CelticsStrong

Other Discussions => Off Topic => Current Events / Political Discussion => Topic started by: nickagneta on February 01, 2017, 10:50:23 AM

Title: The President Trump Thread
Post by: nickagneta on February 01, 2017, 10:50:23 AM
I figured there is going to be a lot to talk about almost daily so why not have a thread to encompass just about any subject that pertains to the administration, their decisions and actions and the news of the day. It will keep the CE forum from having dozens of threads on subjects large and small.

I would like this thread to become stickered and last so I want to reiterate that the rules of this forum be followed. I will be keeping an eye out and will kindly ask those that are breaking the rules to get back in line.


So to start off what do people think of the Neil Gorsuch nomination?
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: FatKidsDad on February 01, 2017, 11:01:26 AM
I don't know enough about Judge Gorsuch's stand on issues to say for sure, but based on media reports it looks like he may be on the opposite side of many issues from me.

That said, he is by all accounts a brilliant and accomplished jurist who meets every requirement laid out by the Constitution.

I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.

Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: greece666 on February 01, 2017, 11:03:56 AM
@nickagneta

excellent points

we need a thread like this

I cannot stress enough how important it is for ppl to at least try to keep it polite at all times.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 01, 2017, 11:14:09 AM
I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.

Yeah, that'll teach em.  ;)

In all seriousness it looks like they're going to filibuster the nomination. I'm not a fan for both moral and practical reasons, but I can't blame them for being mad about obstruction so unprecedented that the Rs had to invent a hypothetical alternate reality around an out-of-context 25 year old Biden quote to play the "both sides do it!" card. And there's considerable pressure from the left to categorically oppose Trump.

With the lack of political consequences for obstruction it's not surprising they'd try it, but I think it's going to fall flat and maybe backfire.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: greece666 on February 01, 2017, 11:16:26 AM
Re: Neil Gorsuch

I don't think anything yet, just collecting info.

He is a conservative in politics and an originalist when it comes to law, hardly a surprise tbh

Spent time in the UK studying at Univ.

At least when young, he was opposed to the alleged culture of PC at unis.

By comparison to the other likely nominees (Hardiman and Pryor), he is the one who nomination is likely to cause less uproar, esp. by comparison to Pryor.

OK article on the subject below

http://www.scpr.org/news/2017/01/31/68608/trump-set-to-announce-supreme-court-nominee/

Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 01, 2017, 11:18:03 AM
BTW here are our President's thoughts on Black History Month from a "listening session" this morning:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3l0TKqWMAA8Jvt.jpg)

Inspiring.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: footey on February 01, 2017, 11:19:16 AM
I'm going to say this once, and then stop looking at the political threads.

I go on Celtics Blog to get away from the bickering in politics.  It never ends. I am personally disgusted with the state of affairs, and Celtics Blog is one of my sanctuaries from this insanity.

Wish the mods would block all political threads. Diminishes the value of this site for me.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 01, 2017, 11:20:54 AM
I'm going to say this once, and then stop looking at the political threads.

I go on Celtics Blog to get away from the bickering in politics.  It never ends. I am personally disgusted with the state of affairs, and Celtics Blog is one of my sanctuaries from this insanity.

Wish the mods would block all political threads. Diminishes the value of this site for me.
You can ask a moderator to be removed from the Current Events forum.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Evantime34 on February 01, 2017, 11:24:28 AM
I'm going to say this once, and then stop looking at the political threads.

I go on Celtics Blog to get away from the bickering in politics.  It never ends. I am personally disgusted with the state of affairs, and Celtics Blog is one of my sanctuaries from this insanity.

Wish the mods would block all political threads. Diminishes the value of this site for me.
I've started to put people I find grating on these threads on the ignore list, that has helped me.

Personally I just wish current events didn't show up under latest forum topics so I wasn't tempted to click.

I think there is value in listening to those with differing opinions who can objectively view things, so I like listening to the opinions of some republicans. I find that it's only specific people whose opinions I find grating that frustrate me on these political threads.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: nickagneta on February 01, 2017, 11:26:23 AM
I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.

Yeah, that'll teach em.  ;)

In all seriousness it looks like they're going to filibuster the nomination. I'm not a fan for both moral and practical reasons, but I can't blame them for being mad about obstruction so unprecedented that the Rs had to invent a hypothetical alternate reality around an out-of-context 25 year old Biden quote to play the "both sides do it!" card. And there's considerable pressure from the left to categorically oppose Trump.

With the lack of political consequences for obstruction it's not surprising they'd try it, but I think it's going to fall flat and maybe backfire.
I think the way the dems have delayed cabinet confirmations and the calls for filibustering will be all for naught. They don't have the Congressional power to stop the president from getting his people into the positions they have been nominated for. Delaying things is just petty and vengeful and accomplishes nothing.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: greece666 on February 01, 2017, 11:29:08 AM
I'm going to say this once, and then stop looking at the political threads.

I go on Celtics Blog to get away from the bickering in politics.  It never ends. I am personally disgusted with the state of affairs, and Celtics Blog is one of my sanctuaries from this insanity.

Wish the mods would block all political threads. Diminishes the value of this site for me.

I know what you mean. Personally, despite being very interested in politics in general, I have not discussed or commented on Greek politics IRL in months. Too painful and frustrating.

Having said this, I could see this being a problem if the blog was not well structured. As it is, all  you have to do is avoid the Off Topic section. Or as kozlodoev mentioned, notify the mods of your wish.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 01, 2017, 11:35:20 AM
I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.

Yeah, that'll teach em.  ;)

In all seriousness it looks like they're going to filibuster the nomination. I'm not a fan for both moral and practical reasons, but I can't blame them for being mad about obstruction so unprecedented that the Rs had to invent a hypothetical alternate reality around an out-of-context 25 year old Biden quote to play the "both sides do it!" card. And there's considerable pressure from the left to categorically oppose Trump.

With the lack of political consequences for obstruction it's not surprising they'd try it, but I think it's going to fall flat and maybe backfire.
I think the way the dems have delayed cabinet confirmations and the calls for filibustering will be all for naught. They don't have the Congressional power to stop the president from getting his people into the positions they have been nominated for. Delaying things is just petty and vengeful and accomplishes nothing.

Practically, yes. Costing a couple of days or weeks of a cabinet spot being filled does basically nothing. But political gestures are often more symbolic than anything else, and obstruction has proven to not move many votes against the obstructers, and might motivate more of the millions protesting to get out and vote the next time around.

That said, I don't like it. They were calling for a filibuster before even knowing who the nominee was, which is really unseemly to me regardless of what the Republicans pulled. I'd like a system where there are mechanisms for the Senate minority to slow down debate when it's vital - this seems consistent with the role the Founders wanted the Senate to play. But instead it's just turned into a routine tactic to stop everything the majority wants. Didn't like it when the Rs pulled it under Obama, don't like it now.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Evantime34 on February 01, 2017, 11:36:06 AM
I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.

Yeah, that'll teach em.  ;)

In all seriousness it looks like they're going to filibuster the nomination. I'm not a fan for both moral and practical reasons, but I can't blame them for being mad about obstruction so unprecedented that the Rs had to invent a hypothetical alternate reality around an out-of-context 25 year old Biden quote to play the "both sides do it!" card. And there's considerable pressure from the left to categorically oppose Trump.

With the lack of political consequences for obstruction it's not surprising they'd try it, but I think it's going to fall flat and maybe backfire.
From a practical standpoint, voters rewarded republicans for being obstructionist by giving them control of both houses and the presidency.

The Democrats need to look at how the republicans came to have all the power in government and learn from the republicans successes. Democrats have compromised with republicans for a long time now and it has shown that not giving an inch is actually a better strategy. For all their questionable practices, the tea party started a grass roots movement that lead to republicans running things, if the democrats don't do something similar during the midterms I think we will get 8 years of Trump with Republicans controlling all 3 branches of government.

Garland was a moderate choice meant to appease republicans and they wouldn't even vote on him, the republicans refused and ended up with someone as right wing as Scalia.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 01, 2017, 11:41:09 AM
Spent time in the UK studying at Univ.
That's an awfully circumvent way to say that he's got a Ph.D. in Jurisprudence from Oxford. :P

By comparison to the other likely nominees (Hardiman and Pryor), he is the one who nomination is likely to cause less uproar, esp. by comparison to Pryor.
He's several years younger than both of these, which is somewhat relevant given that the appointment is for life. However, the difference is small enough to be largely immaterial.

Not sure what to make of this nomination. It seems Gorusch just hasn't ruled on enough cases to get a full picture of what he's like (e.g. he has never been assigned to abortion cases).

Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 01, 2017, 11:49:06 AM
I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.

Yeah, that'll teach em.  ;)

In all seriousness it looks like they're going to filibuster the nomination. I'm not a fan for both moral and practical reasons, but I can't blame them for being mad about obstruction so unprecedented that the Rs had to invent a hypothetical alternate reality around an out-of-context 25 year old Biden quote to play the "both sides do it!" card. And there's considerable pressure from the left to categorically oppose Trump.

With the lack of political consequences for obstruction it's not surprising they'd try it, but I think it's going to fall flat and maybe backfire.
From a practical standpoint, voters rewarded republicans for being obstructionist by giving them control of both houses and the presidency.

I think it was less rewarding them than that the obstruction simply wasn't a factor. Heck, I heard a lot of hardcore Rs complaining they didn't obstruct enough and "gave Obama whatever he wanted"!

The Democrats need to look at how the republicans came to have all the power in government and learn from the republicans successes. Democrats have compromised with republicans for a long time now and it has shown that not giving an inch is actually a better strategy. For all their questionable practices, the tea party started a grass roots movement that lead to republicans running things, if the democrats don't do something similar during the midterms I think we will get 8 years of Trump with Republicans controlling all 3 branches of government.

It's notoriously more difficult to get the left to come out and vote, especially in midterms, but the movement against Trump is already several times larger than the early Tea Party. I've never seen the left so energized and active in my 30+ years of following politics. It's probably the biggest popular uprising on that side since Nixon/Vietnam. But it means almost nothing if it doesn't translate into elections.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: MBunge on February 01, 2017, 11:56:18 AM
I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.

