[Hairshirt]

Well it wasn't Maddow, apparently it was her guest. But yes is it legal to report on someones personal tax documents without that person's permission?

[Vengeance]

 Hairshirt, on 15 March 2017 - 02:22 AM, said:

Rachel Maddow released Trump's 2005 tax return tonight. As much as I disagree with Trump, I don't like this. This is illegal right?

It is not illegal to report on Trumps tax return. What is illegal is his tax returns to be leaked. But reporting on them is called journalism. If reporting on Tax returns because they are a confidential document of the president of the United States was considered illegal then so would reporting on anything that is confidential and leaked. Trump is a public figure by being president of the United States thus his Tax returns are considered of interest to the public.

[Terez]

 Hairshirt, on 15 March 2017 - 05:28 AM, said:

Well it wasn't Maddow, apparently it was her guest.

Apparently he relied on her/NBC to verify that they were real. This guy's website is low-budget; she had him on last week (or the week before?) and the traffic crashed his servers. He appears to have a long and distinguished history, but I checked out the preview for his Trump book on Amazon when he was on last time and I don't know if it's worth buying.

 Vengeance, on 15 March 2017 - 01:00 PM, said:

It is not illegal to report on Trumps tax return. What is illegal is his tax returns to be leaked. But reporting on them is called journalism.

She made that distinction on the show; as long as they don't solicit his tax returns, the First Amendment gives them the right to report on it.

IMO this is a Trump leak. Probably the year he paid the most in taxes.

[Lady Bliss]

Our president vs Snoop Dogg...
I have no words.

[worry]

I have 10 words: West Coast is the Best Coast, East Coast is the Least Coast.

[worry]

Trump's budget outline is being released tomorrow. Among other things it does this:

(via https://twitter.com/...178674036219905 and NYT).

Overall budgetary winners & losers via Bloomberg:

[Terez]

A lot of those cuts are just what you would expect from any Republican budget following a Democratic administration. The most worrying cuts are at the State Department. This is not a typical Republican thing at all, and the only logical explanation for it seems to be the wishes of Vladimir Putin, whose buddy Tillerson is now running the thing. There are a lot of details behind this, not least the chunk of money Exxon is losing due to economic sanctions on Russia which, if I'm not mistaken, date back to the Crimea invasion (as opposed to the more recent sanctions for the DNC/Podesta hacking).

[Gorefest]

Percentages don't really say very much unless you know where they are coming from. A 10% reduction on a 4 billion spend could have relatively less impact than a 10% increase on a 30 million spend. And if something had been significantly underspent on in previous terms, it may see a significant percentile increase but this might simply be an indication that its spending is brought back to 'average' levels.

Not meaning to claim that none of the proposed decisions are silly or outrageous, but I just wanted to point out that a bar graph such as the one above doesn't necessarily give a truthful picture of actual spending. It would be better to project total actual proposed spending against spending on those same items in the previous 2-3 terms.

This post has been edited by Gorefest: 16 March 2017 - 01:35 PM

[worry]

@Terez: I agree many of these are typical Republican targets, but even in previous GOP-led times many of these would be pipe dream numbers. There's an unholy Corporate Republican/Tea Party hybrid with its fangs bared, and this is largely a feast for them. But yeah, the State Department stuff is definitely the most fishy in terms of motivation.

@Gorefest: Don't fully agree. When you see #s bordering 30% for entire major agencies/departments, that's telling in and of itself. So it's at least an immediate glimpse at priorities, but I think it tells you more than that.

Now I do take your point that a single bar graph naturally doesn't tell you everything, especially over time, but on the other hand I presume everyone here has access to the Internet, so like if you want more info you don't have to wait for me. Go forth and explore!


But I probably shoulda included the source article: (https://www.bloomber...to-fund-defense)

[Tiste Simeon]

So this healthcare thing is good news eh?

[worry]

Depends on how much you value human life.

[worry]

Here's the good stuff: http://theconcourse....more-1793687360

[QuickTidal]

And now we have him trying a new executive order...which has more worldwide ramifications...

The order will curb the enforcement of a number of climate regulations, in an effort, the Trump administration says, to prioritize American jobs above addressing climate change.
~CNN

Fuuuuuuck.

[worry]

He must have misread everyone's enthusiasm for Mad Max: Fury Road.

That reminds me, if folks want a good summation of the day's Trump events this site compiles and organizes it every day: https://whatthefuckj...ppenedtoday.com

[worry]

Look how bald-faced this lie is. There's no way this could possibly be true. They literally want power, right now, the future and everyone in it be damned.
https://twitter.com/...740054907244544

[HoosierDaddy]

Sections of the conservative right are far more "Know Nothing" than the originals were.

[HoosierDaddy]

Trump Administration has more leaks in it than the Ragstopper. And Trump is no Cartheron Crust.

[worry]

For real. I had the half-joking thought a few days ago that Donald Trump probably believed until very recently that Congress worked for the President -- like in the literal sense, as employees basically, even though they're elected.

Now I'm starting to think the half of me that was joking was wrong, and it ain't just Trump. Look at this: http://www.huffingto...l4dva6ps1exw29
GOP Rep. Defends Devin Nunes By Claiming ‘He Works For The President’

[HoosierDaddy]

Flynn just said he'll testify to FBI and Congressional hearings in exchange for immunity.

Immunity for what, eh? Lol.

[worry]

For what and from what!

I'm not getting my hopes up on the big fish. And I know, Mike Pence is awful too. But if this happens -- like if it really happens -- I think I might cry. Joy? Sympathy? Hope? Spite? Relief? All of the above.