Trump just lost his $100 million defamation suit against his niece, 3 reporters, and The NY Times for exposing the decades of tax fraud he and his father engaged in to build their fortune (as well as redlining) that got them a Pulitzer. 😂

The suit was so frivolous he has to pay all their attorney fees because….get this…his lawsuit was trying to go after them for what is clearly PROTECTED FIRST AMENDMENT SPEECH! Trump absolutely HATES paying lawyers.

So much for his public (but not tried in court because it’s nonsense) defense that his trials are about first amendment protected speech which he reveres….but clearly only for himself.

At some point, he should realize he hasn’t won in court in years and isn’t going to win any of his criminal trials either. His lawyers are all getting disbarred and put in prison, which should be a good indicator of the quality of their legal advice. Never hire YES men to be your lawyers…often your lawyer’s job is to tell you NO!

As a bonus, filings indicate Trump inflated his net worth by 50%, but I think that’s minimizing his exaggeration since in some cases like Maralago he was claiming in sworn financial documents it was a single family residence he could sell for $750 million but in reality it’s valued by the county at $19 million and is only zoned as a social club, not a residence. D’oh! How funny will it be when he can’t come up with the $250 million judgement even after selling his interest in all his properties. He already can’t pay his criminal attorneys and judgements…he couldn’t even come up with $200k bail, he needed a bond!

As a second bonus, the case to disqualify him on the 14th in Michigan has been filed. It’s a winner. But by all means, don’t let that convince you to stop supporting him blindly. We want him to be the nominee, it’s a guaranteed sweep for Democrats if he is.

Proud Boy Joseph Biggs is going to be standing back and standing by for 17 years! He should have gotten 30 with a terrorism enhancement, but his Trump appointed judge felt sorry for him. Cried a river at sentencing. 😂

😂 In Trumps deposition in NY he blamed all the fraud his company committed on his son Eric (omitting Don Jr who was clearly in charge during his presidency)…not sure how he thinks that’s a defense, Eric and Don Jr only ran it (on paper) after 2017, but the crimes charged go back decades.
He said he just didn’t have time to run his businesses, but must have forgotten he had plenty of time to fly to different states (or countries) to play golf at least 298 times during his tenure (at a Cost to Taxpayers of About $144,000,000 according to the GAO)
So, he blames his dumb son for absolutely no defense, just as deflection that reminds everyone what an absentee “always on vacation” president he was. That’s the loyalty he has for others. This is you guy, this you pick.

Yes, Republicans are hypocrites, but so are the Dems if they aren't willing to wait for the process to finish before insisting the race is over. We managed to wait till December back in 2000 to find a resolution, that ended up fine. If they were consistent they wouldn't care about lawsuits or complain about the GAO not helping the Biden transition.

You know that's nearly 1/4 of what we've paid for Trump's golf outtings so far....largely paid directly to him since he charges the secret service to stay at his properties that he won't divest himself from, and even to use his golf carts on the greens ($150000 so far for carts alone).
You would do yourself a service to not complain about wasting money on investigating treasonous criminal activities as long as you're on team Trump, he spends like a drunken sailor on leave that just won the lottery. Just look at deficit numbers before and after his tax plan, then try to pretend he's somehow fiscally sane.

For a comparison, the GAO said the Clinton investigations cost $70-$80 million in the 90's (translating to over $135 million in 2018 dollars) and Republicans called them under funded.
History....ain't it a thing.

It's Gao...not Goa. They may have been living there at the time but they are definitely singing in a Timbuktu dialect which I'm guessing is where they, or at least the singer, is from.

Al Hassidi Terrei is loosely translated 'Extremist People'

The songs lyrics are a bit difficult to take apart beause the music garbles them a bit and they are a mixture of basic West African French and the Songhai Timbuktu Dialect which I'm less familiar with then Gao dialect.

In short though "Al Hassidi Terrei mind your own business, ...then something about the meeting of life, love and wives (or generally women)....and then we're not tired (or poor/beaten down).

and repeat...