Yeah, that'll teach em.  ;)

In all seriousness it looks like they're going to filibuster the nomination. I'm not a fan for both moral and practical reasons, but I can't blame them for being mad about obstruction so unprecedented that the Rs had to invent a hypothetical alternate reality around an out-of-context 25 year old Biden quote to play the "both sides do it!" card. And there's considerable pressure from the left to categorically oppose Trump.

With the lack of political consequences for obstruction it's not surprising they'd try it, but I think it's going to fall flat and maybe backfire.
From a practical standpoint, voters rewarded republicans for being obstructionist by giving them control of both houses and the presidency.

The Democrats need to look at how the republicans came to have all the power in government and learn from the republicans successes. Democrats have compromised with republicans for a long time now and it has shown that not giving an inch is actually a better strategy. For all their questionable practices, the tea party started a grass roots movement that lead to republicans running things, if the democrats don't do something similar during the midterms I think we will get 8 years of Trump with Republicans controlling all 3 branches of government.

Garland was a moderate choice meant to appease republicans and they wouldn't even vote on him, the republicans refused and ended up with someone as right wing as Scalia.

An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.  Yes, Republicans and conservatives have been behaving in deranged and outrageous ways, but if Democrats and liberals start acting the same way then our entire system will just stop implode.

I'd also point out that Barack Obama managed to be a fairly successful President despite never really following the GOP example and that the reward Republicans have received for all their efforts is being chained to Donald Trump for the next four years.

Mike
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 01, 2017, 11:59:47 AM
The Democrats need to look at how the republicans came to have all the power in government and learn from the republicans successes. Democrats have compromised with republicans for a long time now and it has shown that not giving an inch is actually a better strategy. For all their questionable practices, the tea party started a grass roots movement that lead to republicans running things, if the democrats don't do something similar during the midterms I think we will get 8 years of Trump with Republicans controlling all 3 branches of government.

It's notoriously more difficult to get the left to come out and vote, especially in midterms, but the movement against Trump is already several times larger than the early Tea Party. I've never seen the left so energized and active in my 30+ years of following politics. It's probably the biggest popular uprising on that side since Nixon/Vietnam. But it means almost nothing if it doesn't translate into elections.
The problem with any movement against Trump is that it's not "horizontal" enough. It really doesn't matter whether the Democrats will get "more win" in blue states, and so far I see no evidence that they'll be able to gain support in places where they need to win seats from Rs.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Evantime34 on February 01, 2017, 12:02:20 PM
I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.

Yeah, that'll teach em.  ;)

In all seriousness it looks like they're going to filibuster the nomination. I'm not a fan for both moral and practical reasons, but I can't blame them for being mad about obstruction so unprecedented that the Rs had to invent a hypothetical alternate reality around an out-of-context 25 year old Biden quote to play the "both sides do it!" card. And there's considerable pressure from the left to categorically oppose Trump.

With the lack of political consequences for obstruction it's not surprising they'd try it, but I think it's going to fall flat and maybe backfire.
From a practical standpoint, voters rewarded republicans for being obstructionist by giving them control of both houses and the presidency.

The Democrats need to look at how the republicans came to have all the power in government and learn from the republicans successes. Democrats have compromised with republicans for a long time now and it has shown that not giving an inch is actually a better strategy. For all their questionable practices, the tea party started a grass roots movement that lead to republicans running things, if the democrats don't do something similar during the midterms I think we will get 8 years of Trump with Republicans controlling all 3 branches of government.

Garland was a moderate choice meant to appease republicans and they wouldn't even vote on him, the republicans refused and ended up with someone as right wing as Scalia.

An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.  Yes, Republicans and conservatives have been behaving in deranged and outrageous ways, but if Democrats and liberals start acting the same way then our entire system will just stop implode.

I'd also point out that Barack Obama managed to be a fairly successful President despite never really following the GOP example and that the reward Republicans have received for all their efforts is being chained to Donald Trump for the next four years.

Mike
Trump is going to get all his cabinet members approved. The house is republican, the senate is republican, if one more supreme court justice dies or steps down the supreme court will be republican. If the deomocrats do not offer any opposition there will be no checks and balances and the system won't work anyway.

I'd rather have the dems obstruct and stand up for what they believe in than watch as the republicans control everything entirely. In principal what you are saying makes sense, but in practice it would be the death of the democratic party.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 01, 2017, 12:09:18 PM
The Democrats need to look at how the republicans came to have all the power in government and learn from the republicans successes. Democrats have compromised with republicans for a long time now and it has shown that not giving an inch is actually a better strategy. For all their questionable practices, the tea party started a grass roots movement that lead to republicans running things, if the democrats don't do something similar during the midterms I think we will get 8 years of Trump with Republicans controlling all 3 branches of government.

It's notoriously more difficult to get the left to come out and vote, especially in midterms, but the movement against Trump is already several times larger than the early Tea Party. I've never seen the left so energized and active in my 30+ years of following politics. It's probably the biggest popular uprising on that side since Nixon/Vietnam. But it means almost nothing if it doesn't translate into elections.
The problem with any movement against Trump is that it's not "horizontal" enough. It really doesn't matter whether the Democrats will get "more win" in blue states, and so far I see no evidence that they'll be able to gain support in places where they need to win seats from Rs.

The numbers have been impressive in red states too - I live in one of them. And the Dems are struggling at the state level in most "blue states", so there's room for growth almost everywhere. But the Senate map is lousy for them in 2018, and gerrymandering+concentrating in urban areas means the Dems need to win the House popular vote by 6-7 pts to take the House, which is very unlikely. It's a bad situation for sure.


Personally I think the Dems should use the Gorsuch hearings to get him on record about things like executive overreach and the application of the Emoluments clause - topics where an originalist should be on their side. Use it to gather rhetorical ammunition against Trump rather than a futile effort to stop the nomination.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 01, 2017, 12:17:22 PM
Personally I think the Dems should use the Gorsuch hearings to get him on record about things like executive overreach and the application of the Emoluments clause - topics where an originalist should be on their side. Use it to gather rhetorical ammunition against Trump rather than a futile effort to stop the nomination.
Does that even mean anything anymore? Hatch was on record waxing poetic about Garland, but that did nothing for his case.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: FatKidsDad on February 01, 2017, 12:18:26 PM
The Democrats need to look at how the republicans came to have all the power in government and learn from the republicans successes. Democrats have compromised with republicans for a long time now and it has shown that not giving an inch is actually a better strategy. For all their questionable practices, the tea party started a grass roots movement that lead to republicans running things, if the democrats don't do something similar during the midterms I think we will get 8 years of Trump with Republicans controlling all 3 branches of government.

It's notoriously more difficult to get the left to come out and vote, especially in midterms, but the movement against Trump is already several times larger than the early Tea Party. I've never seen the left so energized and active in my 30+ years of following politics. It's probably the biggest popular uprising on that side since Nixon/Vietnam. But it means almost nothing if it doesn't translate into elections.
The problem with any movement against Trump is that it's not "horizontal" enough. It really doesn't matter whether the Democrats will get "more win" in blue states, and so far I see no evidence that they'll be able to gain support in places where they need to win seats from Rs.

The numbers have been impressive in red states too - I live in one of them. And the Dems are struggling at the state level in most "blue states", so there's room for growth almost everywhere. But the Senate map is lousy for them in 2018, and gerrymandering+concentrating in urban areas means the Dems need to win the House popular vote by 6-7 pts to take the House, which is very unlikely. It's a bad situation for sure.


Personally I think the Dems should use the Gorsuch hearings to get him on record about things like executive overreach and the application of the Emoluments clause - topics where an originalist should be on their side. Use it to gather rhetorical ammunition against Trump rather than a futile effort to stop the nomination.

This. Timely hearings with the loyal opposition raising valid questions and challenges to establish the record without offering a rubber stamp.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: MBunge on February 01, 2017, 12:49:32 PM
I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.

Yeah, that'll teach em.  ;)

In all seriousness it looks like they're going to filibuster the nomination. I'm not a fan for both moral and practical reasons, but I can't blame them for being mad about obstruction so unprecedented that the Rs had to invent a hypothetical alternate reality around an out-of-context 25 year old Biden quote to play the "both sides do it!" card. And there's considerable pressure from the left to categorically oppose Trump.

With the lack of political consequences for obstruction it's not surprising they'd try it, but I think it's going to fall flat and maybe backfire.
From a practical standpoint, voters rewarded republicans for being obstructionist by giving them control of both houses and the presidency.

The Democrats need to look at how the republicans came to have all the power in government and learn from the republicans successes. Democrats have compromised with republicans for a long time now and it has shown that not giving an inch is actually a better strategy. For all their questionable practices, the tea party started a grass roots movement that lead to republicans running things, if the democrats don't do something similar during the midterms I think we will get 8 years of Trump with Republicans controlling all 3 branches of government.

Garland was a moderate choice meant to appease republicans and they wouldn't even vote on him, the republicans refused and ended up with someone as right wing as Scalia.

An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.  Yes, Republicans and conservatives have been behaving in deranged and outrageous ways, but if Democrats and liberals start acting the same way then our entire system will just stop implode.

I'd also point out that Barack Obama managed to be a fairly successful President despite never really following the GOP example and that the reward Republicans have received for all their efforts is being chained to Donald Trump for the next four years.

Mike
Trump is going to get all his cabinet members approved. The house is republican, the senate is republican, if one more supreme court justice dies or steps down the supreme court will be republican. If the deomocrats do not offer any opposition there will be no checks and balances and the system won't work anyway.

I'd rather have the dems obstruct and stand up for what they believe in than watch as the republicans control everything entirely. In principal what you are saying makes sense, but in practice it would be the death of the democratic party.

The problem isn't opposition.  It's mindless obstruction.

For example, Gorsuch is replacing Scalia so this nomination will basically just return the Court to the status quo.  If, say, Ruth Bader Ginsberg dies or retires and Trump nominates a replacement, that pick will almost certainly change the Court from a 5-4 split where one Justice can change the outcome to a 6-3 split that could last another 15 years at least.  But if liberals have already gone bonkers opposing Gorsuch, what's going to be left for the next and potentially more critical Supreme Court opening?

