I asked Schilling what would happen if the next three years go the way the last one has.

 

“I’m not going to blame him,” Schilling said. “Absolutely not.”

 

Is there anything that could change her mind about Trump?

 

“Nope,” she said.

 

 

This is a dangerous way of thinking. You are always going to have a small amount of people like this, but Trump seems to have a lot of people act this way with him.

This is a dangerous way of thinking. You are always going to have a small amount of people like this, but Trump seems to have a lot of people act this way with him.

 

**cough** cult of Trump article **cough**

**cough** cult of Trump article **cough**

 

 

Just read that. Last paragraph is the part that really worries me.

 

If Trump’s presidency deteriorates further, expect the religious fervor of many of his followers to reach a fever pitch. That poses a risk for the country. Because the only thing more dangerous than a cult leader is a cult leader facing martyrdom.

I don't know when the media will tire of their "let's interview Trump voters to find out they still like Trump, have no understanding of the world around them" stories.

 

It's like reading an article about flat-earthers. Or creationists that believe that the world is only 6,000 years old. You know they exist but it's still sort of fascinating to see them try to explain their way of thinking to the rest of the world.

spoke with a high level member of the administration last night, and asked if there's concern behind the scenes that a Democratic House would lead to Trump working with Democrats on passing Democratic legislation, since he's not actually all that ideological, and just wants wins.

 

He said "Yes."

Top U.S. Diplomat Blasts Trump Administration for ‘Decapitation’ of State Department Leadership

Weakening State cedes diplomacy to U.S. adversaries, say current and former officials.

 

Scores of senior diplomats, including 60 percent of career ambassadors, have left the department since the beginning of the year, when President Donald Trump took office, according to the letter. There are 74 top posts at State that remain vacant with no announced nominee.

 

“Were the U.S. military to face such a decapitation of its leadership ranks, I would expect a public outcry,” Stephenson wrote.

 

It’s not just top leadership that is fleeing. New recruitment is falling dramatically as well, shrinking the pool for future talent. The number of applicants registering to take the Foreign Service Officer Test this year will be fewer than half the 17,000 who registered just two years ago, she wrote.

 

Stephenson wasn’t the only top diplomat with harsh words for the White House this week.

 

“Quite frankly, this administration is categorically destroying the Department of State and devaluing diplomacy as something important in this world,” said Wendy Sherman, former undersecretary of state for political affairs at the under President Barack Obama, speaking Nov. 6 at Foreign Policy‘s Diplomat of the Year event in Washington (Sherman was named this year as National Security Diplomat of the Year).

 

Morale at the State Department is crumbling, as Foreign Policy reported in July, amid an ongoing effort by the Trump administration to sideline the traditional motor of U.S. diplomacy. At a meeting last week, White House national security advisor H.R. McMaster appeared to justify the assault on State Department staffing by saying that some officials there did not support the president’s agenda, according to Reuters.

 

In a Nov. 2 interview, Trump responded to a question about unfilled positions at the State Department by stating, “I’m the only one that matters.”

At a contentious meeting on Monday, the Department of Justice's antitrust chief gave AT&T a choice: to get your purchase of Time Warner done, either sell off CNN's parent unit or DirecTV, or we'll see you in court.

 

Speculation the Trump administration is retaliating for CNN's coverage of Agent Orange.

I actually think that would be a reasonable stipulation except for the fact that Mike Flynn was spouting off that CNN was gonna see big changes soon.

I actually think that would be a reasonable stipulation except for the fact that Mike Flynn was spouting off that CNN was gonna see big changes soon.

The question would be if Fox News was an asset instead of CNN, would the same request be made? If you think the answer is no, this is really, really bad.

Good, sell directv off please.

I dont know enough about the case, but I cant figure out the equivalence of the request. I was under the impression ATT offered cable/television outside of Direct TV, so I dont really see what Direct TV has anything to do with the merger and its not equivalent to CNN's parent company.

 

Also dont know enough about ATT, but do they own other cable channels/networks?

I dont know enough about the case, but I cant figure out the equivalence of the request. I was under the impression ATT offered cable/television outside of Direct TV, so I dont really see what Direct TV has anything to do with the merger and its not equivalent to CNN's parent company.

 

Also dont know enough about ATT, but do they own other cable channels/networks?

 

Actually I don't really know as I think about Comcast NBC. I thought the issue was them owning too much of the tv service plus content but comcast nbc is the exact same set-up.

At a contentious meeting on Monday, the Department of Justice's antitrust chief gave AT&T a choice: to get your purchase of Time Warner done, either sell off CNN's parent unit or DirecTV, or we'll see you in court.

 

Speculation the Trump administration is retaliating for CNN's coverage of Agent Orange.

