Derp.
Better a useful tool than a useless fool....fool. (and every sentence needs a verb, Bob. When you can't even write in what you claim is your native language, you might refrain from insulting those who can. This is why graduating the 8th grade isn't enough education. It makes you an ignorant idiot no reasonable person will listen to.)

First, Open the Books is not a trustworthy or unbiased source of information. OpenTheBooks.com was founded in 2011 (to try to embarrass Obama) by its chief executive officer Adam Andrzejewski, an Illinois entrepreneur and past Republican candidate for governor, with former United States Republican Senator Dr. Tom Coburn as the honorary chairman. It's highly partisan and biased.


Most of those vehicles and weapons we did leave/are leaving, like the cash, were in the hands of the Afghanis when Trump sounded retreat last spring. To "secure/remove/destroy" them we either have to stay and support the government (too late, would have needed to start before releasing the Taliban's army last March), or go to war with the Afghan government and seize it by force, they wouldn't just hand it back...duh.
We aren't "leaving them behind", we gave them to the government that Trump abandoned last spring when he released 5000 hard core Taliban fighters from prison (more than the original Daesh) with no conditions (and without consulting with the Afghan government) and allowed them free reign to destroy the Afghan government while we sat by, not even really preparing to leave but not helping the Afghanis....and he apparently told them they could do whatever they want except attack the retreating Americans, and they did....but sure, that's Biden's fault. 🤦‍♂️

Biden failed to be prepared for the speed of the fall of their government, a failure to be sure, but Trump all but ensured it would be fast and that we would be unprepared. Biden should have been evacuating our allies and helpers since Jan 21....Trump should have started the evacuation of Afghanis in March 2020 but instead his administration wouldn't even consider letting them come to America, so there was no process or staffed department when Biden took over and stopped Trump's attempted civil war and dealt with the out of control Trumpidemic, just a round file and a blind eye for all refugee applications. Recently Biden's administration changed this, creating programs and staffing to accommodate the refugees and convincing our allies to accept many in Europe, something Trump didn't even try.

Trump didn't do anything to get this equipment out of the country for a year either, did he? His plan was to be out 100 days after he left office, but nothing was in the works to make it happen...Too busy campaigning, pushing fraud frauds, and starting coups.

Try again.

As an aside, the last time this was brought up it was in the late 30's.

"Aside from President Franklin Roosevelt’s ill-fated threat in 1937 to add new Justices who sympathized with his policies to the Supreme Court, the number of Justices on the Court has remained stable.

Roosevelt was particularly upset by the Court’s 1935 decision in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States. The unanimous decision invalidated a key part of the National Industrial Recovery Act, one of the projects passed during FDR's 100-day program in 1933. President Roosevelt did not mince words a week later when he talked to the press. “You see the implications of the decision. That is why I say it is one of the most important decisions ever rendered in this country,” Roosevelt told reporters on May 31, 1935. “We have been relegated to the horse-and-buggy definition of interstate commerce.”

As Roosevelt started his second term, he used one of his fireside chats in March 1937 to make his case to the American people for adding more Justices to the Supreme Court who agreed with him. “This plan of mine is not attacking of the court; it seeks to restore the court to its rightful and historic place in our system of constitutional government and to have it resume its high task of building anew on the Constitution ‘a system of living law.’ The court itself can best undo what the court has done,” Roosevelt said.

The legislation struggled to gain traction and it was opposed not only by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes but also by Justice Louis Brandeis and members of Roosevelt’s Democratic Party."

Technically correct: the Constitution does not provide specific details of how Supreme Court appointments are to be made. The fine details have been left up to the Senate and Executive (to a lesser degree, I believe). The executive branch has the right to nominate someone to the court, the Senate then has a duty to serve as a check on that. Technically there's nothing in the Constitution stating you're not allowed to advance a SC nominee weeks before an election.

It IS however, a naked partisan power grab. In 2016 one party argued, 8-9 months prior to the election, that their political opponents should not be able to have their SC nominee even get a hearing prior to the election. There was no actual precedent for this, but they insisted that the will of the electorate must be respected, and that we therefore must await the results of the election. So we did. Now 4 years later, the same party that insisted on respecting the will of the electorate in 2016 is taking precisely the opposite stance. Because last time they could potentially gain from the delay, and this time they almost certainly won't.