If you're going to have a showdown over filibustering Supreme Court picks, do you want to do it when you can argue that you are trying to prevent conservatives from overwhelming the court half a generation or do you want to do it when you're just being spiteful?

Mike
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: footey on February 01, 2017, 12:52:40 PM
I'm going to say this once, and then stop looking at the political threads.

I go on Celtics Blog to get away from the bickering in politics.  It never ends. I am personally disgusted with the state of affairs, and Celtics Blog is one of my sanctuaries from this insanity.

Wish the mods would block all political threads. Diminishes the value of this site for me.
You can ask a moderator to be removed from the Current Events forum.

Thanks. I will.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: greece666 on February 01, 2017, 04:38:20 PM
Spent time in the UK studying at Univ.
That's an awfully circumvent way to say that he's got a Ph.D. in Jurisprudence from Oxford. :P

By comparison to the other likely nominees (Hardiman and Pryor), he is the one who nomination is likely to cause less uproar, esp. by comparison to Pryor.
He's several years younger than both of these, which is somewhat relevant given that the appointment is for life. However, the difference is small enough to be largely immaterial.

Not sure what to make of this nomination. It seems Gorusch just hasn't ruled on enough cases to get a full picture of what he's like (e.g. he has never been assigned to abortion cases).

You are wrong on that Kozlodoev.

That's the short name of his Oxford college. That's pretty common. I studied in St. Antony's, Oxford, but most people there call it St. Ants.

(https://i.gyazo.com/2bf9f04d436be4aaaa0452d09b1d2be7.png)
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 01, 2017, 04:47:20 PM
Spent time in the UK studying at Univ.
That's an awfully circumvent way to say that he's got a Ph.D. in Jurisprudence from Oxford. :P

By comparison to the other likely nominees (Hardiman and Pryor), he is the one who nomination is likely to cause less uproar, esp. by comparison to Pryor.
He's several years younger than both of these, which is somewhat relevant given that the appointment is for life. However, the difference is small enough to be largely immaterial.

Not sure what to make of this nomination. It seems Gorusch just hasn't ruled on enough cases to get a full picture of what he's like (e.g. he has never been assigned to abortion cases).

You are wrong on that Kozlodoev.

That's the short name of his Oxford college. That's pretty common. I studied in St. Antony's, Oxford, but most people there call it St. Ants.

(https://i.gyazo.com/2bf9f04d436be4aaaa0452d09b1d2be7.png)
His bio said he went to Oxford University, so the Oxford.

Also, for what it's worth, here's a glowing endorsement from a former Obama Solicitor General:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/why-liberals-should-back-neil-gorsuch.html
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: greece666 on February 01, 2017, 05:01:46 PM
Spent time in the UK studying at Univ.
That's an awfully circumvent way to say that he's got a Ph.D. in Jurisprudence from Oxford. :P

By comparison to the other likely nominees (Hardiman and Pryor), he is the one who nomination is likely to cause less uproar, esp. by comparison to Pryor.
He's several years younger than both of these, which is somewhat relevant given that the appointment is for life. However, the difference is small enough to be largely immaterial.

Not sure what to make of this nomination. It seems Gorusch just hasn't ruled on enough cases to get a full picture of what he's like (e.g. he has never been assigned to abortion cases).

You are wrong on that Kozlodoev.

That's the short name of his Oxford college. That's pretty common. I studied in St. Antony's, Oxford, but most people there call it St. Ants.

(https://i.gyazo.com/2bf9f04d436be4aaaa0452d09b1d2be7.png)
His bio said he went to Oxford University, so the Oxford.

Also, for what it's worth, here's a glowing endorsement from a former Obama Solicitor General:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/why-liberals-should-back-neil-gorsuch.html

University College Oxford is part of the Oxford.

I was there too, so trust me, I kind of know what I am talking about.

Last but not least, in my original post, I wrote Univ (=a college in the Oxford) not uni (=university).

You probably confuse what an Oxford college is with the American meaning of the word college.

minor edit: typo
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: jpotter33 on February 01, 2017, 05:10:57 PM
As a conservative libertarian, so far from what I've read I like the Gorsuch pick, though he's not perfect.

From what I've seen he seems to be pretty good with state's rights, personal privacy and the Fourth Amendment, and gun rights, along with religious liberty, and he certainly leans toward the more libertarian side of the conservative spectrum.

However, his pro-life views have skewed his other views and affected his philosophy on the similar, but separate, issues of PAS (Assisted Suicide) measures and even the organ trade, which I'm specifically interested in due to it being my dissertation topic. These are issues that are sure to be hot-button issues during his tenure, and with as contentious as these issues already are in government circles, though not necessarily in the general population itself, I hope his presence doesn't prevent any progress in these areas.

Overall, I do like the pick, because it provides a good balance on the Court, which is what we should all want.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 01, 2017, 05:17:24 PM
Spent time in the UK studying at Univ.
That's an awfully circumvent way to say that he's got a Ph.D. in Jurisprudence from Oxford. :P

By comparison to the other likely nominees (Hardiman and Pryor), he is the one who nomination is likely to cause less uproar, esp. by comparison to Pryor.
He's several years younger than both of these, which is somewhat relevant given that the appointment is for life. However, the difference is small enough to be largely immaterial.

Not sure what to make of this nomination. It seems Gorusch just hasn't ruled on enough cases to get a full picture of what he's like (e.g. he has never been assigned to abortion cases).

You are wrong on that Kozlodoev.

That's the short name of his Oxford college. That's pretty common. I studied in St. Antony's, Oxford, but most people there call it St. Ants.

(https://i.gyazo.com/2bf9f04d436be4aaaa0452d09b1d2be7.png)
His bio said he went to Oxford University, so the Oxford.

Also, for what it's worth, here's a glowing endorsement from a former Obama Solicitor General:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/why-liberals-should-back-neil-gorsuch.html

University College Oxford is part of the Oxford.

I was there too, so trust me, I kind of know what I am talking about.

Last but not least, in my original post, I wrote Univ. (=a college in the Oxford) not uni (=university).

You probably confuse what an Oxford college is with the American meaning of the word college.
Sorry, I think the British colloquialisms were a bit confusing (also, it's late-ish on a work day). All I meant to stress is that he has a doctorate from the Oxford University system. I don't think many Americans will recognize "Univ" as a shorthand for a school at the University of Oxford.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 01, 2017, 05:27:49 PM
As a conservative libertarian, so far from what I've read I like the Gorsuch pick, though he's not perfect.

From what I've seen he seems to be pretty good with state's rights, personal privacy and the Fourth Amendment, and gun rights, along with religious liberty, and he certainly leans toward the more libertarian side of the conservative spectrum.

However, his pro-life views have skewed his other views and affected his philosophy on the similar, but separate, issues of PAS (Assisted Suicide) measures and even the organ trade, which I'm specifically interested in due to it being my dissertation topic. These are issues that are sure to be hot-button issues during his tenure, and with as contentious as these issues already are in government circles, though not necessarily in the general population itself, I hope his presence doesn't prevent any progress in these areas.

Overall, I do like the pick, because it provides a good balance on the Court, which is what we should all want.
I just realized he wrote the concurring opinion on the Hobby Lobby case. I know this held in SCOTUS, but I haven't been overly impressed with this ruling.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: greece666 on February 01, 2017, 05:56:51 PM
(https://i.gyazo.com/25fa6b8c4e7f8408ed5de1103ea50bc1.png)

Quote
Meryem Yildirim, 7, left, sitting on the shoulders of her dad, Fatih, of Schaumburg, and Adin Bendat-Appell, 9, on the shoulders of his dad, Rabbi Jordan Bendat-Apell, of Deerfield, during a protest at O'Hare International Airport on Jan 30, 2017. (Nuccio DiNuzzo / Chicago Tribune)

 Full story  (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-jewish-muslim-fathers-viral-photo-met-20170131-story.html)

 reddit post  (https://www.reddit.com/r/UpliftingNews/comments/5rcrn9/the_story_behind_the_viral_photo_of_muslim_and/?utm_content=comments&utm_medium=user&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=frontpage)

PS @kozlodoev My bad, I should have explained in more detail
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: nickagneta on February 01, 2017, 06:14:42 PM
(https://i.gyazo.com/25fa6b8c4e7f8408ed5de1103ea50bc1.png)

Quote
Meryem Yildirim, 7, left, sitting on the shoulders of her dad, Fatih, of Schaumburg, and Adin Bendat-Appell, 9, on the shoulders of his dad, Rabbi Jordan Bendat-Apell, of Deerfield, during a protest at O'Hare International Airport on Jan 30, 2017. (Nuccio DiNuzzo / Chicago Tribune)

 Full story  (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-jewish-muslim-fathers-viral-photo-met-20170131-story.html)

 reddit post  (https://www.reddit.com/r/UpliftingNews/comments/5rcrn9/the_story_behind_the_viral_photo_of_muslim_and/?utm_content=comments&utm_medium=user&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=frontpage)

PS @kozlodoev My bad, I should have explained in more detail
Awesome
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: nickagneta on February 01, 2017, 07:10:03 PM
Apparently President Trump told Mitch McConnell that if the democrats attempt to filibuster the Gorsuch nomination that the republicans should "Go nuclear", meaning to change supreme court nomination rules and prevent filibustering at such events. While I dont support the democrats trying to delay or halt Gorsuch's nomination based solely on political reasons(much like how I didnt support republicans doing the same thing to Garland), I am even more against changing rules that have been a part of Congress forever simply to get your man nominated. It smacks of the same type of political "cheating" that has become common with gerrymandering, in other words, I dont like the possible outcome so instead I will just change the rules to get my way.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: 2short on February 01, 2017, 07:24:21 PM
Apparently President Trump told Mitch McConnell that if the democrats attempt to filibuster the Gorsuch nomination that the republicans should "Go nuclear", meaning to change supreme court nomination rules and prevent filibustering at such events. While I dont support the democrats trying to delay or halt Gorsuch's nomination based solely on political reasons(much like how I didnt support republicans doing the same thing to Garland), I am even more against changing rules that have been a part of Congress forever simply to get your man nominated. It smacks of the same type of political "cheating" that has become common with gerrymandering, in other words, I dont like the possible outcome so instead I will just change the rules to get my way.
Tp, this is a big big issue.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Celtics4ever on February 01, 2017, 07:39:56 PM
The Senate as it stands will get little done without changing the rules.   I do not like obstruction done from either side anything that gets things moving is fine with me.   I think McConnell is responsible for a lot of gridlock, I can't wait for him to be out of the Senate, he has polarized and made our politics worse.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: greece666 on February 01, 2017, 11:00:20 PM
United Arab Emirates Foreign Minister defends the ban (http://www.dawn.com/news/1312066/in-a-first-uae-foreign-minister-defends-trump-visa-ban)

Quote
The UAE minister said the US was within its rights to take what he said was a “sovereign decision” concerning immigration the first such remarks in support of Trump's move from the Gulf Arab region.

