Kristen Stewart Addresses Donald Trump's Creepy Old 'Twilight' Tweets

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

Before President Donald Trump was running our country, he was just a man, tweeting about the stars of a teen vampire franchise with a particular interest in its leading lady, Kristen Stewart.

Stewart and Pattinson’s highly publicized relationship ended following the release of the last “Twilight” film, after the actress kissed her “Snow White and the Huntsman” director, Rupert Sanders.

On Friday, Stewart was asked during a talkback event with Variety at the Sundance Film Festival what she thought about Trump’s tweets, now that he’s the president.

“He was mad at me a couple years ago, really obsessed with me a couple years ago, which is fucking crazy,” said Stewart, who was in town to promote her short film, “Come Swim.” “I can’t even understand it. I literally cannot even understand it. It’s such far-out concept that I don’t want to believe that actually is happening. It’s insane.”

At the time, Stewart said she dismissed Trump’s tweets because he was a “reality star.” But now she sees his social media obsession with her as much more troubling. 

“At that point, he was just, like, a reality star. I had no reference. It wasn’t like really a thing,” Stewart added. “But in retrospect, somebody reminded me of that and I was like, ‘Oh my gosh, you’re right!’ He’s probably, like, going to tweet about this.”

Probably, Kristen. Probably. 

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Source: Huff Politics

White House Press Secretary Rips Reporters In First Briefing Room Appearance

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer used his first appearance in the White House briefing room to unequivocally rebuke the press and accuse reporters of misreporting the size of the crowd at Donald Trump’s inauguration.

Spicer claimed that photos of the inaugural crowd on the National Mall did not accurately reflect the number of people who attended the event. However, photos of Trump’s inauguration showed that the crowd was significantly smaller than it was at Barack Obama’s inauguration in 2009.

Spicer also criticized a report from White House reporters saying Trump had removed a bust of Martin Luther King Jr. from the Oval Office. The report was later corrected.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Source: Huff Politics

President Trump's Opportunity To End American War In Afghanistan

The Afghanistan war was forgotten during the 2016 presidential campaign although the war is the longest American war in US history. After 16 years including NATO participation, the war is inconclusive – there is no peace and seemingly no end. The war has been between U.S./NATO and the Taliban. Originally the Taliban conquered many towns and provinces without fighting as the townsmen welcomed them because they were disappointed with the mujahidin internal intrigue just the same as the American public who were disappointed with the established political order in Washington during 2016 election that led to the victory of President-Elect Donald Trump.

The Taliban had control of Afghanistan when the tragedy of Bin Laden’s 9/11 took place and caused a regime change in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001. The subsequent U.S. appointed regimes failed to make peace with the Taliban and bring into the fold the 30 million Afghan citizens.

Needless to say, the American war must end by President Trump as it has no purpose to continue. The engagement of NATO members in Afghanistan was arguably unlawful. The North Atlantic Treaty initially included 12 memberships in 1949. Its mission was a collective defense pact against the threat of the Soviet Union to protect Europe. The membership has been expanded to currently 28 countries. Under article 5 of the treaty an attack on any member is considered an attack on all members. However, the Soviet Union never attacked a member of NATO and therefore its provision was never put to use until the US-led invasion of Afghanistan.

The United States pressured NATO members to participate in the invasion of Afghanistan plus several additional non-NATO members such as Korea. NATO participation in Afghanistan has been a tragic failure, as evidenced in the British contingent in Helmand and the French contingent in the southern provinces of Afghanistan. Moreover citizens of France and England demonstrated against the war in Afghanistan and pressured their governments to withdraw their troops which they did prematurely. Besides the engagement of NATO in Afghanistan was arguably illegal as Afghanistan had not invaded any of the NATO member countries and therefore NATO’s article 5 provisions did not apply in the particular case of Afghanistan. Historically, Afghanistan has had good relations with European countries.

During the U.S. presidential campaign candidate Trump opted to modify or withdraw from subsidizing NATO. President Trump should use this lever to redefine US Afghanistan policy.

Currently the Taliban appears to be prepared to make peace, negotiate with the U.S. government, and offer many advantages including eliminating the presence of ISIS and other Arab insurgents groups from Afghanistan soil and end Pakistan’s long-term duplicity vis-i-vis U.S. interest. President Trump should not miss this opportunity to finally end the war.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Source: Huff Politics

Flights To D.C. Area Are Packed With Women’s March Participants

This is so fly.

