Trump's Final 100 days

Quote: TigerWu

I bet those major Asian airports have some crack ATC guys, too... Hong Kong, Tokyo, Beijing, etc.

Sure, but they are run by a bunch of foreigners. USA Baby!

Another day, another shoe drops.

Quote:

How Donald Trump Shifted Kids-Cancer Charity Money Into His Business

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/06/06/how-donald-trump-shifted-kids-cancer-charity-money-into-his-business/#7749a8036b4a

Quote: terapined

Quote: RogerKint

Quote: rxwine

Quote:

But no evidence has yet been produced to show that privatization would reduce costs. In fact, nations that have privatized ATC have seen operational costs increase at a much higher rate than has been seen in the U.S. under the FAA.”

http://abcnews.go.com/US/privatizing-air-traffic-control-trumps-proposal-expected/story?id=47841115

Our ATC is the best in the world because AMERICANS are doing it.

Really?
I am no expert in this field but I find that hard to believe
There isn't a single country on this planet that has an equal or better ATC?
Source please

This is a subject on which I can claim to be an expert. There are a lot of factors, but a wall of text is a turn-off, so I'll try to keep to short sub-discussions specific to conversations here. Wish me luck. :)

Edit. Failed, but there's a math problem at the end.
So, bonus.

By every observable metric, the US has the best ATC system in the world. On a per - operation basis, we are the most efficient on planes per controller, nearly the cheapest for labor costs, for the last 20 years the safest, and successfully manage the busiest airspace in the world.

On any given Thanksgiving weekend, we move more aircraft than any other country moves in a year. True stat.

ATC is not the cause of the vast majority of delays. However, we regulate the movement, so airlines like to announce an "ATC delay" so passengers can be upset with us, not them, when their flight is constricted.

The bottlenecks are a variety, but the largest three are weather, runways, and airline scheduling. Weather changes routes, closes airports, makes certain altitudes unusable, wreaks unpredictable havoc daily. Aircraft cannot fly through thunderstorms, ice, known turbilence. Avoiding those areas makes traffic jams on usable airspace.

Runways are infrastructure crisis. This has been a major issue for 25 years. If 9-11 had not happened, depressing projected need for the last 16 years, the system would have been in full-blown stagnation a decade ago, which we are now approaching because of neglected investment in new pavement.

The Aviation Trust Fund (the passenger head tax finances it) is supposed to have financed these things. Instead, it was changed around 2003 or so (can't recall the exact transition point) to pay for the majority of operational cost of ATC and the FAA (currently 90%) so that Congress could divert the agency 's cost from general funds to other purposes (like paying for 2 ridiculous wars). So, ATC is being paid for directly by the users already, but at the cost of dozens of planned runways and expansions postponed or cancelled.

It's simple math. One runway, one aircraft at a time. That's all there is available. And if there's more demand than pavement, you get an "ATC delay".

The third major factor is airline overscheduling of those same limited resources. The hub and spoke concept has exacerbated this.

Math story problem.

Delta likes to schedule 8 departures a minute out of Atlanta during a peak hour (of which there are about 12 per day). There are 3 departure runways.

Each aircraft occupies the runway for 45 seconds, and the departure corridor for an additional 1 minute. Heavy jets create an additional 1 minute delay. Delta flies 40% heavy jets out of Atlanta.

Delta represents 80% of Atlanta departure traffic during those peak hours, not 100%, and because ATC is NOT privatized, they receive first-come-first-served service, not the priority over their competition they are trying to buy thru lying to you about privatization.

So the math question is, how long before Delta tells people waiting in the gates or on the airplanes, "ATC delay"?



Do not be fooled by hidden agendas that started decades before Trump. This is about stealing your paid - for system and precious asset. Don't fix what isn't just unbroken, but the jewel of the federal government.

Quote: rxwine

Another day, another shoe drops.



https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/06/06/how-donald-trump-shifted-kids-cancer-charity-money-into-his-business/#7749a8036b4a

I suspect the so called sealed indictment, if it exist, is about this.