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by ZappaDanMan.

This sort of thing should be left up to the GAO not some activists.

Also Planned Parenthood representatives should not be telling people to lie on their forms.

Umm, the GAO, who's job it is to report on such things said it would save money. Other countries with similar systems have less expensive health care than the United States.

The GAO report is based on projections, estimates, and more than a little fantasy. The so-called 'savings' the GAO report listed came to a piddling total of about 70 billion dollars. That's less than the amount the Federal goverment LOSES in a week to simple accounting errors. Any hiccup in the plan and that estimate is so much crap.

For example...

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

OK - so 30+ companies get a year's "pardon" from Obamacare. How much did that screw up the math? In the process let's just ignore the fact that all these companies are out and out TELLING us that Obamacare is going to end up forcing companies to drop coverage or increase costs...

Facts are facts. Obamacare is already screwing up services, increasing cost, reducing coverage, and decreasing the number of people with health care while cutting the number of drug/services/proceedures that are covered. IT is a classic Federal program...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

All the studies are showing Obamacare will (A) increase costs and (B) lower quality of care while (C) reducing the number of people who get health care period.


Umm, the GAO, who's job it is to report on such things said it would save money. Other countries with similar systems have less expensive health care than the United States.

Point to one study that shows otherwise. It's easy to say, "All the studies say..." and fill in the blanks however you want but the fact is you can't back it up because it's a lie.

Ha, we posted the same response to Sagemind, only one minute apart:

http://videosift.com/video/Girls-Suck-at-Video-Games?loadcomm=1#comment-1023225

Welcome to the uphill battle.

In reply to this comment by Tagichatn:
>> ^Sagemind:

I can't agree with this.
Either you are a career person or you are a stay at home parent.
A dedication to the job at hand lets you succeed. No one can be expected to do both and be expected to excel at the same rate as the person who just chooses one. (male or female).
In Canada, yes, Men can get paternity, though most women would never give up their maternity to let them. (Only one parent can claim.) My wife took the maternity rights.
Yes, I was a stay at home dad (for a time) - and it was socially accepted - in fact I was commended!
NO! Woman are not expected to do the most - where do you get that from???
If the spouse isn't pulling their weight, it's a communication/relationship issue - talk to the spouse, don't blame "society" for something you let happen. (male or female)
Most of the (domestic)work falls to who ever is home with the kids, that's the way it is. Someone has to be there at some point. And when the other spouse gets home, they chip in, in equal portions. If they don't, then that says more about the relationship than society. By the way, while one spouse is at home working for the home, the other is out working to pay for it - It's not like they are away from the home avoiding responsibility).
This whole dad goes to work and brings home the bacon while mom stays home with the kids just DOESN'T exist in the real world for the average family. If you believe that, you're kidding yourself. No one can exist on a single income any more. If they can, then it's a privilege for the spouse who gets to spend the time at home with the kids and should thank the other spouse every day for their good fortune. (male or female) !!!
>> ^Tagichatn:
Men have children too, so why do women get picked on? Apparently it's "false logic" according to westy that women can have a full family and a full professional career but it's pretty easy for men. That's because even today, in 2010, women are generally expected to do most, if not all, of the care for the children. Men don't get paternity leave, being a stay at home dad isn't really socially accepted so it falls to the mother to do most of the work. It's not the 50's anymore so women at least have the option of maintaining a career but there's still that belief that the mom does the housework while the dad brings home the money.



It's great that in your relationship things were shared and done equally but how many times do I have to say this? Anecdotes don't matter! My mom was a stay at home mom so therefore 1950's housewives are clearly widespread! Anyway, that's not even my argument. I readily admit that 2 income households have come to dominate but my point is that the 1950's style of thinking still dominates. Even in 2 income households where both parents work and should therefore split the load of housework and childcare, women still are expected
to do the majority of the housework.