On Inauguration Day, social media sites like Instagram, Facebook and Twitter are getting flooded with pictures of excited, nasty women in airports and on planes on their way to D.C. for the Women’s March on Washington.

On some flights, marchers made themselves known by a show of hands.

On other flights it was easy to identify who was headed to the march due to shirts, signage and — of course — pink pussyhats:

One flight took the theme a step further and made its lighting a little more rosy.

And a Spirit Airlines’ flight had an exceptionally awesome flight attendant that asked the cabin to applaud “all the nasty women on board.”

Women from Canada were are even packing planes on their way to D.C.

It’s all kind of beautiful, right?

But, as the aforementioned awesome Spirit Airlines flight attendant said:

“Stay safe, stay hydrated, have a good time, look out for your fellow sisters. And just remember we don’t take no ish from no man.”

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Source: Huff Politics

Johnny Galecki Comments On That Supposed 'Big Bang Theory' Trump Warning

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

The vanity card at the end of Thursday night’s episode of “The Big Bang Theory” was no bazinga.

At the close of the episode on the eve of the presidential inauguration, a card from creator Chuck Lorre flashed on the screen with lyrics to George Harrison’s song “Beware of Darkness” and a timely quote from Monty Python:

Run away! Run Away!

Monty Python

The card is largely viewed as an anti-Donald Trump message, especially since Lorre, an outspoken critic of Trump, has referenced the now-president in cards before

While stopping by Build Series to talk about his new horror movie “Rings,” actor Johnny Galecki, aka Leonard from “The Big Bang Theory,” said he didn’t see the card, but talked about Lorre’s character, calling him “generous” and “giving.”

“I know whatever he wrote, his heart’s in the right place,” said Galecki.

Though, the actor added, “We’re a comedy at the end of the day, and I think there’s a danger in making this show a political lightning rod, so we’re aware of that. Other people would do it better, anyway.”

While Galecki makes solid points, the comment that “other people would do it better” is debatable. After all, with everything going on in the world, it’d be pretty great to hear the “Soft Kitty” song right about now.

For everyone who needs to hear “Soft Kitty”:

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Source: Huff Politics

If Disaster Hit The Inauguration, One Of These Men Could Have Been President

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

Had a catastrophic event struck Donald Trump’s presidential inauguration on Friday, the U.S. could have been looking ahead to a very different future.

Both the outgoing Obama administration and incoming Trump administration selected a “designated survivor” for the event ― someone who stayed at a secret, protected location and would become president if everyone ahead of them in the presidential line of succession were killed.

Barack Obama’s designated survivor for the inauguration was Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, the White House announced. And Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), president pro tempore of the Senate, issued a press release saying he would serve as a designated survivor at Trump’s request.

“As much as I would have liked to participate in the ceremony and festivities, I am honored to perform this important constitutional duty, which ensures the continuity of government,” Hatch said.

John Fortier, former director of the Continuity of Government Commission, told CNN prior to the inauguration that there would be two different lines of succession, depending on whether Trump had actually been sworn in yet.

“[There is] one from the Barack Obama administration, which is still in place, and one which really won’t be in place until Donald Trump is inaugurated, comes into office, actually formally nominates them and the Senate confirms his people,” Fortier said. “You might actually end up with a president from the prior administration because of a tragedy.”

Designated survivors are typically chosen for events like inaugurations, state of the union speeches and presidential addresses to joint sessions of Congress. Only people who already fall within the line of succession are eligible for the role.

The U.S. tradition of a designated survivor dates back to the Cold War era, and the concept has gotten a lot more press in recent months with the release of the ABC show “Designated Survivor,” which stars Kiefer Sutherland.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Source: Huff Politics

Americans Aren't With Donald Trump On Vaccines

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

President-elect Donald Trump’s skepticism about the safety of childhood vaccines contrasts not only with the scientific consensus, but also with the opinions of Americans ― fewer than one-quarter of whom think immunization should be a matter of personal choice.

By a more than 2-1 margin, 54 percent to 26 percent, Americans say that the science supporting the safety of childhood vaccination is “indisputable,” rather than something that requires future debate, a new HuffPost/YouGov survey finds, although partisan divides on the issue are widening.

Two-thirds of Americans say that the issue of vaccinating children is a matter of public health, with just 24 percent considering it a matter of personal choice. A 56 percent majority of those polled say they have at least a fair amount of trust in the government to set vaccination policies. 

Among public health experts, there’s little disagreement that immunization is safe and effective and one of the greatest public health achievements in modern times.