Sheikh Abdullah also voiced faith in the American administration's assurances that the move was not based on religion, and noted that most of the world's Muslim-majority countries were not covered by the order.

“The is a temporary ban and it will revised in three months, so it is important that we put into consideration this point,” he said following talks with his Russian counterpart in the Emirati capital, Abu Dhabi.

“Some of these countries that were on this list are countries that face structural problems,” he continued. “These countries should try to solve these issues... and these circumstances before trying to solve this issue with the United States.”
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: greece666 on February 01, 2017, 11:12:57 PM
U.S. Army tanks being moved to Russian border (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/01/31/US-Army-tanks-being-moved-to-Russian-border/7541485871778/?utm_source=upi&utm_campaign=mp&utm_medium=1) (UPI)

Quote
The U.S. Army will send M1A2 Abrams main battle tanks to the Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania along Russia's borders ahead of a NATO operation in the spring.

The tanks participated in joint drills between U.S. and Polish forces but some are being moved to the Baltic states to await a deterrence operation set to reassure the United States' European allies that Washington, D.C., is committed to their defense, The Wall Street Journal reported.

German troops are also arriving in Lithuania, British troops are reinforcing positions in Estonia and Canadian troops are being sent to Latvia.

The United States deployed 87 tanks, 144 armored vehicles and 3,500 troops -- the biggest U.S. deployment in Europe since the end of the Cold War -- to perform regional operations through most of 2017 to combat Russian aggression, the Pentagon said. Another unit will replace the brigade that's currently deployed in Europe in October.

"This is the largest ever U.S. deployment in Poland and it's about deterrence," U.S. Army in Europe commander Gen. Ben Hodges told NBC News. "An outright attack by Russia is unlikely, but the best way to keep it unlikely is to do what we're doing here today."

The United States did not have a single tank in Europe prior to Russian President Vladimir Putin's annexation of Crimea in 2014.

Article on the same subject by NBC (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/nato-shows-firepower-poland-u-s-allies-worry-about-russia-n714156)
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: triboy16f on February 02, 2017, 11:26:20 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/30/trumps-joke-about-schumers-fake-tears-sours-an-already-complicated-relationship

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trump-slams-dumb-refugee-deal-australia-brokered/story?id=45212196
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: triboy16f on February 02, 2017, 11:32:28 AM
I just wished he stop twitting
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 02, 2017, 11:45:37 AM
Trump to focus counter-extremism program solely on Islam

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-extremists-program-exclusiv-idUSKBN15G5VO


(http://i443.photobucket.com/albums/qq159/fanfromvt/IMG_1344_2.png?t=1485967444)

This decision does not seem based upon safety or prevention of American Deaths.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Moranis on February 02, 2017, 11:50:39 AM
Trump is apparently good with breaking as many of the Constitutional Amendments and U.S. laws as humanly possible.

https://www.thenation.com/article/leaked-draft-of-trumps-religious-freedom-order-reveals-sweeping-plans-to-legalize-discrimination/
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 02, 2017, 11:52:10 AM
On the same day Rex Tillerson is confirmed, the House votes to kill a transparency rule for oil companies

http://www.vox.com/2017/2/1/14477314/oil-companies-disclosure-rule-tillerson


One thing that is interesting is to try to project and examine through the lens of history. In general, history cares less and less about rhetoric and more and more about effect/impact. In fact, effect/impact is usually how laws are supposed to be interpreted; this becomes easier in the future. So it is very easy to see something like the above, and buy into the individual rhetoric of why this wouldn't easily lead to corruption, but this is an easy example of something that would be looked back on and historians would say "what were they thinking, of course this facilitates corruption." Same with minimizing Dodd-Frank, etc.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: mmmmm on February 02, 2017, 11:57:09 AM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-38837263

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/politics/us-australia-trump-turnbull.html?_r=0

Quote
WASHINGTON — A phone call between President Trump and the Australian prime minister is threatening to develop into a diplomatic rift between two stalwart allies after the two men exchanged harsh words over refugee policy, and Mr. Trump abruptly ended the call.

The phone call last Saturday between Mr. Trump and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull turned contentious after the Australian leader pressed the president to honor an agreement to accept 1,250 refugees from an Australian detention center.

Late Wednesday night, Mr. Trump reiterated his anger over the agreement on Twitter. He called the agreement a “dumb deal” and blamed the Obama administration for accepting it but then said that he would “study” it. The tweet was posted after The Washington Post reported details of the phone call.

...

The leaders of the two allies did not seem to agree on the outcome of the conversation. Mr. Trump’s tweet suggested the agreement could be at risk while Mr. Turnbull said that, despite the bluntness of the discussion, the United States had committed to upholding the arrangement.

The flare-up — and conflicting characterizations of the call from Mr. Trump and Mr. Turnbull — threatened to do lasting damage to relations between the two countries and could drive Canberra closer to China, which has a robust trading relationship with Australia and is competing with Washington to become the dominant force in the Asia-Pacific region.

A senior Trump administration official said the president told Mr. Turnbull on Saturday that the refugees could include the “next Boston bombers.” He also said he was “going to get killed” politically by the deal, given that the day before he signed an executive order to stem the refugee flow into the United States and refuse visas for all citizens from seven Muslim countries.

This fine little tidbit is also in this story:

Quote
It was not the only awkward call last week between Mr. Trump and a world leader. Earlier, on Friday, Mr. Trump joked to President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico that he would deploy troops to Mexico if the Mexican government failed to control “bad hombres down there.”

On Wednesday night, the senior Trump administration official said the president’s comments to Mr. Peña Nieto were made in jest and the comments reflected Mr. Trump’s standing offer to help Mexico battle drug gangs and control border crossings. The official said the conversation between the two presidents was friendly, and Mr. Peña Nieto did not appear to be offended.

The Mexican government issued a statement denying the A.P. report and said it did not “correspond to reality.”
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 02, 2017, 12:04:03 PM
On the same day Rex Tillerson is confirmed, the House votes to kill a transparency rule for oil companies

http://www.vox.com/2017/2/1/14477314/oil-companies-disclosure-rule-tillerson


One thing that is interesting is to try to project and examine through the lens of history. In general, history cares less and less about rhetoric and more and more about effect/impact. In fact, effect/impact is usually how laws are supposed to be interpreted; this becomes easier in the future. So it is very easy to see something like the above, and buy into the individual rhetoric of why this wouldn't easily lead to corruption, but this is an easy example of something that would be looked back on and historians would say "what were they thinking, of course this facilitates corruption." Same with minimizing Dodd-Frank, etc.

Semi-related, but just today, on Tillerson's first day, we loosened the sanctions against Russia to allow certain transactions with the FSB (former KGB)

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/cyber_gl1.pdf (https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/cyber_gl1.pdf)

Aggression in Ukraine has also shot up since the inauguration, despite a cease-fire.

http://www.newsweek.com/while-trump-fiddles-putin-steps-war-ukraine-550603 (http://www.newsweek.com/while-trump-fiddles-putin-steps-war-ukraine-550603)

I see the tank movements posted above, but I don't think there's been a peep from the government on Ukraine so far. And we don't appear to be extracting any concessions from Russia, or applying any real pressure on them. Instead we're somehow managing to p--- off Australia.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 02, 2017, 12:04:38 PM


U.S. military probing more possible civilian deaths in Yemen raid (Including 1 American Citizen)


Quote
U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.


http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15G5RX


I will be anxiously awaiting a Bengazi level inquiry. Now, only 1 american child died, so maybe only 1/4 of the effort, but still, will be waiting.


Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 02, 2017, 12:07:05 PM
In the meanwhile, this just happened:

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/a-full-transcript-of-donald-trumps-black-history-month-1791871370

... and also, this just happened:

http://time.com/4658012/donald-trump-national-prayer-breakfast-transcript/

I don't even know what to say at this stage.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: triboy16f on February 02, 2017, 12:10:20 PM
In the meanwhile, this just happened:

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/a-full-transcript-of-donald-trumps-black-history-month-1791871370

... and also, this just happened:

http://time.com/4658012/donald-trump-national-prayer-breakfast-transcript/

I don't even know what to say at this stage.

I thought Elysium and Hunger Games were just movies...
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: triboy16f on February 02, 2017, 12:11:33 PM
I agree that the deal brokered by the Obama admin with Austrailia ...is a bad deal... The way he is freaking out though is not necessary...


Just say no without the tweeting and embarressing others
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: TheTruthFot18 on February 02, 2017, 12:25:33 PM


U.S. military probing more possible civilian deaths in Yemen raid (Including 1 American Citizen)


Quote
U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.


http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15G5RX


I will be anxiously awaiting a Bengazi level inquiry. Now, only 1 american child died, so maybe only 1/4 of the effort, but still, will be waiting.

How is this even related to Bengazi? Because Americans and Muslims were in a firefight? That's the only similarity I see. Or did I miss where an embassy got overrun and actual innocent AMericans died. I might have missed that.

And was the civilian killed the child of Al-Awaki? Please.

Feel bad for the SEAL, feel bad for the actual innocent civilians. Don't make this into a story it is not.