You said you've never seen women working for less. I can't speak for Canada but this is from the US Census: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/paygapgrows.htm
From a related study based on the census, "Even accounting for factors such as occupation, industry, race, marital status and job tenure, reports the GAO, working women today earn an average of 80 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts."

Too bad not every women works with you, otherwise they would totally be equal and it wouldn't be a problem!

2 income homes are not equal either. Women do more work and men have more leisure time on average. Here's a survey done by the New York times: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/politics/15labor.html

You can post about your personal experiences all day but your experiences are not everyone elses. This is a societal problem, anecdotes don't tell the full story.

>> ^Sagemind:

I can't agree with this.
Either you are a career person or you are a stay at home parent.
A dedication to the job at hand lets you succeed. No one can be expected to do both and be expected to excel at the same rate as the person who just chooses one. (male or female).
In Canada, yes, Men can get paternity, though most women would never give up their maternity to let them. (Only one parent can claim.) My wife took the maternity rights.
Yes, I was a stay at home dad (for a time) - and it was socially accepted - in fact I was commended!
NO! Woman are not expected to do the most - where do you get that from???
If the spouse isn't pulling their weight, it's a communication/relationship issue - talk to the spouse, don't blame "society" for something you let happen. (male or female)
Most of the (domestic)work falls to who ever is home with the kids, that's the way it is. Someone has to be there at some point. And when the other spouse gets home, they chip in, in equal portions. If they don't, then that says more about the relationship than society. By the way, while one spouse is at home working for the home, the other is out working to pay for it - It's not like they are away from the home avoiding responsibility).
This whole dad goes to work and brings home the bacon while mom stays home with the kids just DOESN'T exist in the real world for the average family. If you believe that, you're kidding yourself. No one can exist on a single income any more. If they can, then it's a privilege for the spouse who gets to spend the time at home with the kids and should thank the other spouse every day for their good fortune. (male or female) !!!
>> ^Tagichatn:
Men have children too, so why do women get picked on? Apparently it's "false logic" according to westy that women can have a full family and a full professional career but it's pretty easy for men. That's because even today, in 2010, women are generally expected to do most, if not all, of the care for the children. Men don't get paternity leave, being a stay at home dad isn't really socially accepted so it falls to the mother to do most of the work. It's not the 50's anymore so women at least have the option of maintaining a career but there's still that belief that the mom does the housework while the dad brings home the money.



It's great that in your relationship things were shared and done equally but how many times do I have to say this? Anecdotes don't matter! My mom was a stay at home mom so therefore 1950's housewives are clearly widespread! Anyway, that's not even my argument. I readily admit that 2 income households have come to dominate but my point is that the 1950's style of thinking still dominates. Even in 2 income households where both parents work and should therefore split the load of housework and childcare, women still are expected
to do the majority of the housework.

You said you've never seen women working for less. I can't speak for Canada but this is from the US Census: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/paygapgrows.htm
From a related study based on the census, "Even accounting for factors such as occupation, industry, race, marital status and job tenure, reports the GAO, working women today earn an average of 80 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts."

Too bad not every women works with you, otherwise they would totally be equal and it wouldn't be a problem!

2 income homes are not equal either. Women do more work and men have more leisure time on average. Here's a survey done by the New York times: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/politics/15labor.html

You can post about your personal experiences all day but your experiences are not everyone elses. This is a societal problem, anecdotes don't tell the full story.

Rather slick ad. I've seen ads like this, but mostly from conservative groups with an obvious slant and bias. This ad simply is showing what can be found out of the Goverment Account Office (GAO). It seems the liberals have been hard at work, while conservatives were to busy being children. But then, the last democrat in the office of the President, also did alot of good on the domestic front too. The various bills initially were unpopular, but indeed saved things from going REALLY south on the economy. Better a recession then a depression. Right?