Trump has advocated the debunked theory that vaccines cause autism. Last week, he met with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a proponent of the autism theory, and Kennedy told reporters that Trump had asked him to lead an official commission investigating vaccine safety.

Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks sort of denied that Trump will create such a commission.

“There is no decision made on this position or commission,” she wrote in an email.

The link between vaccines and autism has been thoroughly investigated and disproved. Establishing a commission to investigate the matter could itself be harmful, experts say, since it could lead people to think the question hasn’t been answered or that vaccines don’t already go through a rigorous approval process. Sowing such doubts could lead to a drop in vaccination rates, needlessly exposing vulnerable groups like children to preventable diseases.

“It seems that at the highest level of our government, data is being ignored, scientific fact is being ignored,” said Alison Singer, president of the Autism Science Foundation, a nonprofit that supports research into causes of autism ― but not into the dubious vaccine link.

“That act of ignoring data will put children’s lives at risk,” Singer said.

Trump’s flirtation with vaccine-safety skeptics is dangerous, said Amy Pisani, director of Every Child By Two, a group that advocates in favor of timely childhood immunizations. But she said she believed Trump would come around.

“As soon as the Trump administration sits down and starts to read the science, and gets together with the proper autism groups,” Pisani said, “they’re going to come to realize the science is in on this issue and that focusing on vaccines will only take away precious resources that should be allocated to promising autism science.”

That act of ignoring data will put children’s lives at risk.
Alison Singer, Autism Science Foundation

The general public’s opinion on all these metrics has remained relatively stable in recent years. A HuffPost/YouGov poll conducted in February 2015 found that 59 percent of Americans believed that the safety of childhood vaccinations was indisputable (54 percent said this in the most recent poll), and 70 percent believed that vaccinations were a matter of public health (now 66 percent). In the February 2015 poll, 52 percent of respondents expressed faith in the government’s policies on the issue (now 56 percent). 

But although a majority of Democrats and Republicans still support vaccination, the minor partisan divides present in the 2015 survey appear to have modestly widened.

Democrats have become even more staunch advocates for vaccines in the past two years. Two-thirds say that vaccine science is indisputable, up 6 points from 2015. Seventy-seven percent still consider childhood vaccines a matter of public health.

In contrast, while 64 percent of Republicans think vaccination is a public health issue, that’s down 7 points since the previous survey. Fifty-three percent consider childhood vaccines indisputably safe, down 9 points from 2015.

With a Republican about to enter the White House, however, more Republicans say they trust the government. Fifty-three percent of Republicans now have at least a “fair amount” of trust in the government’s vaccination policies, up 13 points.

One other finding from the previous survey remains relevant, and could be promising for vaccination advocates: Liberals and conservatives are both more likely to tar the other side as anti-vaccine than to accept the label for themselves.

Self-described liberals say by a 13-point margin that conservatives are more likely to have doubts about vaccines than liberals are, while self-described conservatives say by a 16-point margin that liberals are more likely than conservatives to harbor doubts.

The HuffPost/YouGov poll consisted of 1,000 completed interviews conducted Jan. 11-12 among U.S. adults, using a sample selected from YouGov’s opt-in online panel to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population.

The Huffington Post has teamed up with YouGov to conduct daily opinion polls. You can learn more about this project and take part in YouGov’s nationally representative opinion polling. Data from all HuffPost/YouGov polls can be found here. More details on the polls’ methodology are available here.

Most surveys report a margin of error that represents some, but not all, potential survey errors. YouGov’s reports include a model-based margin of error, which rests on a specific set of statistical assumptions about the selected sample, rather than the standard methodology for random probability sampling. If these assumptions are wrong, the model-based margin of error may also be inaccurate. Click here for a more detailed explanation of the model-based margin of error.  

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Source: Huff Politics

Watch: The AUMF Gives Donald Trump a Scary Amount of Military Power

The people who elected Donald Trump thought the days of pay for play politics were over. They thought that Donald Trump would “drain the swamp.” They thought this rogue maverick who didn’t play by the rules was set to change the political game as we know it. They thought wrong.

Unfortunately the progression erosion of our democratic values began long before Donald Trump took office. However, when Donald Trump becomes the 45th President of the United States tomorrow, he will also be given more power than most people are aware of. This includes the power to cite a sixteen-year-old authorization called The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).

The bill was signed only three days after 9/11 by the George W. Bush Administration. It allows for the use of military force as justification for attacking nearly any community in the world. It’s been used dozens of times since 2001, often for issues unrelated to 9/11 and Al-Qaeda. It’s a scary amount of power and now we’re giving it to a thin-skinned demagogue who already uses his Twitter account as a weapon.