The CNN guy was correct: it is NOT unconstitutional to ram through a SC appointment. The authors of the Constitution didn't see fit to include that level of granularity in how the process would work. There is a process to clear this all up though: let's amend the Constitution! That's a super American thing to do! Let's establish, once and for all, the specific rules of the process. Then there won't be any back-and-forth like this about when a nominee can move ahead and when they can't. Nice and tidy.

The question then becomes: at what point in a President's term do they no longer get to nominate a replacement to the Supreme Court, when an election is pending? Should there in fact be no limit (like prior precedent, or lack thereof), and you believe that Merrick Garland should have been allowed hearings, and by extension the Amy Barrett hearings now are legit? Personally, I say we establish a cut-off to spare the political arguments in the future. Let's make it 100 days prior to the election: it's nice round number, bit over 3 months (so time for meaningful hearings and background checks), and should be after or at the end of primary season most cycles. That would of course invalidate both the 2016 and 2020 schemes by the Republicans, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

What's your take, Bob? How should this be handled? You posted the video, so I assume you have a stance on the issue?

Your video, 100 Days of Dance 2 "Electric Boogaloo", has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

If Comey was fired after the investigation was over, then nobody would have been upset. It is the timing that upsets people, and should upset those on the right too who want to put the Russian thing behind them.

There is clear evidence that Russia interfered with the election. Now does that mean, Trump, or people closely connected to him and his campaign, were directly involved? No. And most liberals would be okay if that was the end result of an independent investigation, so long as we found the means and methods of the interference and were able to learn actions to prevent further interference with future elections from any outside nation. However, the Republicans refuse to take the investigation into Russian interference seriously. The House investigation led by a guy who was on Trump's transition team, the Senate investigation seems more concerned about who leaked info about Trump than the fact a foreign threat to the security of the United States interfered with the election. They worry about leaks in a White House that looks at top secret information in a very public place, but the actions of a hostile state doesn't seem to concern them like it should.

Now we got Comey, who Trump and his people praised up and down during the campaign and soon after election, being fired right after he says he's going to devote more resources to the Russian investigation. We got a President who broke clear ethical rules (though perhaps no laws) in asking if he was under investigation, in a call which may have been about if he'd keep Comey on. Even the hint of Clinton being involved in even a far less serious offence made the right shout "lock her up", but for Trump the reaction seems to be "he's the greatest President ever, let me suck the chrome off his cock".

He, and the Republicans keep trying to distract the American people from the Russia investigation, which let's remind everyone, is mostly about the interference, and only possibly about his administration's complacency. It is more about the actions of a hostile state than him. It's almost as if they know the Russians interfered, and don't care because they won. If Democrats had won, thanks to the actions of an outside state, especially one as hostile to the US as the Russians, and there was even less proof that Clinton or her team may have been involved, the size of the committee and the depth of the investigation would be many times bigger than it is now. The outrage on the right would be larger than the outrage on the left as it stands now.

And, then right after the firing, Trump goes the extra step of letting only Russian official state media in on the meetings between him and Russian officials. He won't release visitor logs to the White House. He won't release visitor logs to the far more accessible Mar-a-logo, where he looks at top secret documents in the wide open. (Side note, he's cost the American tax payers about a 1/4 of what Obama's vacations cost in 8 years, in just 100 days, and all those people who bitched about Obama vacations, including Trump who complained about how much Obama played golf, are perfectly fine with what Trump has cost the American tax payers in his vacations.) So without those logs, and those of Trump Tower, we can't be sure there aren't more clandestine meetings like that blatant one in the White House. The refuse ANY degree of transparency. Again, if this was Clinton, the right would be demanding she be sent to Guantanamo Bay, and that's only a slight exaggeration, either way they'd demand she be locked up for the very things Trump is accused of.

Then there's his clear violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, and the people who claim to be all about the Constitution, saying how the left have zero respect for it, who were in a furor over Clinton's possible violation of it with her foundation, don't care about Trump's violation of it. Suddenly, the Emoluments Clause, doesn't matter to the same people who cited it as a concern during Clinton's campaign.