This whole ATC privatisation is a diversion. It's not about whether ATC is best in private or public ownership: It's about how much trumpy and his cronies can cream of during the transition from public to private.

Quote: OnceDear

This whole ATC privatisation is a diversion. It's not about whether ATC is best in private or public ownership: It's about how much trumpy and his cronies can cream of during the transition from public to private.

More and more I feel the need to try to separate small business legislation vs big business legislation and not just lump them both together.

That is something can be pro-business, but is not pro-small business or confers more advantages to big players.

Small business is the engine of the economy. And big players are already starting with advantages and they are more likely to sponsor legislation to reinforce their position rather than concern about doing good business.

Support For Donald Trump's Impeachment Is Now Higher Than His Approval Rating

Nope, this doesn't surprise me at all. Our Buffoon-in-Chief is an embarrassment to our country. The History books will be correct in their observation that he was the worst US president ever.

source:

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-impeachment-support-odds-removal-approval-rating-white-house-620913

WOW, JUST WOW. Forbes released a bombshell article tonight showing direct evidence of the Trump family pocketing money from their CHILDREN'S CANCER CHARITY

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/06/06/how-donald-trump-shifted-kids-cancer-charity-money-into-his-business/#1c0b85056b4a

SO F'ing disgusting I do not even have words

Quote: gamerfreak

WOW, JUST WOW. Forbes released a bombshell article tonight showing direct evidence of the Trump family pocketing money from their CHILDREN'S CANCER CHARITY

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/06/06/how-donald-trump-shifted-kids-cancer-charity-money-into-his-business/#1c0b85056b4a

SO F'ing disgusting I do not even have words

He's a scam artist and a con man. Some people just don't want to believe the truth.

Breaking News: Sessions Is Said to Have Offered to Resign

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/us/politics/jeff-sessions-donald-trump.html?ribbon-ad-idx=8&rref=politics&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Politics&action=click&region=FixedLeft&pgtype=article

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

He's a scam artist and a con man. Some people just don't want to believe the truth.

Actually the implications of stealing from a child's cancer charity, is probably just above child molestation and child rape. It will disgust even most prisoners. And we know how they treat child sex abusers if they get ahold of them.

I read through most of that article but maybe the bombshell is at the end because I'm not seeing where the problem is. Seems like they said the amount of expenses or whatever was in line with what most other charities do. I didn't read all of it because I had to go, so maybe I missed it?

Quote: RS

I read through most of that article but maybe the bombshell is at the end because I'm not seeing where the problem is. Seems like they said the amount of expenses or whatever was in line with what most other charities do. I didn't read all of it because I had to go, so maybe I missed it?

I just listened to an interview with the author. I didn't understand the whole issue either, but it has to do with the accounting. The Trump property was supposedly not charging Erics charity the full cost of the event. DJT got involved. Said something like, I don't care if it's my son; everybody gets charged. But I'll make you a deal.

So, DJT club charges Eric full amount starting in 2011, as a for - profit business.
DJT foundation donates dollar amount to cover costs.
DJT Foundation takes full deduction for taxes and donation credit.
Erics charity pays full bill to DJT club. So DJT gets all his money back as a business receipt to his privately owned club.
And, if you recall, DJT himself didn't donate to his foundation. It was all other people's gifts.

So the net effect is money laundering from his foundation into his business.

Edit. This is me guessing the definition of "full amount". I set up and ran a national business gathering and ran into some of this at an all-inclusive resort. But it's similar to rack rate at a hotel. They have the room. They pay the maid $10/hr. You use $2 worth of electricity, $2 worth of shampoo and mouthwash, .50 worth of laundry. But they charge you $120 a night.

A club like DJT could start out charging Eric for the actual labor and materials cost of the event/golf round + banquet, isolating that from capital costs and profit revenues. So, food, paying waiters/cooks/dishwashers.

But say it's a corporate meeting. Corporate rates booking the club for the same eveht would pay the above, but also get charged

Fee for use of banquet room.
Set-up fee for banquet room.
Post banquet cleanup of room fee.
Admin fee for planning and conducting the event.
Florist and/or decoration fee.
Green fee per player.
Cart rental.
Parking fee.
Resort fee for use of clubhouse and/or dressing rooms.
Whatever-the-hell-they-want-to - tack-on fee.