The short documentary, War Authority, takes a look at the controversial act of congress. It examines how the AUMF was passed with a vote of 420 to 1, and the lone dissenter. Director Matthew Palmer told Outspeak, “War Authority began as a very different film. It was simply about Congresswoman Barbara Lee, the sole member of Congress to vote against the 2001 AUMF. After interviewing her, however, I decided that more people had to know about the AUMF and its implications. Then, the 2016 election happened, and the matter became even more pressing.”

Now President Donald Trump has nearly unlimited authority to bomb, detain, and monitor just about anyone.

We should all be concerned, so help spread the word.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Source: Huff Politics

Corey Lewandowski Creates Alternate Reality In Which GOP Never Questioned Obama's Legitimacy

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

Corey Lewandowski, the onetime Donald Trump campaign manager turned K Street swamp dweller, is shocked and appalled that a Democratic congressman would challenge his former boss’ legitimacy.

In an interview on “The John Fredericks Show” this week, Lewandowski suggested Rep. John Lewis’ (D-Ga.) recent claim that Trump is not a “legitimate president” was unprecedented.

“Can you imagine just for a second if a Republican congressman would have gone out and said this about Barack Obama and continued that narrative?” said Lewandowski. “It would be an uproar in the mainstream media.”

Right Wing Watch first reported on the exchange.

Last week, Lewis expressed concern over U.S. intelligence reports on Russian interference in the presidential election that determined the efforts were intended to help Trump get elected.

“That’s not right, that’s not fair, that’s not the open democratic process,” said Lewis.

Lewis’ remarks struck some as inappropriate, and drew pushback from people on both sides of the aisle ― as well as the president-elect himself, of course.

Lewandowski apparently has a short memory when it comes to the GOP’s treatment of Obama. His own former boss, while not a congressman, was a champion of the birther movement in 2012. For months, Trump questioned whether Obama was actually born in the United States, alleging the president’s birth certificate was forged and that there had been a massive, even deadly, conspiracy to hide this information from the public.

But congressional Republicans are also to blame for allowing Trump’s racially charged delegitimization campaign to thrive. In 2009, many elected Republicans stated publicly that concerns over Obama’s birthplace had merit, while others refused to denounce the conspiracy theories.

This classic video, captured by blogger and videographer Mike Stark and published on The Huffington Post in 2009, shows just how feckless some Republicans were when it came to acknowledging that Obama was constitutionally permitted to serve.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Source: Huff Politics

Justice Sotomayor Wonders Whether 'Trump Is A Thief' Trademark Is Legal

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

WASHINGTON ― In a closely watched trademark case the Supreme Court heard on Wednesday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor posed a hypothetical question starring none other than the man who’s about to be president.

The court wasn’t hearing a case involving Donald Trump or one of his businesses, but the justice wanted to know whether a trademark denouncing the real estate magnate might survive a challenge under the Constitution’s guarantee of free speech.

“If someone slanders or libels an individual by saying Trump, before he was a public figure, ‘Trump Is A Thief,’ and that becomes their trademark,” Sotomayor said, “[Then] even if they go to court and prove that that’s a libel or a slander, that trademark would still exist and would be capable of use, because otherwise, canceling it would be an abridgement of the First Amendment?”

“I believe that’s correct,” responded John Connell, the lawyer for The Slants, an Asian-American rock band that’s challenging a law the federal government used to deny it trademark protection after deciding the name amounted to a racial slur. The Supreme Court is reviewing a lower court’s 2015 decision to strike down that law as unconstitutional.

Sotomayor’s question was technical and, in keeping with the nature of oral arguments, her Trump reference appeared to be in the spur of the moment. But its timing was curious given Trump’s upcoming inauguration, which Sotomayor will attend on Friday alongside her colleagues.

A week after Trump was elected, Sotomayor imparted words about resilience and the continuity of government institutions at a public appearance.

We can’t afford for a president to fail,” she cautioned her audience, without referencing Trump by name. “And it is true, for those who tell us that we have to support that which he does which is right, and help guide him to those right decisions in whichever way we can find to do that.”

Trump’s cameo in the Supreme Court’s public record on Wednesday isn’t his first one.

In a campaign finance case in 1989, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Anthony Kennedy pondered whether Trump could self-fund — of all things — a political campaign.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Source: Huff Politics