HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » RandomAccess » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next »

RandomAccess

Profile Information

Member since: Fri May 12, 2017, 09:00 PM
Number of posts: 5,210

Journal Archives

Those free-riding, lazy Medicaid patients --

POWERFUL short Twitter thread by an MD:

Esther Choo‏ @choo_ek
I presume lots of people have the image of the free-riding, lazy Medicaid patient. I don't know that patient. Here's who I know...

https://twitter.com/choo_ek/status/953641016313069568

UNROLLED: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/953641016313069568.html

The father whose 3 jobs don't include benefits, who refuses my advice that he be hospitalized because he can't miss a day or he will fall behind on rent...

The young woman who gave up her job to care for her disabled brother and elderly parents full time...
The man who stops by triage not to check in, but to share with us (beaming) that he is 1 year abstinent from heroin, on medically assisted treatment, and thriving...

The mother, still stunned from the sudden death of her husband, struggling to care for 3 young kids alone and return to the workforce (and who expresses guilt for taking the time to attend to her own needs)...

The veteran (~1 in 10 are on Medicaid) with combat-related conditions, including PTSD, that will be devastating with a lapse in care...

Oh my. Maybe we will have a Govt shutdown.

Or maybe Republicons will blink??

@RonWyden
I will vote NO on a spending bill that fails to protect children at every turn and does not permanently protect Dreamers in Oregon and across the country.
https://twitter.com/RonWyden/status/953771705645850624

@SenatorShaheen
I will vote no on the House CR. This is no way to run a government. Time to keep our promises. Congress must fund a response to the opioid epidemic, children’s health care, community health centers, end the defense sequester & fix DACA. These short-term bills hurt our country.
https://twitter.com/SenatorShaheen/status/953771106242097153


@PuestoLoco
John Kelly will shut government down —
“Kelly has taken an increasingly aggressive...role in the immigration negotiations, calling lawmakers & meeting with White House aides daily. He has ‘very strong [white ethnocentric] feelings’.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-tense-profane-white-house-meeting-on-immigration/2018/01/

https://twitter.com/PuestoLoco/status/953665481147330561

With the Bannon Subpoenas, I just have to post this again

Because it's soooooooo delicious.


John Lewis today on The View - very moving

It's not that I've never seen him tell his story before, but for some reason it was especially moving today. He was in an extremely sober mood. Somber, even.

I think Whoopi asked him if how he dealt with his anger, and hatred after being beaten like that.

As most people probably know, MLK, Jr preached love, not hatred and fear. And Lewis was eloquent on the subject. He related that MLK said hatred is too big a burden to carry.

But what I wrote down and wanted to share here is this, which he said is his philosophy. It's so succinct, so precise, such a clear and unambiguous statement of priorities that I had to adopt it as my own (and I think I'll go add it to my signature line):

When you see something that's not right, not fair, not just, you have a moral obligation to DO something.

How Republican Lawmakers Responded to Trumps Vulgar Immigration Remarks

More Republican Senators than I thought denounced -- or at least criticized Trump's racist remarks, and many who didn't say anything. It's the "sidesteppers" who are particularly disgusting.


How Republican Lawmakers Responded to Trump’s Vulgar Immigration Remarks
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/12/us/politics/republican-statements-trump-shithole.html
By THOMAS KAPLAN, EMILY BAUMGAERTNER and ALICIA PARLAPIANO UPDATED JAN. 14, 2018 12:45 P.M.

Reports that President Trump referred to African nations as “shithole countries” and disparaged Haitians during an immigration meeting on Thursday prompted outcry from some lawmakers, but his comments were followed by notable silence from others. Here’s how Republicans in the House leadership, the Senate and other lawmakers who attended the meeting have responded:

Denounced the President’s Comments
Some lawmakers specifically criticized the president, while others countered the sentiment of his remarks.

snip

Sidestepped or Did Not Denounce the President’s Comments
A handful of Republican lawmakers either sidestepped the controversy or did not directly denounce the president’s comments. Others disputed whether Mr. Trump made the vulgar remark at all, creating differing accounts from inside the room.

Senator Bill Cassidy La.
“Whether he said it or not, that’s not the issue. What about the higher problem of what do we do about border security and DACA?” »


Senator Ted Cruz Tex.
“I don’t know what was said and what wasn’t said. I can tell you the approach that I’ve tried to take in Washington is to stay out of the nastiness and the attacks and the ‘he said, she said,’ and the insults, and try to focus on substance, try to focus on results, delivering results.” »


Senator Rand Paul Ky.
“I think it’s unfair to sort of draw conclusions from a remark that I think wasn’t constructive is the least we can say, and I think it’s unfair then to all of the sudden, paint him, ‘Oh, well, he's a racist.’ ”


Senator David Perdue Ga. (WAS AT THE MEETING)
“I’m telling you he did not use that word, George, and I’m telling you it’s a gross misrepresentation,” he said, responding to George Stephanopoulos of ABC News.