The thing bloated from 42k in 2010 to 322k in 2015. Which is apparently a huge red flag to whoever is auditing the situation.

So 16% of the donations went to expenses? The article said they were raising about $2M in donations.

CharityWatch.com says the highly rated charities spend 75% or more on the actual charity (ie: 25% or less on overhead), plus some other requirements. I'm not saying 84% of the $2M raised went to the children's hospital or Trump's charity is a top-rated one.....but 16% isn't some outrageous number. There are some charities that have a 90%+ overhead (one is like 98%), meaning 10% of the amount donated actually goes to helping the dogs dying of cancer or whatever charity is for.

I don't remember many HRC supporters criticizing her for her charity.

Quote: RS

So 16% of the donations went to expenses? The article said they were raising about $2M in donations.

CharityWatch.com says the highly rated charities spend 75% or more on the actual charity (ie: 25% or less on overhead), plus some other requirements. I'm not saying 84% of the $2M raised went to the children's hospital or Trump's charity is a top-rated one.....but 16% isn't some outrageous number. There are some charities that have a 90%+ overhead (one is like 98%), meaning 10% of the amount donated actually goes to helping the dogs dying of cancer or whatever charity is for.

I don't remember many HRC supporters criticizing her for her charity.

Let’s start this discussion with this adage: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”

You’ve just been fooled by Trump again. RS, shame on you!!! You should learn from your mistakes and not allow the racist, sexist, rapist and scam artist Trump to take advantage of you again, again, again, and again ... Shame on you!!!

There is no dispute that the foundation has done good things. The problem here is about self-dealing, advancing the interests of the Trump brand rather than those of charity, transparency and misleading donors.

By invoking or provoking “Hillary” in your reply while not making effort to understanding Trump’s commingling business & charity is a sign that you are so blindly follow the racist, sexist, rapist and scam artist Trump. I want to help you by giving you more time to think about how you were fooled again by Trump before I give you my explanation. So please stop drinking the koolaid and put your thinking cap on.

The fact that we've got a rightie here actually trying to defend the Trumps RE: the "stealing from kids with cancer" story is just shameful.

Donald truly was right when he said that he could shoot someone on 5th Ave. and get away with it.

I'm not sure why I keep thinking ams288 or 777 might post something with substance, but once again -- nope.

Quote: RS

I'm not sure why I keep thinking ams288 or 777 might post something with substance, but once again -- nope.

Because you have faith that people can learn and grow but sometimes they are just lost causes

Quote: RS

I read through most of that article but maybe the bombshell is at the end because I'm not seeing where the problem is. Seems like they said the amount of expenses or whatever was in line with what most other charities do. I didn't read all of it because I had to go, so maybe I missed it?

I'm not sure what you are missing, because it's all over the article.

The foundation told donors that expenses for the tournaments were comp'd since it was a trump course, which was false. They expensed several hundreds of thousand beyond want normal tournaments cost, all to be pocketed by the Trump family.

The foundation also told donors that the only charity their funds would benefit is those helping children with cancer. Also false. They distributed millions to other trump-operated foundations, who then expensed large amounts to trump owned businesses, again to be pocketed by the Trump family.

It's no different than money laundering, but instead of drug money it's money donors expected to treat Children with cancer.

Quote: gamerfreak

I'm not sure what you are missing, because it's all over the article.

He's not missing anything. He's just gaslighting. It's what he always does in situations like these.

Quote of the day, from Eric Trump regarding President Trump's critics:

“I’ve never seen hatred like this."

Haha... Boy, I sure have! See also: the Obama administration, the Bush administration, and hell, even the Clinton administration.

More:

“You see the Democratic Party, they’re imploding......They’re imploding. They became obstructionists because they have no message of their own.”



Welcome to the party, Eric. U.S. politics has been crap for a while now. Same #$%^, different party.