This is also what happens when you take the fight to a cowardly enemy who hides with/among civilians. The difference between us and them is they target civilians while we only target the enemy. 
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: TheTruthFot18 on February 02, 2017, 12:26:10 PM
In the meanwhile, this just happened:

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/a-full-transcript-of-donald-trumps-black-history-month-1791871370

... and also, this just happened:

http://time.com/4658012/donald-trump-national-prayer-breakfast-transcript/

I don't even know what to say at this stage.

I thought Elysium and Hunger Games were just movies...

They were.

What's your point?
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 02, 2017, 12:46:28 PM


U.S. military probing more possible civilian deaths in Yemen raid (Including 1 American Citizen)


Quote
U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.


http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15G5RX


I will be anxiously awaiting a Bengazi level inquiry. Now, only 1 american child died, so maybe only 1/4 of the effort, but still, will be waiting.

I'm reluctant to jump on Trump for this, because failed operations are going to happen and I don't want to mirror the hysteria around Benghazi. The "go after their families" campaign rhetoric makes it look especially bad, but this poor girl's brother was also killed by drone under Obama, so it's not like this sort of thing is new, sadly.

To me, the bigger story is that multiple military sources with knowledge of the operation appear to be throwing Trump's team under the bus and suggesting they are incompetent and cost lives by rushing a dubious operation. Between that and the leaks about his phone calls with Mexico + Australia, it seems like an awful lot of high-level people are freaking out about how he's doing his job right now. In most administrations some leaks are deliberate, but this is so negative and abnormal that it seems like people using the media to draw attention to extremely alarming behavior.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: wiley on February 02, 2017, 12:53:29 PM


U.S. military probing more possible civilian deaths in Yemen raid (Including 1 American Citizen)


Quote
U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.


http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15G5RX


I will be anxiously awaiting a Bengazi level inquiry. Now, only 1 american child died, so maybe only 1/4 of the effort, but still, will be waiting.

How is this even related to Bengazi? Because Americans and Muslims were in a firefight? That's the only similarity I see. Or did I miss where an embassy got overrun and actual innocent AMericans died. I might have missed that.

And was the civilian killed the child of Al-Awaki? Please.

Feel bad for the SEAL, feel bad for the actual innocent civilians. Don't make this into a story it is not.

This is also what happens when you take the fight to a cowardly enemy who hides with/among civilians. The difference between us and them is they target civilians while we only target the enemy.

That's true of our military.  Is it true of Trump/Bannon?  Or was Trump just being overly dramatic when he said during the campaign to take out their families too? 
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 02, 2017, 01:01:43 PM

Semi-related, but just today, on Tillerson's first day, we loosened the sanctions against Russia to allow certain transactions with the FSB (former KGB)

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/cyber_gl1.pdf (https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/cyber_gl1.pdf)

After reading up on this, this is true but appears to be a pre-planned change due to an unforseen consequence of the sanctions. Basically imports of IT equipment were supposed to still be legal, but Russia requires them to go through the FSB, which meant the sanctions prohibited any American from selling IT to any Russian market. Fair enough.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 02, 2017, 01:07:34 PM


U.S. military probing more possible civilian deaths in Yemen raid (Including 1 American Citizen)


Quote
U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.


http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15G5RX


I will be anxiously awaiting a Bengazi level inquiry. Now, only 1 american child died, so maybe only 1/4 of the effort, but still, will be waiting.

How is this even related to Bengazi? Because Americans and Muslims were in a firefight? That's the only similarity I see. Or did I miss where an embassy got overrun and actual innocent AMericans died. I might have missed that.

And was the civilian killed the child of Al-Awaki? Please.

Feel bad for the SEAL, feel bad for the actual innocent civilians. Don't make this into a story it is not.

This is also what happens when you take the fight to a cowardly enemy who hides with/among civilians. The difference between us and them is they target civilians while we only target the enemy.

Wow. I wish I had your concrete sense of right and wrong, would make life easier. There were several civilian deaths during a mission based on bad and incomplete intel.

The 8 yo girl who died, was actually a US citizen. 8 yo US citizen. Something about not suffering the crimes of your fathers, etc.

Then the Seal.

What were the Bengazi investigations really about? Ignoring requests for more security? Seems like here we have an incursion that was described by the military itself as unprepared, poor intelligence, that ended in: 8 yo US citizen, Navy seal, and civilian casualties. I would want to know: Why was this ordered if there was poor intel and poor preparation, and the military leaders knew there was poor intel and preparation? That Seal and his family deserve to know why this mission was ordered to go ahead.

Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 02, 2017, 01:11:57 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3WpdvwUoAAuwSp.jpg)
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: TheTruthFot18 on February 02, 2017, 01:12:50 PM
Quote
I'm reluctant to jump on Trump for this, because failed operations are going to happen and I don't want to mirror the hysteria around Benghazi. The "go after their families" campaign rhetoric makes it look especially bad, but this poor girl's brother was also killed by drone under Obama, so it's not like this sort of thing is new, sadly.

It is if you're A fan from VT
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: TheTruthFot18 on February 02, 2017, 01:19:57 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3WpdvwUoAAuwSp.jpg)

Look at the first group and then look at the second group. What's the difference? If you really can't tell, you're beyond saving.

I'll hold your hand...

The banned countries are active warzones where ISIS or ALQaida operate. Or some off shoot of those two. The last is Iran: state sponsor of terrorism.

The non-banned countries are functioning economies where war is not over taking the land. Are they necessarily free and democratic nations, no, but who are we to judge now?

What would banning non existent refugees from rich middle eastern nations do? These countries don't even allow in refugees.

Take off your tin foil hat. Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 02, 2017, 01:28:00 PM
Quote
I'm reluctant to jump on Trump for this, because failed operations are going to happen and I don't want to mirror the hysteria around Benghazi. The "go after their families" campaign rhetoric makes it look especially bad, but this poor girl's brother was also killed by drone under Obama, so it's not like this sort of thing is new, sadly.

It is if you're A fan from VT


Hated it then, hate it now. Fine with at least 1 Benghazi inquiry if it had been at all about trying to prevent it from happening in the future. If it were anything except political, I would expect the same level of scrutiny to something like this. Unfortunately, it is/was purely political.

Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 02, 2017, 01:28:02 PM
Quote
I'm reluctant to jump on Trump for this, because failed operations are going to happen and I don't want to mirror the hysteria around Benghazi. The "go after their families" campaign rhetoric makes it look especially bad, but this poor girl's brother was also killed by drone under Obama, so it's not like this sort of thing is new, sadly.

It is if you're A fan from VT

Respectfully, please don't use my comments to support taking a shot at another poster. An 8 year old girl is still dead from US military action, an American girl to boot, and that's a tragedy to be regretted no matter who her father was. We don't get to pick our parents.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: nickagneta on February 02, 2017, 01:29:00 PM
Quote
I'm reluctant to jump on Trump for this, because failed operations are going to happen and I don't want to mirror the hysteria around Benghazi. The "go after their families" campaign rhetoric makes it look especially bad, but this poor girl's brother was also killed by drone under Obama, so it's not like this sort of thing is new, sadly.

It is if you're A fan from VT
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3WpdvwUoAAuwSp.jpg)

Look at the first group and then look at the second group. What's the difference? If you really can't tell, you're beyond saving.

I'll hold your hand...

The banned countries are active warzones where ISIS or ALQaida operate. Or some off shoot of those two. The last is Iran: state sponsor of terrorism.

The non-banned countries are functioning economies where war is not over taking the land. Are they necessarily free and democratic nations, no, but who are we to judge now?

What would banning non existent refugees from rich middle eastern nations do? These countries don't even allow in refugees.

Take off your tin foil hat. Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams.

Its this type of responses that are against the CE rules and gets these threads locked. Lets keep it civil and respectful
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: TheTruthFot18 on February 02, 2017, 01:30:18 PM
Quote
I'm reluctant to jump on Trump for this, because failed operations are going to happen and I don't want to mirror the hysteria around Benghazi. The "go after their families" campaign rhetoric makes it look especially bad, but this poor girl's brother was also killed by drone under Obama, so it's not like this sort of thing is new, sadly.

It is if you're A fan from VT
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3WpdvwUoAAuwSp.jpg)

Look at the first group and then look at the second group. What's the difference? If you really can't tell, you're beyond saving.

I'll hold your hand...

The banned countries are active warzones where ISIS or ALQaida operate. Or some off shoot of those two. The last is Iran: state sponsor of terrorism.

The non-banned countries are functioning economies where war is not over taking the land. Are they necessarily free and democratic nations, no, but who are we to judge now?

What would banning non existent refugees from rich middle eastern nations do? These countries don't even allow in refugees.

Take off your tin foil hat. Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams.

its this type of respinses that are against the CE rules and gets these threads locked. Lets keep it civil and respectful

I'm trying to get us off the conspiracy theories and back on topic.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 02, 2017, 01:34:35 PM
Quote
I'm reluctant to jump on Trump for this, because failed operations are going to happen and I don't want to mirror the hysteria around Benghazi. The "go after their families" campaign rhetoric makes it look especially bad, but this poor girl's brother was also killed by drone under Obama, so it's not like this sort of thing is new, sadly.

It is if you're A fan from VT
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3WpdvwUoAAuwSp.jpg)

Look at the first group and then look at the second group. What's the difference? If you really can't tell, you're beyond saving.

I'll hold your hand...

The banned countries are active warzones where ISIS or ALQaida operate. Or some off shoot of those two. The last is Iran: state sponsor of terrorism.

The non-banned countries are functioning economies where war is not over taking the land. Are they necessarily free and democratic nations, no, but who are we to judge now?

What would banning non existent refugees from rich middle eastern nations do? These countries don't even allow in refugees.

Take off your tin foil hat. Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams.

its this type of respinses that are against the CE rules and gets these threads locked. Lets keep it civil and respectful

I'm trying to get us off the conspiracy theories and back on topic.