In a joint statement, Mr. Perdue and Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas had previously said, “We do not recall the president saying these comments specifically.” »

Senator Tom Cotton Ark. (WAS AT THE MEETING)
“I did not hear derogatory comments about individuals or persons, no.” »


Representative Mario Diaz-Balart Fla. (WAS AT THE MEETING)
“There are almost 800,000 young DACA beneficiaries who will face imminent deportation in March if we do not reach a deal. I will not be diverted from all possible efforts to continue negotiating to stop the deportations.” »

Seth Abramson on how Stormy Daniels impacts the Russia investigation -- good stuff

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson
(THREAD) The BREAKING NEWS that Trump cheated on Melania with porn star "Stormy Daniels"—then used his lawyer as a "fixer" to pay six-figure hush-money a few weeks before the 2016 election—is relevant to the Russia inquiry. I hope you'll read on to see how, and share with others.
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/951918597076602880

ALSO:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/951918597076602880.html

1/ First, here's a link to an article about this breaking news in THE HILL (the news was originally reported by THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, which is behind a paywall):

2/ Second, understand that I'd don't care about Trump's private life—his sex life or otherwise—except to the extent it affects national security. Unfortunately, when you're a public figure—particularly the POTUS—the possibility of blackmail is real and a national security threat.

3/ Third, understand that this breaking news comes from a conservative publication whose editorial page is wildly pro-Trump. This is a real, well-sourced story, by all accounts. Trump will not be able to claim that this report comes from CNN, MSNBC, or another "fake news" outlet.

4/ Fourth, understand that not only will Trump, Cohen, and Daniels deny the report, but that's the *point* of a) paying off Daniels, and b) Trump using his lawyer to do it. Cohen has attorney-client privilege; Daniels fears a lawsuit, any threats Cohen made, and losing her money.

5/ The reason this matters is that after BUZZFEED published the Steele Dossier, those of us who agreed with the FBI and CIA that it appeared credible on its face and came from a credible source—the former top Russianist at MI6—were told it *couldn't* be true for several reasons.

6/ The main reason Trump's allies said the 35-page dossier had to be false is because they insisted that its *first page*—which alleged that the Kremlin was blackmailing Trump—couldn't be true and wasn't true. All of the reasons they gave just died—all at once—with this WSJ news.

7/ They said he couldn't be blackmailed. Why? He loves bad press. Or has no shame. Or everyone already knows all his dirt. Or his wives had implicitly allowed him to cheat (a tacit Steele Dossier allegation). Or people feared lawsuits. Or him. So don't worry about it, they said.

8/ But now we know that Trump *can* be blackmailed. And he can be blackmailed *easily*. Stormy Daniels, a porn star, got $130,000 from a man who hardly parted with a dime to become POTUS—and apparently got that money as soon as she asked for it. Imagine what the Kremlin could do?

9/ And in fact, this isn't even the first hush-money the WSJ has reported Trump paid in the run-up to the election.

Not even the first hush-money Trump paid to cover up *cheating on Melania with someone in the adult media industry*.

See this story:
The National Enquirer Covered Up Story of Donald Trump's Extramarital Affair: Report
The National Enquirer bought the rights to a former Playboy model's story about her 2006 affair with Donald Trump and declined to publish it
http://time.com/4559610/donald-trump-national-enquirer-karen-mcdougal/

10/ That's right: Trump appears to have used a pal at the National Enquirer to pay $150,000 to cover up *another* affair. So now we're looking at $280,000—over a quarter of a million dollars—in the run-up to the election. And that's just what we know of.
National Enquirer protected Trump from model's affair claim
The owner allegedly convinced the model to sign a life-long contract prohibiting her from sharing the story.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/national-enquirer-protected-trump-model-affair-claim-article-1.2858989

11/ This tells us the Stormy Daniels incident isn't a one-off incident—Trump has multiple skeletons in his closet, and he can be blackmailed over them as POTUS, and if blackmailed he will engage in clandestine payments to ensure the blackmail material never sees the light of day.

12/ Trump defenders also said Trump didn't care about sex claims, because everyone already knew his business and he had no shame and he had an understanding with his wives and he thinks Americans like a man who has attractive mistresses and—you get the point. But all that was BS.

13/ But Trump defenders *also* said the Steele Dossier's claims about events at the Ritz Moscow in November 2013 couldn't be accurate because (a) Donald Trump is very careful about ensuring no one can get blackmail on him, and (b) there's no reason to think he'd cheat on Melania.

