right then? (j/k but not)
The right has deceived, blocked, lied, stolen and been malicious and greedy and we need to do something to fight it.
I am sick of Democrats always following the rules. It's gotten us right where we are.
Keith Olberman's Talk today is great! We must continue to resist and resist
We need to start winning the next election now! And signing people up to vote and calling people on the phone is not enough. We, as Democrats need to consistently point out what and idiot Trump is and what idiot ideas the republicans have.
And add from me.....If you don't have a Twitter account please get one. You can Tweet directly from here but sometimes the length is to great. All you have to do is go to the page and then hope on Tinyurl.com and it will greatly shorten the url.
We need to flood social media with the damn truth for a change.
Sorry I went on.....Here's Keith
This has probably been posted before but it really helps me understand how republicans have become
so stupid. I am always posting links about the studies that show how conservatives and racists have lower IQ's but it seems like the GOP has used it and encouraged it. There is much more at the link and I have picked out various paragraphs
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/the-birth-of-the-stupid-p_b_10127988.html
Of course, “stupid” is subjective. But by most standards, Republicans fit the bill. In September, Public Policy Polling found that “66% of [Donald] Trump’s supporters believe that Obama is a Muslim... 61% think Obama was not born in the United States.” The same poll found that 54 percent of all Republicans believed the President to be a Muslim. (In September Donald Trump suggested Obama is a Muslim.)
-----------------------
It wasn’t always like this. Fifty years ago, Republicans seemed wrongheaded but intelligent. What has happened to the Grand Old Party? Its transition to the stupid party had four stages:
1. Republicans adopted an anti-intellectual strategy. Political historians have noted the long-term political consequences of Richard Nixon’s southern strategy which peeled Southern white voters — particularly evangelical Christians — away from the Democratic Party. What hasn’t received as much attention is the fact that southern evangelicals are not intellectual:..................................
In September, writing in the Daily Beast Ana Marie Cox observed, “Trump and [Ben] Carson are winning a huge slice of the GOP base because of [their] prideful ignorance, which to voters signifies not just a rejection of the establishment or elites but a release from the hard work of having to think.”
----------------------------------------------------
2. Republicans accepted racism. When the GOP adopted the southern strategy, they tacitly accepted racism. With Trump this racism has come out in the open.
Writing in Psychology Today, David Niose linked anti-intellectualism and racism:
Critically thinking individuals recognize racism as wrong and undesirable, even if they aren’t yet able to eliminate every morsel of bias from their own psyches or from social institutions. An anti-intellectual society, however, will have large swaths of people who are motivated by fear, susceptible to tribalism and simplistic explanations, incapable of emotional maturity, and prone to violent solutions.
-------------------
Since 1874 an elephant has been the Republican symbol. A better symbol for the current Republican Party would be the mushroom: voters who are kept in the dark and fed bullshit.
The Daily Show - Trump Lets the Truth Come Out Post-Election
&t=35sProfile Information
Member since: Tue Oct 12, 2004, 11:32 PMNumber of posts: 22,479