Quote: TigerWu

Quote of the day, from Eric Trump regarding President Trump's critics:

“I’ve never seen hatred like this."

He also said that Democrats are not humans. If history has taught us anything, de-humanizing a population is the first step to justifying violence against them.

Quote: RS

So 16% of the donations went to expenses? The article said they were raising about $2M in donations.

CharityWatch.com says the highly rated charities spend 75% or more on the actual charity (ie: 25% or less on overhead), plus some other requirements. I'm not saying 84% of the $2M raised went to the children's hospital or Trump's charity is a top-rated one.....but 16% isn't some outrageous number. There are some charities that have a 90%+ overhead (one is like 98%), meaning 10% of the amount donated actually goes to helping the dogs dying of cancer or whatever charity is for.

I don't remember many HRC supporters criticizing her for her charity.

None of this is pertinent. However, Eric said his charity has raised 16.xx million during its existence, which started when he was 21, however long ago that was. They're saying 1.2m went to expenses. Much of that expense seems to be laundered (to DJT business) or misrepresented (to the charity's donors) money.

The second question, which I didn't address before, is that some of the raised money (after expenses) in recent years was diverted from the claimed recipient into other charities sponsored or benefitting Trump interests. This may be related to the commentary about the makeup of the cancer charity's board, which apparently transitioned from an innocuous group to (all but one) Trump family members and cronies. I don't know enough about this side of it to comment further.

However (again), you sticking HRC into the discussion is gratuitous fish bait, so I'm no longer sure you're asking real questions. Over and out, as NokTang likes to say.

I've done a number of charity events.
In some cases, we would sell tickets where we said a portion of the proceeds will go to charity. That generally means the net, after expenses, will go to charity.
Others we said all proceeds go to charity. That means when someone paid $250 for a ticket, $250 went to the charity.
In Trumps case, they charged $1,000 ,said it was all going to charity and then deducted $160 per person so only $840 went to charity.

How would you feel if zuga decided to withhold 16% of the funds raised for Dan Lubin without telling anyone?

Quote: gamerfreak

He also said that Democrats are not humans. If history has taught us anything, de-humanizing a population is the first step to justifying violence against them.

Lets not forget how republicans demonized HRC over her basket of deplorables comment. Now Eric says dems are not human. Sounds even worse to me

But repubs never see the shoe on the opposite foot apparently

Comey's testimony:

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-jcomey-060817.pdf

Quote:

The President began by asking me whether I wanted to stay on as FBI
Director, which I found strange because he had already told me twice in earlier
conversations that he hoped I would stay, and I had assured him that I intended to.
He said that lots of people wanted my job and, given the abuse I had taken during
the previous year, he would understand if I wanted to walk away.


My instincts told me that the one-on-one setting, and the pretense that this
was our first discussion about my position, meant the dinner was, at least in part,
an effort to have me ask for my job and create some sort of patronage relationship.
That concerned me greatly, given the FBI’s traditionally independent status in the
executive branch.

Quote:

A few moments later, the President said, “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.”
I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the
awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in silence. The
conversation then moved on, but he returned to the subject near the end of our
dinner.

Quote: ams288

Comey's testimony:

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-jcomey-060817.pdf

How is this coming out now, when the testimony is tomorrow, and the document linked is dated 6/8?

Quote: gamerfreak

How is this coming out now, when the testimony is tomorrow, and the document linked is dated 6/8?

This is his prepared statement, which he will read at the opening.
Releasing it early was a brilliant stroke.

Quote: billryan

This is his prepared statement, which he will read at the opening.
Releasing it early was a brilliant stroke.

I realized that after reading, I thought it was a transcript at first.

Good on Comey for keeping such meticulous notes. This was the most damning bit, in my opinion:

Quote:

The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a
good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done
anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President.
He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn
go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” I replied only that “he is a good
guy.” (In fact, I had a positive experience dealing with Mike Flynn when he was a
colleague as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency at the beginning of my
term at FBI.) I did not say I would “let this go.”

It makes you wonder exactly how much of the money actually raised on Celebrity Apprentice when to charity and directly into Trumps wallet.