So, we have a president who:
- Will not reveal promised tax returns
- Will not disclose finances
- Will not divest himself from his business ownerships/interests
- Will not reveal his full business assets
- Whose "solution" to conflict of interest is to appoint his sons as managers while he is still the owner and still have his sons at political functions

How is it possible to even begin to know what is political and what is self interest? It's not much of a "conspiracy."
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: wiley on February 02, 2017, 01:36:38 PM
I don't know enough about Judge Gorsuch's stand on issues to say for sure, but based on media reports it looks like he may be on the opposite side of many issues from me.

That said, he is by all accounts a brilliant and accomplished jurist who meets every requirement laid out by the Constitution.

I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.

I agree with this.  The Democrats lost on the Supreme Court.  McConnell and other Republican went rogue against the whole process and I agree have poisoned it.  Repubs were even talking about not allowing any Hillary nominees in during her entire term.  That is shameful.  But the Democrats not only shouldn't but are currently too weak to do anything if a pick is basically qualified as this one is.   Time to build a better movement Dems so that you are not always so easily bullied.  That new movement should be inclusive of all people in the US, not just substantively but in belief and rhetoric.  Bernie had was a natural in that.  The Democrats need other naturals.     
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: nickagneta on February 02, 2017, 01:51:55 PM
Quote
I'm reluctant to jump on Trump for this, because failed operations are going to happen and I don't want to mirror the hysteria around Benghazi. The "go after their families" campaign rhetoric makes it look especially bad, but this poor girl's brother was also killed by drone under Obama, so it's not like this sort of thing is new, sadly.

It is if you're A fan from VT
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3WpdvwUoAAuwSp.jpg)

Look at the first group and then look at the second group. What's the difference? If you really can't tell, you're beyond saving.

I'll hold your hand...

The banned countries are active warzones where ISIS or ALQaida operate. Or some off shoot of those two. The last is Iran: state sponsor of terrorism.

The non-banned countries are functioning economies where war is not over taking the land. Are they necessarily free and democratic nations, no, but who are we to judge now?

What would banning non existent refugees from rich middle eastern nations do? These countries don't even allow in refugees.

Take off your tin foil hat. Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams.

its this type of respinses that are against the CE rules and gets these threads locked. Lets keep it civil and respectful

I'm trying to get us off the conspiracy theories and back on topic.
I don't care what your motive was. Just don't be insulting and demeaning. Its against the rules.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: mmmmm on February 02, 2017, 03:57:01 PM
I don't know enough about Judge Gorsuch's stand on issues to say for sure, but based on media reports it looks like he may be on the opposite side of many issues from me.

That said, he is by all accounts a brilliant and accomplished jurist who meets every requirement laid out by the Constitution.

I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.

I agree with this.  The Democrats lost on the Supreme Court.  McConnell and other Republican went rogue against the whole process and I agree have poisoned it.  Repubs were even talking about not allowing any Hillary nominees in during her entire term.  That is shameful.  But the Democrats not only shouldn't but are currently too weak to do anything if a pick is basically qualified as this one is.   Time to build a better movement Dems so that you are not always so easily bullied.  That new movement should be inclusive of all people in the US, not just substantively but in belief and rhetoric.  Bernie had was a natural in that.  The Democrats need other naturals.     

Regarding the sentiment in bold expressed by FatKidsDad:  I actually disagree.

I don't believe that "The high road" will achieve anything other than to yield a lifetime appointment to the high court without any sign of resistance.   Showing the opposition for what they are?  There is plenty that has been shown already.  Those who want to believe one way or the other are not going to suddenly be shown the light of wisdom as the Dems stand proudly on the deck of a sinking ship.

I know that the politics of obstruction are distasteful.  But the practical reality is that the Tea Party and the alt-right have set the stage where they are now going to be the norm.

The Democrats have an obligation to their constituency to do anything legally in their power to prevent or at least resist the implementation of policies that goes against their platform.   If that means they have to boycott or filibuster, to delay and obstruct, then that is part of the legal arsenal and should be used.

The period from now to the mid-term elections is the window in which the Republicans are guaranteed to have the majorities and thus can act without check.    On any particular ruling, order or appointment, a delay of a couple of months or one month or even just a week or two eats into that 24 month window.    Even if the delay is just against the inevitable, that doesn't mean the delay isn't worth doing.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: wiley on February 02, 2017, 04:34:04 PM
I don't know enough about Judge Gorsuch's stand on issues to say for sure, but based on media reports it looks like he may be on the opposite side of many issues from me.

That said, he is by all accounts a brilliant and accomplished jurist who meets every requirement laid out by the Constitution.

I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.

I agree with this.  The Democrats lost on the Supreme Court.  McConnell and other Republican went rogue against the whole process and I agree have poisoned it.  Repubs were even talking about not allowing any Hillary nominees in during her entire term.  That is shameful.  But the Democrats not only shouldn't but are currently too weak to do anything if a pick is basically qualified as this one is.   Time to build a better movement Dems so that you are not always so easily bullied.  That new movement should be inclusive of all people in the US, not just substantively but in belief and rhetoric.  Bernie had was a natural in that.  The Democrats need other naturals.     

Regarding the sentiment in bold expressed by FatKidsDad:  I actually disagree.

I don't believe that "The high road" will achieve anything other than to yield a lifetime appointment to the high court without any sign of resistance.   Showing the opposition for what they are?  There is plenty that has been shown already.  Those who want to believe one way or the other are not going to suddenly be shown the light of wisdom as the Dems stand proudly on the deck of a sinking ship.

I know that the politics of obstruction are distasteful.  But the practical reality is that the Tea Party and the alt-right have set the stage where they are now going to be the norm.

The Democrats have an obligation to their constituency to do anything legally in their power to prevent or at least resist the implementation of policies that goes against their platform.   If that means they have to boycott or filibuster, to delay and obstruct, then that is part of the legal arsenal and should be used.

The period from now to the mid-term elections is the window in which the Republicans are guaranteed to have the majorities and thus can act without check.    On any particular ruling, order or appointment, a delay of a couple of months or one month or even just a week or two eats into that 24 month window.    Even if the delay is just against the inevitable, that doesn't mean the delay isn't worth doing.

I appreciate this view and you may be right.  And I may be naive about the process and what's wisest.  What upsets me is that Democrats, including Obama, did not hammer Republicans adequately at the moment Republicans made it clear Garland (who many Republicans really liked) would get no hearing.
They may have tried but it wasn't enough.  And so now in week two of Trump's presidency they want to get tough and I just don't see it working out.  The Republicans will change the rules and it will get even worse. 

I think the Democrats main focus right now should be finding ways to 1. fight fake news (a very tough problem) and highlight other more subtle propaganda (such as Fox news leaving the Tweet that the Quebec attacker was Moroccan long after it was know not to be the case, such that the Canadian government had to step in and tell Fox to delete the Tweet), 2. build a bigger base and hammer Republicans on the economy, tax relief for wealthy, bigger swamp, etc.  Bernie had the formula and beat Trump in polls.  If the Democrats continue with economic policies that are Republican light, they will not garner any votes from, among others, rural whites who have lost their jobs and whose towns have crumbled.  Even though Bernie may not run again, it's still Bernie or bust policy wise. 
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 02, 2017, 04:40:15 PM
I don't know enough about Judge Gorsuch's stand on issues to say for sure, but based on media reports it looks like he may be on the opposite side of many issues from me.

That said, he is by all accounts a brilliant and accomplished jurist who meets every requirement laid out by the Constitution.

I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.

I agree with this.  The Democrats lost on the Supreme Court.  McConnell and other Republican went rogue against the whole process and I agree have poisoned it.  Repubs were even talking about not allowing any Hillary nominees in during her entire term.  That is shameful.  But the Democrats not only shouldn't but are currently too weak to do anything if a pick is basically qualified as this one is.   Time to build a better movement Dems so that you are not always so easily bullied.  That new movement should be inclusive of all people in the US, not just substantively but in belief and rhetoric.  Bernie had was a natural in that.  The Democrats need other naturals.     

Regarding the sentiment in bold expressed by FatKidsDad:  I actually disagree.

I don't believe that "The high road" will achieve anything other than to yield a lifetime appointment to the high court without any sign of resistance.   Showing the opposition for what they are?  There is plenty that has been shown already.  Those who want to believe one way or the other are not going to suddenly be shown the light of wisdom as the Dems stand proudly on the deck of a sinking ship.

I know that the politics of obstruction are distasteful.  But the practical reality is that the Tea Party and the alt-right have set the stage where they are now going to be the norm.

The Democrats have an obligation to their constituency to do anything legally in their power to prevent or at least resist the implementation of policies that goes against their platform.   If that means they have to boycott or filibuster, to delay and obstruct, then that is part of the legal arsenal and should be used.

The period from now to the mid-term elections is the window in which the Republicans are guaranteed to have the majorities and thus can act without check.    On any particular ruling, order or appointment, a delay of a couple of months or one month or even just a week or two eats into that 24 month window.    Even if the delay is just against the inevitable, that doesn't mean the delay isn't worth doing.

I appreciate this view and you may be right.  And I may be naive about the process and what's wisest.  What upsets me is that Democrats, including Obama, did not hammer Republicans adequately at the moment Republicans made it clear Garland (who many Republicans really liked) would get no hearing.
They may have tried but it wasn't enough.  And so now in week two of Trump's presidency they want to get tough and I just don't see it working out.  The Republicans will change the rules and it will get even worse. 

I think the Democrats main focus right now should be finding ways to 1. fight fake news (a very tough problem) and highlight other more subtle propaganda (such as Fox news leaving the Tweet that the Quebec attacker was Moroccan long after it was know not to be the case, such that the Canadian government had to step in and tell Fox to delete the Tweet), 2. build a bigger base and hammer Republicans on the economy, tax relief for wealthy, bigger swamp, etc.  Bernie had the formula and beat Trump in polls.  If the Democrats continue with economic policies that are Republican light, they will not garner any votes from, among others, rural whites who have lost their jobs and whose towns have crumbled.  Even though Bernie may not run again, it's still Bernie or bust policy wise.