14/ But of course those defenses are gone now, too—Donald Trump took no care whatsoever to ensure no one would be able to blackmail him, other than waiting until blackmail demands were made and then acceding to them. And apparently his marriage is no obstacle to his malfeasance.

15/ Trump pleaded the Fifth Amendment nearly 100 times *in a single deposition* to avoid admitting to adultery—that's how scared he is of his adulteries being found out. So what could Putin get from him if he had *embarrassing video* of adulterous conduct?

‘If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth?’ Trump said — years after invoking it himself
Trump invoked the Fifth Amendment in 1990 during his bitter and public divorce from Ivana Trump.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/23/if-youre-innocent-why-are-you-taking-the-fifth-trump-said-years-after-invoking-it-himself/

16/ Remember that Clinton was impeached for Perjury. And what did he lie about? Adultery. So yes, Trump's adulteries are very serious, especially when—as was *never* the case with Clinton—the CIA told the BBC that the Kremlin has tapes of these adulteries.
Trump 'compromising' claims: How and why did we get here?
Paul Wood examines the background and fallout concerning the allegations about the president-elect.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427

17/ What we have here, too, is Trump using his personal lawyer to engage in illicit behavior: specifically, to cover up the sort of conduct Trump has repeatedly pleaded the Fifth Amendment—the right against self-incrimination—to hide. Guess what—the Steele Dossier says this, too.

18/ The Steele Dossier's claim that Trump uses Cohen as a fixer for illicit conduct are now confirmed. And Cohen's claims on his own and Trump's involvement in a 2015 Trump Tower Moscow deal and a 2017 Moscow-orchestrated sanctions deal are now *all* thrown into serious question.

19/ And the WALL STREET JOURNAL story now *requires* that the media ask Trump day after day—until they/we get an answer—who else has he paid, who else has tried to get him to pay, and who else could one day try to *make* him pay. We've a right to know if POTUS can be blackmailed.

20/ It's time for an end to claims that this is "salacious" material we can't discuss or that these are "private" issues or that the fact Daniels can't and Cohen won't speak about this means the payment never happened. Trump can be BLACKMAILED—and it's a national security threat.

PS/ I'm hearing from folks involved in the adult film industry—certified Twitter accounts—that $130,000 would be considered a lot of money in an industry where most workers are wildly underpaid. So please don't think the amount of cash involved here suggests the scandal is small.

Trump's not playing to his base, he IS that base - -

Rev. Al Sharpton just now on MSNBC.

Maybe that's putting it in a way that most journalists, pundits, and others -- esp. politicians, perhaps -- can comprehend. I am SO sick of them expecting that at any moment he'll be "normal," or will pivot, or deserves the benefit of the doubt EVER, under ANY circumstances.

He is a racist. He is a fascist. He wants to be a dictator / oligarch. He is a kleptocrat and is violating our laws and Constitution daily. When people call for his impeachmet, it's NOT because they "don't like him," it's because we recognize that he is harming the country, the government, the world, and NO ONE has the right to do that -- no matter who elected them, but CERTAINLY not when only 30-something percent of voters who were responsible, and those in just a handful of key states thanks to Russia.

My vote for Winning the Internet today on #Shitholes

Grant Hamilton @Gramiq
Genius. Until today, if you Googled “Trump” and “shithole” all you got were hotel reviews.


https://twitter.com/Gramiq/status/951650901403619328

Did you know this about McCabe?? We hear Trump's complaints -- but

he HAD no conflict of interest whatsoever. And now we're losing him, probably because of Trump's harassment. DAMN.

FBI ruled McCabe had no conflict of interest in Clinton probe
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/367701-fbi-ruled-mccabe-had-no-conflict-of-interest-in-clinton-probe?__twitter_impression=true

The FBI said in documents released Friday that Deputy Director Andrew McCabe did not have any role in the probe into Hillary Clinton's private email server while his wife ran as a Democrat for state office in Virginia.

The documents note that Jill McCabe announced her candidacy for state Senate in Virginia in March 2015, while Andrew McCabe's role as deputy director started in February 2016, three months after his wife lost her electoral bid.

Andrew McCabe had asked ethics officials if his wife's candidacy would lead to a potential conflict of interest while he was working as an assistant director at the FBI Field Office in Washington, D.C., the documents show.

“From the first contemplation that his wife would run for office in Virginia, [McCabe] sought out and consulted with ethics officers, which included briefings on the Hatch Act,” the records state.

McAuliffe on Hardball -- WOW

He was on FIRE. Said all the right things about Trump and how to fight him.

And he has in incredible record in Virginia.

He's also the guy who's responsible for paper ballots in VA (which helped get ALL the massive turnout votes counted).

AFAIC, he ought to run for President.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next »