It's becoming more and more evident, not only is he and his family scam artists and con men/women, but they're also thieves!

Comey wants to skip tomorrow's hearing and go straight to the impeachment hearings.
He lays out , piece by piece, the pattern of obstruction. He is playing chess while Donny is learning checkers.
Best opening move since Port Arthur.

Quote: gamerfreak

How is this coming out now, when the testimony is tomorrow, and the document linked is dated 6/8?

It was released early today at Comey's request, and my guess is the early release is a mean for Comey to steal attention away from Trump's today announcement of a nomination of a FBI director.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/07/trump-made-fbi-pick-without-briefing-key-lawmakers/102589424/

As much as I dislike Trump, and I truly do, this really amounts to distractions. Now of course I think he had it coming with his years of claiming Obama was not born in Hawaii which was complete and utter BS.

At some point you have to let the elected leadership, the elected congress, and elected senate govern. Meaning to execute the policies and laws that they want to enact, provided they are legal.

The Russian involvement in the election will not get traced to Trump proper - his campaign more than likely will. While this is all fun and games for the left, there are real issues that government needs to show without the gong show going on in DC.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/business/media/comey-testimony-tv.html?ribbon-ad-idx=4&rref=politics&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Politics&pgtype=article

Must-See TV’: Free Drinks and Canceled Meetings for Comey’s Testimony

Every national broadcast network — along with an alphabet soup of cable stations from CNBC to HLN — plans to carry the 10 a.m. [6/8/17] hearing live. Bars in Houston, San Francisco and Washington are opening early. Schoolteachers are remaking lesson plans to discuss the testimony instead.

Adding to the anticipation: Mr. Trump is expected to be among the viewers, and there is speculation that he may respond to Mr. Comey on Twitter in real-time — “Mystery Science Theater 3000” in the West Wing.

Quote: boymimbo

As much as I dislike Trump, and I truly do, this really amounts to distractions. Now of course I think he had it coming with his years of claiming Obama was not born in Hawaii which was complete and utter BS.

At some point you have to let the elected leadership, the elected congress, and elected senate govern. Meaning to execute the policies and laws that they want to enact, provided they are legal.

The Russian involvement in the election will not get traced to Trump proper - his campaign more than likely will. While this is all fun and games for the left, there are real issues that government needs to show without the gong show going on in DC.

Are you really comparing Trumps nonsensical birther campaign to possible obstruction of a Federal investigation? Or money laundering and diverting hundreds of thousands of dollars from a charity for sick kids?

His voters and supporters don't care. There is a core of people who don't care what Trump does and firmly believes that this is a witchhunt that the WaPO and NYT is making up. And that Comey is a liar. And that the diverting money from a children's charity, while despicable, is no worse than then Clinton Foundation accepting money from foreign donors. I understand completely that it is false equivalency and that Trump's deeds are logically far worse. But the Trump supporters will make these a comparable. Republicans know this. Democrats are exasperated.

No matter. To impeach a president you need a Congress and Senate willing to do it. They're not going to. And Comey's opening remarks just confirm what we already knew. It's a gong show that will not last to the midterms when there will be opportunities for the Dems to take back some control.

What a big fat nothing burger Comey's
statement turned out to be. Unless he
has a blockbuster he withheld, the only
bomb he'll drop tomorrow is the one
he leaves in the toilet after the hearing.

Saw a panel of law experts who studied
the Comey statement and they all agreed
no crimes there, certainly no obstruction
of justice. And all the networks are
covering this nothing burger hearing
tomorrow, commercial free. Costing them
millions and no cigar at the end. At least
with Bill Clinton, there was a cigar involved..
LOL

Quote: EvenBob

What a big fat nothing burger Comey's
statement turned out to be. Unless he
has a blockbuster he withheld, the only
bomb he'll drop tomorrow is the one
he leaves in the toilet after the hearing.

That's just his opening statement. He will have more to say and answer questions too. This isn't done.

Quote: rsactuary

That's just his opening statement. He will have more to say and answer questions too. This isn't done.

