Okay. I accept your unconditional surrender. Write "I will not exaggerate what Trump can do on day 1" 100 times on the chalkboard. Then we'll get this episode of the Simpsons ("Homer becomes President of the USA") started. barfo
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...ts-democrats-jonathan-turley-column/96669492/ Trump is our president: Jonathan Turley In the end, the protests are not about legitimacy. It is inaugural week and Washington is again the rallying point for hundreds of thousands of people. Indeed, my house in McLean, Virginia is hosting roughly a dozen people from Illinois and Florida. They are not, however, coming to celebrate but to protest. My brother Chris, his family, and various friends will be joining thousands protesting the inauguration and then will join the “Women’s March.” I will not be joining them. While I fully support their exercise of free speech and share some of their concerns, I believe that this week is about celebrating the 71st time that a democratically elected president has taken the oath of office (and our 58th formal inauguration). I was highly critical of both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton during the campaign. However, there is a time to protest and there is a time to come together, even if only for an inaugural ceremony. Over 50 Democratic members of Congress have publicly announced that they will not attend the inauguration, including some like Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., who has insisted that Trump is not the legitimate president. (Lewis and other members also boycotted George W. Bush’s inauguration in 2001 because they insisted that he was not the true elected president.) Ironically, many of these members were the same people joining Hillary Clinton in denouncing the “horrifying” notion that Trump or his supporters might not accept the results of the election. Clinton decried how Trump, by not stating that he would accept the results of losing, he was “denigrating — he is talking down our democracy.” That was when Clinton was viewed as a shoe-in. Then came election night. After the election, Clinton joined others in challenging results in key states and Democrats began to question the legitimacy of the election — first due to the fact that Trump lost the popular vote and later based on Russian hacking of Democratic emails. It is of course immaterial that Trump lost the popular vote in a system based on electoral, not popular voting. (For the record, I have long been a critic of the Electoral College.) Moreover, while references to the “Russian hacking of the election” have become common shorthand, the Russians did not hack the election. Emails were hacked and those emails were not faked or tampered with, as repeatedly claimed by DNC chair Donna Brazile. As recently confirmed by the intelligence report, they were real emails showing incredibly dishonest and corrupt practices. Although there is no question that the leak appears selective in targeting Democrats, Washington seems most aggrieved by the fact that the public was given a true insight into the false and duplicitous behavior that defines the establishment. However, according to a new CNN/ORC poll, the spin is not taking: almost 60% of voters do not believe the hacking determined the outcome of the election. In the end, the protests are not about legitimacy. Trump is by any measure our duly elected and legitimate president. It is about a refusal to accept legitimate results. Even the title of “The Women’s March” is dubious. (USA Today for the win.)
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/democrats-control-article-1.2949707 Democrats, please control yourselves: Trump derangement syndrome will not help win policy fights
http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/18/trump-inauguration-protesters-work-hard-re-election/ Trump Inauguration Protesters Work Hard For His Re-Election Protesters against Donald Trump's inauguration are putting forth their best effort to ensure that there will be a second Trump inauguration to protest.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ton-s-second-case-of-the-inaugural-blues.html Hard-Luck Hillary Clinton’s Second Case of the Inaugural Blues Unlike in 2009, there is no consolation prize this time for a campaign that fell short.
The interest rate hikes by the Fed this coming year will make this pale in comparison. http://time.com/4641511/trump-inauguration-mortgage-payments/ Congressional Republicans, including incoming HUD Secretary Ben Carson, opposed that decision. They worried that, by reducing the amount that homeowners are asked to pay each month, the FHA’s insurance program would collect less cash. The FHA uses its cash reserves to underwrite banks when high risk borrowers default on their mortgages. Without large reserves, taxpayers could be on the hook to bail out the banks. The FHA required a $1.7 billion bailout in 2013, when its reserves dried up. By allowing homeowners to contribute less to the FHA fund, the Obama Administration was putting taxpayers “at greater risk for footing the bill for another bailout,” House Financial Services Chair Jeb Hensarling of Texas said in a statement Jan. 9.
The cost is $5B. $5B here and $5B there and we're talking about real money. People can whine about all the debt he's supposedly going to run up, but whine also when he's cutting spending so he doesn't run up so much debt?
Another stink bomb left by Obama on his way out. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-economy-slows-to-19-in-4th-quarter-gdp-shows-2017-01-27 U.S. economy slows to 1.9% in 4th quarter, GDP shows
