A movie
An upscale version of Playboy. Apparently it’s a sign you have made it as a celebrity if you pose naked on the cover. Tasteful nudity of course.
Renowned for their political commentary as well 
1 Like
Did you read it, mate?
Are you taking issue with the factual nature of the content?
I’ll be interested to read your answers.
Trump called Comey “crazy” and “a real nut job”. It’s a bit like @anon7035031 calling somebody else “crazy” and “deluded”.
Or, indeed Trump calling anybody else “deluded”, given the rest of what he said here.
2 Likes
Has to be Bannon, doesn’t it?
The law enforcement investigation into possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign has identified a current White House official as a significant person of interest, showing that the probe is reaching into the highest levels of government, according to people familiar with the matter.
The senior White House adviser under scrutiny by investigators is someone close to the president, according to these people, who would not further identify the official.
The revelation comes as the investigation also appears to be entering a more overtly active phase, with investigators shifting from work that has remained largely hidden from the public to conducting interviews and using a grand jury to issue subpoenas. The intensity of the probe is expected to accelerate in the coming weeks, the people said.
There is no content. Anyone with a brain can listen to the full exchange between Warren and Mnuchin for themselves and see what’s going on. Warren is being her usual grandstanding self, interrupting and not actually listening to anything being said. The idea of re-instating a law from 1933 (that was deemed no longer relevant in 1999 by Bill Clinton when he signed it’s repeal), given how much the banking industry has changed since then, is a childlike argument. What needs to be done is to ensure that investment banking cannot crash the economy as it did in 2008/9. I happen to personally believe the big banks should have been broken up in 2009, but that opportunity was lost.
Again, if Elizabeth Warren was in favor of breaking up the big banks, why didn’t she do it when she had the opportunity? Obama and herself had 8 years and did nothing, actually they did the opposite, bailing out the very entities that caused the crash. In the process creating a massive bubble in assets, resulting in 95% of the wealth created going to the top 1%. Great job representing the working and middle class.
So you obviously didn’t read it. Screaming “no content”, now that’s the reaction of a child, but, as always, I expect that from you.
The content quite clearly illustrates that the Trump administration was completely bullshitting by ever suggesting they were going to re-implement it.
You appear to be under the misapprehension that Elizabeth Warren had absolute power to enact any legislation she wanted over the last eight years. I’m not quite sure why you would think that, but it does show a fundamental and basic misunderstanding of the US political system.
Oh, and Warren has consistently argued for a new Glass-Steagall Act.
As for calling for the reinstatement of it “a childlike argument”, strange then that you were calling it a “master stroke” last July.
Ah right, you’re one of these “the banks should have all been let go bust” merchants.
Yes, what a great idea that would have been.
This is astonishing. I didn’t feel like anything he did up to this point would actually lead to him being impeached, but this is different. If it’s true no one can defend him. No denial from Spicer either.
He has a lot of fundamental basic misunderstandings. The howler about saving the economy by leaving positions was the best.
Oh, and I do find it rather amusing that you now entirely disregard Vanity Fair when it publishes something you don’t like, having previously praised Christopher Hitchens, who wrote as a columnist for…Vanity Fair.
Ooooft
Spicer came out with a sort of non-denial denial on Trump’s behalf, mixed with the trademark bait and switch.
The first bit about Comey is bizarre. Comey’s actions in relation to the Russia investigation have been the exact opposite of grandstanding and “politicising”, whatever politicising is supposed to mean.
“By grandstanding and politicizing the investigation into Russia’s actions, James Comey created unnecessary pressure on our ability to engage and negotiate with Russia,” Spicer said in a statement to the press. “The investigation would have always continued, and obviously, the termination of Comey would not have ended it. Once again, the real story is that our national security has been undermined by the leaking of private and highly classified conversations.”
The four dimensional chess defence. Every fuck up is a strategy.
If you go back to what Trump said to the Russians: "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off. "
I can’t remember was that two days or one day after he had fired Comey, but it doesn’t matter either way - the firing of Comey was the father and mother of all shitstorms and a world story. The talk was that Trump didn’t expect any blowback before he carried out the firing, but to still think the same many hours after it, when every TV network in the western world at least was leading with it, the delusion must be total and unshakeable no matter what happens. He genuinely is like something out of a comic book.
I wouldn’t expect you to understand any of the following, but others may be interested.
The US is $20T in debt and is adding $0.5T a year in additional debt. The government is bloated and inefficient to an obscene degree, think Ireland times 100 (unless you want to argue how efficient the Irish public service is:joy:
). In any organization, public or private, the most effective way of controlling cost is controlling headcount. Any manager worth his or her salt knows this and would be used to the concept of controlling costs.
Again, I wouldn’t expect many government employees or those on government assistance to understand as they assume someone else will pay, regardless of how much debt is passed on to future generations.
I think you’re thick.
2 Likes
Boom. 
https://twitter.com/lachlan/status/865397142747136000
From 2008 to 2010 Democrats had control of the house and from mid Aug 2009 had the 60 required votes in the senate. There was ample time to enact legislation if they had the will. The primary reason they got savaged in the 2010 midterms is they demonstrated they were just as controlled by big business as Republicans.
Where did I say let the banks fail? The only ones suggesting that are idiots on the left. The problem is banks that are too big to be allowed fail, and again the point is Democrats and Republicans did nothing to resolve that, in actual fact the largest banks are even bigger and potentially more dangerous now. The banks should have been restructured but there was no political will to do it.
Elizabeth Warren consistently for re-instating G-S? Including when she was a Republican before switching sides? Why did it take her until 2015 to propose legislation?
You asked why Elizabeth Warren didn’t re-instate Glass-Steagall. She’s one person and has only been a senator since 2013.
Again, a basic but fundamental misunderstanding of the way US politics works.
How are things going for President Batshit now that he has control of all three branches of government?
“The only ones”.
You class yourself as a “libertarian”.
Letting the banks fail is as classic a libertarian position as there is.
Ron Paul of course was one of those “idiots on the left”.
https://www.ronpaul.com/2012-10-29/ron-paul-no-more-bailouts-banks-should-be-allowed-to-fail/
You’re really obsessed with trying to win arguments with irrelevant points about people being members of a different party years ago.
Refer to my answer above for the second bit.