He'll just explain what he says in the statement
in exhausting 'put you to sleep detail' while the
Dems try to pin the tail on the invisible donkey.
And people all over the country turn their
channels to reruns of Seinfeld and Gilligans
Island while waiting for the debacle of nothing
to end.

I have a really strong feeling that Comey released this when he did in order to guide the Stonewall Quad from this morning. They needed to know what he was going to say, and to say it in closed session, in order not to get fired this afternoon . Comey already crossed that Rubicon, and as an ex-employee, was likely constrained from discussing his testimony with the DNI and the other one. (The Asst AG and temp FBI guy already knew what would be said).

The first 2 were dangerously close to contempt of Congress charges this morning. They had no legal standing to refuse to answer, no executive privilege, and anecdotal/ sworn depositions from colleagues that they knew the answers to the questions they refused.


I hope for their sakes, and all of ours, they testified honestly in closed session this afternoon. (Not sure if that happened, but it sounded like it would. )

There may have been a panel of experts dismissing the written statement on your channel, but it was red meat to those I was listening to.

There's also much more for Comey to say, but I think he's letting them ask the questions that will elicit some more info. The written statement just provides a jumping - off point.

This is a good excuse for me to not turn the tv on.

I haven't heard any examples of obstruction of justice cases that were possibly borderline. At least on anything I was watching.

I would certainly consider even a "suggestion" by someone like a mob boss can be taken seriously without overt commands. But I don't know what other actual cases are.

In my experience you ignore "suggestions" in a hierarchy only if you really understand the person in a position of power is really not going to expect you to do something.

In Comey's position, where he obviously barely has dealt with the guy on anything, even a suggestion would cause some serious reflection, especially in context of a prosecution. IMO.

I don't know how anyone could take it otherwise under those circumstances. If you knew Trump well enough to know when he is joking around, that could be different, but I don't think that can be successfully argued here.

And then, in Comey's case, he was fired. He didn't fall in line. Sure looks like something to me.

Quote: rxwine

And then, in Comey's case, he was fired. He didn't fall in line. Sure looks like something to me.

Same thing Kwame did here in Detroit to Gary Brown. Fired him to shut him up. Kwame is now spending a few decades in prison.

1. Trump asks Comey if he wants to keep his job, and says he expects loyalty. Comey does not respond to the threat.

2. Trump directly asks Comey to drop the case. Comey does not respond to the threat.

3. Trump fires Comey

What a huge nothing obstruction of justice burger. BUT HILLARY'S EMAILS!!

It still is a case of "He said vs Orange said". Just because Comey took notes and is to be trusted doesn't mean that he can be proven right in a court of law.

Quote: gamerfreak

1. Trump asks Comey if he wants to keep his job, and says he expects loyalty. Comey does not respond to the threat.

2. Trump directly asks Comey to drop the case. Comey does not respond to the threat.

3. Trump fires Comey

Speculation, not provable. No tape of Trump
saying to Comey 'You do this or you're fired!'.
It's too bad the Dems have never heard of
'evidence' before they started screaming
their heads off. So far no crime has been
shown, and there kinda sorta has to be a
crime for an impeachment.

Quote: EvenBob

and there kinda sorta has to be a
crime for an impeachment.

That isn't true. Impeachment is a political decision, not a legal one. Congress could impeach a POTUS because his farts stink if they really wanted to. Getting a blowie from an intern isn't illegal, but our friend Bill still found himself impeached over it.

Quote: boymimbo

It still is a case of "He said vs Orange said". Just because Comey took notes and is to be trusted doesn't mean that he can be proven right in a court of law.

I think that would be a normal assumption. But if you really wanted to tear Trump a new one, you dig up every single public instance of where Trump statements are in conflict with what someone else said the conversation was about.

Remember before the election when he went down and met the President of Mexico, and then they both said something different was said. I know there has been quite a bit of high profile stuff. Probably a lot more smaller things.

I believe Trump has both claimed he has met Putin and not met Putin.

I wouldn't want Trump to be my witness for anything, I'd probably get convicted with a witness like that.