Also, keep in mind, he made the decision to fire him, before the reasons why letters were penned, and were written to help defend it. Further, as pointed out, his own letter was about him, the guy is such a clear narcissist, he could have been like Sanders and I'd personally oppose him. Plus, Trump didn't have the guts to let Comey know in person, Comey had to find out on TV and think it was a practical joke. Again, if Clinton fired somebody like that, the right would be in arms, calling her chicken, and saying a real man would fire another person in person.

TLDR: If Trump fired Comey after the investigation into a hostile state's interference with the election, nobody would have cared, in fact he may have gotten mad props for letting the investigation go on without interference. It's the timing that is suspect.

@enoch, I'm going to be blunt about this. I don't support the US swinging its dick around the world, and may Hillary would be worse than Trump, but at least she's less likely to go to war because a foreign leader said something mean in a tweet.

But honestly, (and it is fucking depressing that we've come to this) that is no longer my primary concern.

Yeah, wars suck and the apparent glee with which the US enters them is frankly, abhorrent.

Let's say we can perfectly predict the future. If elected, Hillary will start a few wars, probably cosy up to wall street, and do some other generally sketchy shit.

I'd still choose her over Trump who in his first 100 days, has almost started a war, cosied up to wall street and done some insanely sketchy shit.

But at least Hillary wouldn't actively roll back the few fucking paltry steps the US has taken towards lowering its climate footprint.

And @radx, yeah.... the whole election sucked. But Bernie lost.... even without all the DNC bullshit, he was never going to win the Democratic nomination.

Doesn't absolve each and every eligible voter in the US who either didn't vote or voted Trump.

It has nothing to do with purity and everything to do with pragmatism. Not that the US is anything resembling a democracy these days anyway....

It seems that way, but that's only true for idiots that, as he said, would have voted for him if he blatantly murdered random strangers in the street. Under no circumstances would those people vote for Warren, even though they totally agree with her positions.

Normal, reasonable people, the kind that would vote for Warren, still consider many things as disquaifiers, including many things Trump has done in his first 100 days. We would have voted to impeach over the investigations of Trump and his campaign, and a vote of no confidence, halting any of his plans until the investigations are concluded, because he might be a foreign agent.

I think he won because the DNC chose a candidate that was 100% unacceptable to Republicans, or right learners, or centrists, or real progressives (and she personally blew it with pandering bullshit obfuscation like "I support $15 an hour,..................... but I don't support a $15 an hour minimum wage"), and totally screwed over and dismissed independents in the process, ensuring they wouldn't get the votes she needed.

Your video, What Doesn't Kill You Makes You 100 Days Stronger, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Congratulations! Your video, Donald Trump's First 100 Days In Office - The Simpsons, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 99 Badge!

Your video, Donald Trump's First 100 Days In Office - The Simpsons, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I've been looking for a way to convey they first 100 days of the Trump administration. Useful

Your video, A Closer Look: Trump's First 100 Days, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

David Sirota has a devastating new piece out: Hillary Clinton And Wall Street: Financial Industry May Control Retirement Savings In A Clinton Administration.

The proposal would require workers and employers to put a percentage of payroll into individual retirement accounts “to be invested well in pooled plans run by professional investment managers,” as James put it. In other words, individual voluntary 401(k)s would be replaced by a single national system, and much of the mandated savings would flow to Wall Street, where companies like Blackstone could earn big fees off the assets. And because of a gap in federal anti-corruption rules, there would be little to prevent the biggest investment contracts from being awarded to the biggest presidential campaign donors.

Releasing it in smaller packets not only makes those smaller packets easier to understand but it also defeats the "100 day rule", ie the time it takes for any news to be "not news" and every loses interest. If the whole thing was released at once, the whole thing would already be a small column in the page three.

I love how Teds' introduced as a The Failed rock star"...That's a fucking load of horse-shit, the man tours more than 100 days out of the year and packs houses!

Who is this Ed cunt, anyhow? what a fucking tool...Upvoted for Ted and whatever rant he threw down-Ted may be manic, bi-polar, WGAF he's full of way less shit than this draining douchenozzle-Sorry for the D-V on your comment EDB, I did not realize you were talking about Piers Morgan-