Honestly, aside from building the base (always a good idea), the best thing the Dem party could do is spend all time and energy toward getting closer to "1 person 1 vote." In the vast majority of major polls, the majority of this country generally favors slightly left of center policies, and is majority left of center voting. Our governmental representatives do not reflect this because Rural votes count more than Urban votes. Honestly, I do not see why there would be logical resistance to more fair, proportionate representation.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: wiley on February 02, 2017, 04:50:47 PM
I don't know enough about Judge Gorsuch's stand on issues to say for sure, but based on media reports it looks like he may be on the opposite side of many issues from me.

That said, he is by all accounts a brilliant and accomplished jurist who meets every requirement laid out by the Constitution.

I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.

I agree with this.  The Democrats lost on the Supreme Court.  McConnell and other Republican went rogue against the whole process and I agree have poisoned it.  Repubs were even talking about not allowing any Hillary nominees in during her entire term.  That is shameful.  But the Democrats not only shouldn't but are currently too weak to do anything if a pick is basically qualified as this one is.   Time to build a better movement Dems so that you are not always so easily bullied.  That new movement should be inclusive of all people in the US, not just substantively but in belief and rhetoric.  Bernie had was a natural in that.  The Democrats need other naturals.     

Regarding the sentiment in bold expressed by FatKidsDad:  I actually disagree.

I don't believe that "The high road" will achieve anything other than to yield a lifetime appointment to the high court without any sign of resistance.   Showing the opposition for what they are?  There is plenty that has been shown already.  Those who want to believe one way or the other are not going to suddenly be shown the light of wisdom as the Dems stand proudly on the deck of a sinking ship.

I know that the politics of obstruction are distasteful.  But the practical reality is that the Tea Party and the alt-right have set the stage where they are now going to be the norm.

The Democrats have an obligation to their constituency to do anything legally in their power to prevent or at least resist the implementation of policies that goes against their platform.   If that means they have to boycott or filibuster, to delay and obstruct, then that is part of the legal arsenal and should be used.

The period from now to the mid-term elections is the window in which the Republicans are guaranteed to have the majorities and thus can act without check.    On any particular ruling, order or appointment, a delay of a couple of months or one month or even just a week or two eats into that 24 month window.    Even if the delay is just against the inevitable, that doesn't mean the delay isn't worth doing.

I appreciate this view and you may be right.  And I may be naive about the process and what's wisest.  What upsets me is that Democrats, including Obama, did not hammer Republicans adequately at the moment Republicans made it clear Garland (who many Republicans really liked) would get no hearing.
They may have tried but it wasn't enough.  And so now in week two of Trump's presidency they want to get tough and I just don't see it working out.  The Republicans will change the rules and it will get even worse. 

I think the Democrats main focus right now should be finding ways to 1. fight fake news (a very tough problem) and highlight other more subtle propaganda (such as Fox news leaving the Tweet that the Quebec attacker was Moroccan long after it was know not to be the case, such that the Canadian government had to step in and tell Fox to delete the Tweet), 2. build a bigger base and hammer Republicans on the economy, tax relief for wealthy, bigger swamp, etc.  Bernie had the formula and beat Trump in polls.  If the Democrats continue with economic policies that are Republican light, they will not garner any votes from, among others, rural whites who have lost their jobs and whose towns have crumbled.  Even though Bernie may not run again, it's still Bernie or bust policy wise.

Honestly, aside from building the base (always a good idea), the best thing the Dem party could do is spend all time and energy toward getting closer to "1 person 1 vote." In the vast majority of major polls, the majority of this country generally favors slightly left of center policies, and is majority left of center voting. Our governmental representatives do not reflect this because Rural votes count more than Urban votes. Honestly, I do not see why there would be logical resistance to more fair, proportionate representation.

Excellent point. Certainly can't happen with Republican dominated scene of the moment.  They'd rather nominate Garland than change the electoral college.  But start the process for sure.  One day maybe it can be changed.  It certainly should be. 
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: wiley on February 02, 2017, 05:06:31 PM
I don't know enough about Judge Gorsuch's stand on issues to say for sure, but based on media reports it looks like he may be on the opposite side of many issues from me.

That said, he is by all accounts a brilliant and accomplished jurist who meets every requirement laid out by the Constitution.

I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.

I agree with this.  The Democrats lost on the Supreme Court.  McConnell and other Republican went rogue against the whole process and I agree have poisoned it.  Repubs were even talking about not allowing any Hillary nominees in during her entire term.  That is shameful.  But the Democrats not only shouldn't but are currently too weak to do anything if a pick is basically qualified as this one is.   Time to build a better movement Dems so that you are not always so easily bullied.  That new movement should be inclusive of all people in the US, not just substantively but in belief and rhetoric.  Bernie had was a natural in that.  The Democrats need other naturals.     

Regarding the sentiment in bold expressed by FatKidsDad:  I actually disagree.

I don't believe that "The high road" will achieve anything other than to yield a lifetime appointment to the high court without any sign of resistance.   Showing the opposition for what they are?  There is plenty that has been shown already.  Those who want to believe one way or the other are not going to suddenly be shown the light of wisdom as the Dems stand proudly on the deck of a sinking ship.

I know that the politics of obstruction are distasteful.  But the practical reality is that the Tea Party and the alt-right have set the stage where they are now going to be the norm.

The Democrats have an obligation to their constituency to do anything legally in their power to prevent or at least resist the implementation of policies that goes against their platform.   If that means they have to boycott or filibuster, to delay and obstruct, then that is part of the legal arsenal and should be used.

The period from now to the mid-term elections is the window in which the Republicans are guaranteed to have the majorities and thus can act without check.    On any particular ruling, order or appointment, a delay of a couple of months or one month or even just a week or two eats into that 24 month window.    Even if the delay is just against the inevitable, that doesn't mean the delay isn't worth doing.

not a knock against your argument, but interesting from Gorsuch, who seems much less partisan than Scalia.  Scalia was a highly partisan judge.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/neil-gorsuch-defended-merrick-garland_us_58920a00e4b02772c4ea822e?hjbrvlj0wockawcdi&
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: FatKidsDad on February 02, 2017, 05:29:38 PM
I don't know enough about Judge Gorsuch's stand on issues to say for sure, but based on media reports it looks like he may be on the opposite side of many issues from me.

That said, he is by all accounts a brilliant and accomplished jurist who meets every requirement laid out by the Constitution.

I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.

I agree with this.  The Democrats lost on the Supreme Court.  McConnell and other Republican went rogue against the whole process and I agree have poisoned it.  Repubs were even talking about not allowing any Hillary nominees in during her entire term.  That is shameful.  But the Democrats not only shouldn't but are currently too weak to do anything if a pick is basically qualified as this one is.   Time to build a better movement Dems so that you are not always so easily bullied.  That new movement should be inclusive of all people in the US, not just substantively but in belief and rhetoric.  Bernie had was a natural in that.  The Democrats need other naturals.     

Regarding the sentiment in bold expressed by FatKidsDad:  I actually disagree.

I don't believe that "The high road" will achieve anything other than to yield a lifetime appointment to the high court without any sign of resistance.   Showing the opposition for what they are?  There is plenty that has been shown already.  Those who want to believe one way or the other are not going to suddenly be shown the light of wisdom as the Dems stand proudly on the deck of a sinking ship.

I know that the politics of obstruction are distasteful.  But the practical reality is that the Tea Party and the alt-right have set the stage where they are now going to be the norm.

The Democrats have an obligation to their constituency to do anything legally in their power to prevent or at least resist the implementation of policies that goes against their platform.   If that means they have to boycott or filibuster, to delay and obstruct, then that is part of the legal arsenal and should be used.

The period from now to the mid-term elections is the window in which the Republicans are guaranteed to have the majorities and thus can act without check.    On any particular ruling, order or appointment, a delay of a couple of months or one month or even just a week or two eats into that 24 month window.    Even if the delay is just against the inevitable, that doesn't mean the delay isn't worth doing.

When I wrote the bolded statement I knew I was being a bit pollyanna. I know it is unlikely to happen, but I still think that it has to start somewhere with someone if we are ever going to change the toxic atmosphere.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: MBunge on February 02, 2017, 05:31:07 PM
I don't know enough about Judge Gorsuch's stand on issues to say for sure, but based on media reports it looks like he may be on the opposite side of many issues from me.

That said, he is by all accounts a brilliant and accomplished jurist who meets every requirement laid out by the Constitution.

I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.

I agree with this.  The Democrats lost on the Supreme Court.  McConnell and other Republican went rogue against the whole process and I agree have poisoned it.  Repubs were even talking about not allowing any Hillary nominees in during her entire term.  That is shameful.  But the Democrats not only shouldn't but are currently too weak to do anything if a pick is basically qualified as this one is.   Time to build a better movement Dems so that you are not always so easily bullied.  That new movement should be inclusive of all people in the US, not just substantively but in belief and rhetoric.  Bernie had was a natural in that.  The Democrats need other naturals.     

Regarding the sentiment in bold expressed by FatKidsDad:  I actually disagree.

I don't believe that "The high road" will achieve anything other than to yield a lifetime appointment to the high court without any sign of resistance.   Showing the opposition for what they are?  There is plenty that has been shown already.  Those who want to believe one way or the other are not going to suddenly be shown the light of wisdom as the Dems stand proudly on the deck of a sinking ship.

I know that the politics of obstruction are distasteful.  But the practical reality is that the Tea Party and the alt-right have set the stage where they are now going to be the norm.

The Democrats have an obligation to their constituency to do anything legally in their power to prevent or at least resist the implementation of policies that goes against their platform.   If that means they have to boycott or filibuster, to delay and obstruct, then that is part of the legal arsenal and should be used.

The period from now to the mid-term elections is the window in which the Republicans are guaranteed to have the majorities and thus can act without check.    On any particular ruling, order or appointment, a delay of a couple of months or one month or even just a week or two eats into that 24 month window.    Even if the delay is just against the inevitable, that doesn't mean the delay isn't worth doing.

Except there's this little thing called RUNNING THE COUNTRY that kind of needs to be done.  It's how democracy works.

You have an election.
Sometimes, the other side wins.
They get to do what they want, often in part and rarely in whole.
If what they do works, you have to adjust in response to that.
If what they do fails, you win the next time and get to do what you want.
Repeat over and over and over.

