Benjamin Franklin

Hey genius, I said Priebus was a good choice and some of the others on the early list I also supported. I also said Sessions was "eminently qualified" to be AG. Work on your reading comprehension skills boy blunder. I have given credit where I feel it's due and criticism where it's not. You can gobble Trump's knob. Or talk about his appointees. There's no rules here in case you haven't noticed.

Google glass can already do this, albiet in a clunkier fashion. From Google Glass to Google Contacts is not a big leap. And from there to optical insert is also not big. Connecting to optic nerve to record visial data is probably further out. S1E1 is so brutal that I bet it ruined many to the show. The concept was really good and execution flawless but ugh. S1E2 was my least favorite.

Trump's choices of Bannon who is widely associated as a hero of the alt-right and Sessions, a guy who got denied on mostly racial grounds in the 80s, sets a tone. You may think Bannon's admirers have nothing to do with the man himself and you may revere Brietbart as a news source, or you might think that Sessions got railroaded back in the 80s. But in both choices, Trump veered towards obviously racially divisive picks. Not people with no baggage on race--but people with lots of baggage on race. In Sessions, I feel a little better that Specter later changed his tone and regretted voting against him. Specter was no slave to party and his independent judgment is one that gives me hope.

It's Trump's position, not mine. And no, it's not the same thing as Nazi Germany. But you can't take one "nation of immigrants" statement and pretend Trump didn't say the other things.

I don't know. Priebus is a fine choice. Bannon is a bad person who contributed mostly filth to the political dialog in the US. Sessions is eminently qualified and while I disagree with some of his activism on anti-gay marriage and other topics, his politics is what I expect from an R. My comment was on the tone Trump is setting with these people. As I said, something to watch.

Ban all members of a religion has more of a 1939 feel though, doesn't it?

You're the best kind of arrogant. Ignorant arrogant. The second example is correct but you likely couldn't explain why. The first, vastly more prevalent example, is totally wrong. In your sentence, "grammar" should include the period within the quotation mark. You won't find a well-edited American periodical example or American usage dictionary that shows/says otherwise. (This lesson ignores your 13 year old girl-ish overuse of the quotation marks.)

Sessions was denied by the judiciary committee controlled 10 to 8 Republican to Democrat. 2 Republicans voted against him. One, Specter, later said he regretted his vote to reject Sessions. Setting that history lesson aside, Trump is creating a cabinet with an onerous undertone to watch closely. Bannon is a horrible person to have near the presidency. Sessions is someone to watch closely if he survives his confirmation process.

Trick is, that device is not some long ways off. It's just about here and it will work just like shown.

Commas, periods, question marks go inside the quotation marks, unless you're a limey.

My favorite this 3rd season (I haven't seen them all yet) was Nosedive. White Bear, Nosedive, Entire History of You--Enjoyed them all. The Waldo Moment seems relevant in this election cycle.

Costa Rica's advantage (And many smaller soccer-crazy countries have this especially in South America), is that they play together a lot more.

Still a long ways to go for that discussion but not a great start. Hopefully they will schedule Hondourous and Panama for Anchorage Field and get back on track.

Or you can just say Brietbart is a piece of garbage alt-right mouthpiece and ignore the tripe that spews from it. Faster.

This is why the Bannon choice is alarming. To have a guy like that around someone without a moral compass is bad. Very bad.

Just goes to show races shouldn't mix. Right Ozy and the alt Righties?

You think having at one time an "entire office" (ha!) dedicated to foreign affairs qualifies Giuliani to be the 2016-? Secretary of State? This is a little more convincing than your defense yesterday of Palin for Interior but come on. Just because you can twist your brain into a pretzel to make the arguments doesn't mean they are good arguments. Palin would not be a good choice for Interior. And Giuliani would not be a good choice for State. They would both, in fact, be enormously underqualified. Giuliani for AG would make sense.

Do you think this qualifies him for Secretary of State? I traveled 440,000 air miles in 2015-16. That doesn't make me a candidate to be ambassador to the UN.

Rudy to State is not being widely picked up but some outlets are discussing it. Maybe a trial balloon. Not much written press reaction so maybe that balloon will fly. Makes no sense why he'd be the one or why he'd want it. Dealing with governments from within the confines of NYC is a lot different than playing a leading role on the world stage. (Rudy having experience with governments as mayor of NYC is akin to your girl Palin having Russia experience from sitting in AK.)

He's not wrong. Just like the doomsday predictors revise their forecasts, the conspiracists can shift out of this easily. We thought Hillary was part of the plan but now we see their true genius: It turns out that Trump is all part of the illuminati vision. We didn't realize how shrewd they really are.

Guiliani for State? What qualifications does he have internationally? At least Roos Bolton has traveled the seven kingdoms.

8 heartbeats away is far too close.

It's not getting any better.

The day DC Tom defended Sarah Palin's qualifications to be a presidential cabinet member.

Bannon's aiming to be Trump's Karl Rove. Trump is thin-skinned and maybe the backlash on that choice will get him to minimize his role. Bannon is an unmitigated disaster and should be nowhere near the seat of power in the US.