 

I know that's the breathless FT headline, but in what way would AT&T selling off Turner Broadcasting hurt CNN?

 

On the surface, I'm going to be in favor of actually enforcing some antitrust protections that have been neglected for far too long.

I know that's the breathless FT headline, but in what way would AT&T selling off Turner Broadcasting hurt CNN?

 

On the surface, I'm going to be in favor of actually enforcing some antitrust protections that have been neglected for far too long.

Turner makes huge profits. Less money to throw into CNN which can weaken the station.

 

It wouldn't bother me as long as the reason isn't based on perceived politics.

Edited November 8, 20178 yr by Dick Allen

Turner makes huge profits. Less money to throw into CNN.

 

It wouldn't bother me as long as the reason isn't based on perceived politics.

 

Turner being owned by someone else wouldn't change how profitable they are though, right?

 

FT's headline "TRUMP DOJ DEMANDS CNN SALE!" is just so misleading.

Turner being owned by someone else wouldn't change how profitable they are though, right?

 

FT's headline "TRUMP DOJ DEMANDS CNN SALE!" is just so misleading.

Out on their own and not with ATT and the rest of Time Warner probably would weaken them. They aren't selling Direct TV, so the administration basically is telling them to sell the unit that includes CNN or else.

 

Maybe it's justified. I have no idea. But the thought of it being political is definitely there.

Turner being owned by someone else wouldn't change how profitable they are though, right?

 

FT's headline "TRUMP DOJ DEMANDS CNN SALE!" is just so misleading.

 

Again I have no first hand knowledge, but if you wanted to try and argue why it looks bad, its because CNN being owned by a massive company is a much bigger foe than CNN being owned by a smaller company.

 

The Brietbarts of the world dont have the money/resources/reach of ATT. And the worry would be that ATT could leverage its massive advantages into knocking down CNN competitors.

 

Or from a personal standpoint, its much easier for Trump to take on CNN when they arent backed by the full power of ATT.

 

Just to be clear, I am not saying that there is or is not merit, I would just like to see some rationale as to why those conditions somehow make the sale better.

Carl Ichan has been subpoenaed by the southern district of New York over his attempts to influence biofuel policy while an advisor.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/201...e-trump-adviser

 

He stepped down back in August as the New Yorker piece detailing his attempts went to press

 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/...=social_twitter

 

 

Turner being owned by someone else wouldn't change how profitable they are though, right?

 

FT's headline "TRUMP DOJ DEMANDS CNN SALE!" is just so misleading.

Well, didnt one of Trump's flunkies say changes at CNN are coming not too long ago?

Well, didnt one of Trump's flunkies say changes at CNN are coming not too long ago?

 

With this news, watch CNNs ratings go up, and we know who is all about ratings, except when they are his own.

Out on their own and not with ATT and the rest of Time Warner probably would weaken them. They aren't selling Direct TV, so the administration basically is telling them to sell the unit that includes CNN or else.

 

Maybe it's justified. I have no idea. But the thought of it being political is definitely there.

The first article I read suggested that the DOJ might turn around and ask them to sell DirecTV.

 

Oh god please yes. AT&T has made that service go downhill so rapidly it's unbelievable. let them devastate time warner, everyone hates that company already.

I dont know enough about the case, but I cant figure out the equivalence of the request. I was under the impression ATT offered cable/television outside of Direct TV, so I dont really see what Direct TV has anything to do with the merger and its not equivalent to CNN's parent company.

 

Also dont know enough about ATT, but do they own other cable channels/networks?

DirecTV and Time Warner Cable are direct competitors for television viewers in any market where TW is the main cable provider. If those 2 merge, then you have both companies under the same crappy AT&T headline and they dominate the entire market in those areas. While AT&T does offer its own packages - in every place where Time Warner operates, DirecTV is a competitor of theirs.

Part of AT&T's lawyers response was "but they haven't enforced antitrust laws against vertical integration for 40 years!"

 

sounds like a good time to restart to me

DirecTV and Time Warner Cable are direct competitors for television viewers in any market where TW is the main cable provider. If those 2 merge, then you have both companies under the same crappy AT&T headline and they dominate the entire market in those areas. While AT&T does offer its own packages - in every place where Time Warner operates, DirecTV is a competitor of theirs.

 

I get that, but how does selling CNN help, that is the major problem im seeing with the alleged offer from the DOJ. If they sell CNN, youd still have the same problem.

I get that, but how does selling CNN help, that is the major problem im seeing with the alleged offer from the DOJ. If they sell CNN, youd still have the same problem.

How many networks does Time Warner own? They've got a good solid chunk of that business too right? Such that once AT&T buys them, they not only own all the TV providers but a large chunk of the networks?