I didn't write this thread title, I'm just quoting a really intelligent and talented poster on the last Trump thread

[BiglyBadgers]

New thread!

Jacqueline Alemany‏Verified account
@JaxAlemany
White House reporter for @CBSNews
Follow
More
Trump recommends a Super PAC to advertise the fact that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican -- something "a lot of people don't know."

A Russian lawyer involved in a US prosecution mysteriously plunged from his apartment window

I know tweets are constrained on character count, but mysterious in the tweet above is crying out for "quotation marks" (like so).

There's been a couple of other 'mysterious' deaths of Russians tangentially linked to this massive web hasn't there? - can't link but I'm sure if we trawled back over the threads there's mention of them. I feel like I'm entering tin foil headwear territory here but it's all just mind blowing everything that's gone on. It's like something from the twilight zone or tales of the unexpected.

awesome x-post there!

I don't think that 45 has read much of what Lincoln wrote, sadly. (Or if he's read it, he hasn't understood or absorbed it.)

Trump recommends a Super PAC to advertise the fact that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican -- something "a lot of people don't know."

The right-wingers like to mention Lincoln especially every time someone says anything about African Americans and/or civil rights because Lincoln was a Republican. In fact, they love to refer to themselves as the party of Lincoln.

And that earth-shaking rumble you hear coming from Oak Ridge Cemetery in Springfield, Illinois . . . .

The New York Times @nytimes 1hr

President Trump is poised to announce his plans to dismantle the centerpiece of Barack Obama’s climate change legacy

...we await anxiously

I can't say I know a great deal of American history - would you say Abraham Lincoln was the same kind of Republican you see today? Considering the Civil War and independence from Britain, they were dealing with issues that were markedly different from today. And of course, within all parties there are groups that are more right-wing than the rest, or right-of-centre (for example).

Not sure if I'm making sense, but I just think the Abraham Lincoln analogy could be a little flawed.

The Republican Party has changed drastically not just since Lincoln's day, but just in the last 30 years. At one time there were many moderate, and even a few liberal, Republicans. The party has moved hard to the right in the last few decades.

One stark contrast between Lincoln and Trump: Lincoln's most important executive order was the Emancipation Proclamation declaring the end of slavery. Trump's has been to ban Muslims from entering the US.

Seneca is right...the Republican party of the 1860's is completely different from the Republican party of today. If Lincoln were alive today he would most likely be a Democrat.
During the Nixon era, the Republicans wanted to peel away votes from the South, who typically voted Democratic. Their plan was called The "Southern Strategy" and basically they appealed to the racism of many Southerners to get them to switch parties (this was during the very explosive Civil Rights era of the 1960's). The emergence of the Religious Right also drastically changed the party.

Thanks TrueBlue and Seneca.

Because WTF not?

www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/21/1645866/-It-s-Not-a-Smoking-Gun-But-It-s-Close

YW Claws! :)

The BBC have a good summary of the Gorsuch hearing yesterday: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39343299

He sounds, overall, like a reasonably good egg - what matters is upholding the law in each individual case, not applying sweeping statements.

Trump may begin to regret this nomination!

Russian info-war tactics in US election continue www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/russian-info-war-tactics-in-us-election-continue-903442499654 via @msnbc

According to Louise Mensch Wikikeaks is basically a Russian run tool. Would explain many a thing.

mobile.twitter.com/LouiseMensch/status/844398328091697152

On the basis that her reporting so far appears to have been spot on, I'm following her a bit more closely.

She retweeted a piece from last summer about how Bannon is Farage's puppeteer as well, and Breitbart's involvement in Brexit.

Could the Brexit campaign be tangled up in the Russian web?

I remain sceptical about Gorsuch. I have a suspicion he might just be competent at interviews and generally able to string a sentence together, which may admittedly make him seem saintly next to Trump. Words are easier than action though...

My apologies if I am duplicating something already posted, but I just saw this on Twitter:
Maxine Waters‏Verified account @MaxineWaters 19h19 hours ago

Get ready for impeachment.
10,890 replies 33,824 retweets 80,920 likes

and am unduly excited, though still think it unlikely there are sufficient House Republicans ready to turn on their embarrassing (to say the least) President.

Thank you for the Tweets about Hillary, very interesting.

Re: electronic devices, there are those who surmise it is simply all about the money as Middle Eastern airlines are strong competition for US ones. Not sure that stands up to scrutiny if the UK is participating too and BA is on the list?

Apologies if I don't make sense. Story of my life.

• I have words, sometimes very big braggadocious words, it's just I don't know how to use them.

I have the suspicion that when Trump says "a lot of people don't know" he really means "I only found out recently".
He assumes that everyone else is dumber than him.

What's more, squishy, he'll only have found out recently from an alternative news source of his own (usual suspects, Fox, Breitbart, I mean). Not by actually reading any of the briefing papers he is supposed to be reading daily (I suspect that they've given up on him with that by now, actually).

Fox is the real President.

Trump: "I just work here, ask Fox".

Of course Wikileaks has become a Russian tool.

And of course "when Trump says "a lot of people don't know" he really means "I only found out recently"."

Where have you been all this time?

To be honest, I had assumed that the electronic devices thing is not so political - it seems that way because of the context it is happening in, following the aftermath of the travel ban. But I think it is more likely to be based on a genuine risk, and I can understand security services erring on the side of overreaction: can you imagine the public response if an incident occurred and they were found to have undereacted to information? I was on a flight a few years ago (from Italy to UK) where they put a similar restriction in place (but with much less warning - we weren't told until after we had checked our hold luggage in!)

I heard someone on R4 this morning talking about the device ban on planes. He said it was from a genuine bit of intelligence, but that the ban itself was a pretty pointless way of dealing with it as having a small bomb blow up in the hold really isn't all that much better than having it blow up in the cabin. I was only half listening as i was trying to dress a troublesome 5 year old, but he echoed a lot of my vague feelings on the matter, but with some actual expertise. So me it stinks of a knee jerk, poorly thought out reaction to some vague threat.

There may be a genuine risk, but: the devices will still be on the plane and people will still have their mobiles with them. I don't think hold items are as well screened as cabin items. Then, why only those countries. Won't terrorists simply change the origin of their countries? Or change planes with their bombs?

As a security measure it's naive and it falls very much short of having a significant security impact, IMO.

Meanwhile,
Will he, won't he, be impeached?

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/22/donald-trump-president-impeached-liberals-history-process?CMP=twt_gu