Its honestly a shame, to many Americans (ironically among conservatives) do not understand economics on a macro level. We can sit around, and belly ache at how the Republican party landed us in so much debt due to wars and simply foolish handingly of federal assets and expenses. Or we could work with democrats to get the budget and deficit down. Republicans claim 'fiscal conservative', while the President and members of Congress are for 'fiscal responsibility'. Mr. Obama has a good, solid frame work that just needs fleshed out. Its rather disappointing Republicans behave rather immaturely on such an important issue.

None of your suggestions would work. They have never worked.

Ah. Freedom doesn't work. This is a philosophical divide I have with the left that will never be bridged. The left is oriented around the reduction of freedom as a means of accomplishing societal change. This approach is - essentially - attempting to bring the principles of planned economics to human behavior. All such past efforts have shown that leftist political philosophy CANNOT improve the human condition, and have proven conclusively to actually DECREASE human happiness & propserity. Freedom is the answer to the needs of humanity - not government central planning.

Reagan didn't work.

Reaganism wasn't allowed to work. Reagan's approach was to cut taxes and decrease spending. The Democrat controlled congress allowed the tax cuts, but not the spending cuts.

Bogus 1T 'defense' spending

Not sure where your article is pulling its numbers, but diamonds to dollars they are pulling them out of their ass. The budget is online, available for everyone to see. It isn't hiding anywhere. No figure in any GAO or GPO site in existence lists the military budget at 1 trillion dollars. As like as not, your article is lumping 2 or 3 yearly budgets together to arrive at these figures, or pulling some other accounting stunt to arrive at a number they believe is high enough to support a pre-conceived opinion.

Regardless... You could raise the taxes on the so-called 'rich' to 100%. You could cut US military spending to zero. It wouldn't be enough. It wouldn't be close. I've budgeted for big organizations, and I'll tell you right now that the budget GROWS to fit whatever amount you take in. You have a year where your income is $100,000 and you only 'budgeted' for $75,000? Well - next year's budget is now $100,000! That's now budgets work. Do you honestly believe that if suddenly the government had a 6 trillion budget, and spent 0.00 on the military that suddenly we would have 'enough'? If you believe that, then you really are beyond talking to on the subject of economics.

I gotta agree with Ron on this, but it's nice to see some real back and forth. I just wish we could get some real debate instead of some 5 min talking points roundtable on Larry King or something. Interesting notes I've heard but never see discussed:

* Given a single payer system: How will preventative medicine work in principal? If person A begins smoking and gets lung cancer, does that person get the same deal as everyone else? Or more likely, if person A is obese and as a result has to have more treatments for a particular problem, does that give the government or the people paying the right to decide what he can and can't eat? Just thinking. (Following along with the ban of Trans-fats, and the talk about a soda tax)

* With the close ties of the healthcare cos and the government now, what incentive would they have to sever the relationship? A million in campaign funds pre-single payer is the same as a million post-single payer. This is what I've heard some people refer to as the rise of Medical Industrial Complex(An obvious play off the old Military Industrial Complex term).

* Why isn't closer examination given to US healthcare pre-HMOs? I might be missing something, but this didn't seem to be a hot button issue in the 10's, 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's?

* Why is the term 'insurance' used so incorrectly? If I used the term fire insurance the way some are using health insurance, people would start looking at me funny. The catastrophic-centric part seems neglected and now it covers everything from a skinned knee to a tumor. Can we give it a new name or something to differentiate? Maybe just use health care?

* Assuming the GAO's analysis that the US government is effectively broke, and social security is essentially a ponzi scheme, how does that factor in to the debate? Or put generally, given the last 8 years of Bush (including a Patriot Act, 9/11 & Katrina), what evidence is there that any major new system will be run any better and cost any less?

* Following along with the post about laws changing to define rights: If we have a framework to change the laws, and the right to healthcare is HUGE change, why isn't an official constitutional amendment being put forth that makes the responsibilities clear? Seems that if we could draft something as dumb as 'no alcohol', something can be proposed in regards to healthcare.

Just thinking out loud here. I have lots more questions (including the role of States) if anybody is still awake at this point