That's the ONLY way democracy can work.  If we start denying electoral winners the right/ability to pursue their agenda, the system breaks down.  But there will still be this little thing called RUNNING THE COUNTRY that will have to be done and if it can't be done democratically, then it will eventually be done non-democratically.

There is no other way this story ends.

Yes, it burns that Republicans mindlessly obstructed President Obama and seemingly benefited form it in the short run.  But if everyone is only thinking about the short run, none of us are going to survive in the long run.

Mike
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 02, 2017, 05:53:42 PM
Interesting twist on the idea of "PC"

trumps silence on radical racist terror is pc run amok

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/trumps-silence-on-radical-racist-terror-is-p-c-run-amok.html

Wonder who might be steering him away from targeting neonazi and white supremicist terrorists?
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: triboy16f on February 02, 2017, 05:59:56 PM
America 1st and ... Alone. I wonder if the US will have any friends left after 4 years

Worldwide friction continue..

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/02/politics/us-planning-additional-sanctions-on-iran/index.html
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: mmmmm on February 02, 2017, 06:20:02 PM
I don't know enough about Judge Gorsuch's stand on issues to say for sure, but based on media reports it looks like he may be on the opposite side of many issues from me.

That said, he is by all accounts a brilliant and accomplished jurist who meets every requirement laid out by the Constitution.

I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.

I agree with this.  The Democrats lost on the Supreme Court.  McConnell and other Republican went rogue against the whole process and I agree have poisoned it.  Repubs were even talking about not allowing any Hillary nominees in during her entire term.  That is shameful.  But the Democrats not only shouldn't but are currently too weak to do anything if a pick is basically qualified as this one is.   Time to build a better movement Dems so that you are not always so easily bullied.  That new movement should be inclusive of all people in the US, not just substantively but in belief and rhetoric.  Bernie had was a natural in that.  The Democrats need other naturals.     

Regarding the sentiment in bold expressed by FatKidsDad:  I actually disagree.

I don't believe that "The high road" will achieve anything other than to yield a lifetime appointment to the high court without any sign of resistance.   Showing the opposition for what they are?  There is plenty that has been shown already.  Those who want to believe one way or the other are not going to suddenly be shown the light of wisdom as the Dems stand proudly on the deck of a sinking ship.

I know that the politics of obstruction are distasteful.  But the practical reality is that the Tea Party and the alt-right have set the stage where they are now going to be the norm.

The Democrats have an obligation to their constituency to do anything legally in their power to prevent or at least resist the implementation of policies that goes against their platform.   If that means they have to boycott or filibuster, to delay and obstruct, then that is part of the legal arsenal and should be used.

The period from now to the mid-term elections is the window in which the Republicans are guaranteed to have the majorities and thus can act without check.    On any particular ruling, order or appointment, a delay of a couple of months or one month or even just a week or two eats into that 24 month window.    Even if the delay is just against the inevitable, that doesn't mean the delay isn't worth doing.

Except there's this little thing called RUNNING THE COUNTRY that kind of needs to be done.  It's how democracy works.

You have an election.
Sometimes, the other side wins.
They get to do what they want, often in part and rarely in whole.
If what they do works, you have to adjust in response to that.
If what they do fails, you win the next time and get to do what you want.
Repeat over and over and over.

That's the ONLY way democracy can work.  If we start denying electoral winners the right/ability to pursue their agenda, the system breaks down.  But there will still be this little thing called RUNNING THE COUNTRY that will have to be done and if it can't be done democratically, then it will eventually be done non-democratically.

There is no other way this story ends.

Yes, it burns that Republicans mindlessly obstructed President Obama and seemingly benefited form it in the short run.  But if everyone is only thinking about the short run, none of us are going to survive in the long run.

Mike

I'm not going to stop anyone from hoping for statesmanship to magically show up. 

But statesmanship was shot, run over and burned with kerosene in this last election cycle.   It is a nice ideal, but simply not practical to wait around hoping that statesmanship is going to stick his head up out of the bunker any time soon.

The "business of running the country" very much also involves preventing bad policy just as much as it involves legislating and executing good policy.

As legislators who were voted to represent their constituents, the Democratic representatives and Senators are obligated to do anything within their legal power to prevent legislation that is against the interests of their constituents or in their opinion harmful to the state and/or it's citizens.

Quote
You have an election.
Sometimes, the other side wins.
They get to do what they want, often in part and rarely in whole.

That's not really how it works.  There was an electoral college election to select the POTUS.  There were separate elections throughout the states to elect the members of the House and the Senate.    Within each branch, there are legislative 'elections' (votes by the members) on appointments and legislation that are within the purview of the legislative branch.

Each of those things is separate.   Winning the electoral college election doesn't guarantee the results of any of those other elections.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: ManUp on February 02, 2017, 07:03:58 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-extremists-program-exclusiv-idUSKBN15G5VO (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-extremists-program-exclusiv-idUSKBN15G5VO)

Curious, very curious.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 02, 2017, 07:12:12 PM
I don't know enough about Judge Gorsuch's stand on issues to say for sure, but based on media reports it looks like he may be on the opposite side of many issues from me.

That said, he is by all accounts a brilliant and accomplished jurist who meets every requirement laid out by the Constitution.

I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.

I agree with this.  The Democrats lost on the Supreme Court.  McConnell and other Republican went rogue against the whole process and I agree have poisoned it.  Repubs were even talking about not allowing any Hillary nominees in during her entire term.  That is shameful.  But the Democrats not only shouldn't but are currently too weak to do anything if a pick is basically qualified as this one is.   Time to build a better movement Dems so that you are not always so easily bullied.  That new movement should be inclusive of all people in the US, not just substantively but in belief and rhetoric.  Bernie had was a natural in that.  The Democrats need other naturals.     

Regarding the sentiment in bold expressed by FatKidsDad:  I actually disagree.

I don't believe that "The high road" will achieve anything other than to yield a lifetime appointment to the high court without any sign of resistance.   Showing the opposition for what they are?  There is plenty that has been shown already.  Those who want to believe one way or the other are not going to suddenly be shown the light of wisdom as the Dems stand proudly on the deck of a sinking ship.

I know that the politics of obstruction are distasteful.  But the practical reality is that the Tea Party and the alt-right have set the stage where they are now going to be the norm.

The Democrats have an obligation to their constituency to do anything legally in their power to prevent or at least resist the implementation of policies that goes against their platform.   If that means they have to boycott or filibuster, to delay and obstruct, then that is part of the legal arsenal and should be used.

The period from now to the mid-term elections is the window in which the Republicans are guaranteed to have the majorities and thus can act without check.    On any particular ruling, order or appointment, a delay of a couple of months or one month or even just a week or two eats into that 24 month window.    Even if the delay is just against the inevitable, that doesn't mean the delay isn't worth doing.

Except there's this little thing called RUNNING THE COUNTRY that kind of needs to be done.  It's how democracy works.

You have an election.
Sometimes, the other side wins.
They get to do what they want, often in part and rarely in whole.
If what they do works, you have to adjust in response to that.
If what they do fails, you win the next time and get to do what you want.
Repeat over and over and over.

That's the ONLY way democracy can work.  If we start denying electoral winners the right/ability to pursue their agenda, the system breaks down.  But there will still be this little thing called RUNNING THE COUNTRY that will have to be done and if it can't be done democratically, then it will eventually be done non-democratically.

There is no other way this story ends.

Yes, it burns that Republicans mindlessly obstructed President Obama and seemingly benefited form it in the short run.  But if everyone is only thinking about the short run, none of us are going to survive in the long run.

Mike

Mike -- I tend to generally agree with your sentiments.  My initial reaction to the Trump victory was that power shifts more quickly than people think -- Congressional campaigns will be in full bloom in about 18 months and this mid-term has a chance to be a powerful referendum on Trump's first 2 years in office. Trump earned his term fair and square and has every right to steer the country in his chosen direction(s).  The difference with Trump, which has become a fear for some and perhaps a curiosity for others, is his sanity.   Is his narcissism an act/game, evidence of inner strength, or evidence of a delusional and fragile character disorder?  If it is the latter, which I am not sure it isn't, the fragility behind the narcissism should scare everyone.  That is because in order to protect a fragile core, a narcissist can become quite desperate in efforts to sustain the ego and rationalize one's grandeur.   The fall from narcissism, when it occurs, is also precipitous. 

So my hope as an American is that the behavioral evidence of a Narcissistic Personality Disorder is actually a conscious façade, and a tactic of leadership fostered to instill confidence and promote "followship".    This explanation wouldn't make me like him much better, but would at least mitigate my worry that we've elected a mentally unstable man. 

Among my biggest worries is his selection of Bannon as his chief strategist and advisor, and Bannon's quick rise in power within the administration and within the national security construct.  Bannon is just the type of brilliant manipulator who could take a narcissist, continually feed the narcissism, and coax the implementation of a democratically disruptive, nationalist, extremist agenda -- which Bannon unabashedly identifies with .

I am not worried enough yet to be among (or even all that supportive of) the protestors.  I despised the republican obstruction and I am not in favor of blind obstruction and protest. Mitch McConnell is not a role model.  But, with each seemingly uninformed, or impulsive, or grandiose-sounding decision, I get just a little more worried about this POTUS.  Which makes this power cycle a little different (possibly) than previous cycles.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Surferdad on February 02, 2017, 08:01:05 PM
I don't know enough about Judge Gorsuch's stand on issues to say for sure, but based on media reports it looks like he may be on the opposite side of many issues from me.

That said, he is by all accounts a brilliant and accomplished jurist who meets every requirement laid out by the Constitution.

I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.

I agree with this.  The Democrats lost on the Supreme Court.  McConnell and other Republican went rogue against the whole process and I agree have poisoned it.  Repubs were even talking about not allowing any Hillary nominees in during her entire term.  That is shameful.  But the Democrats not only shouldn't but are currently too weak to do anything if a pick is basically qualified as this one is.   Time to build a better movement Dems so that you are not always so easily bullied.  That new movement should be inclusive of all people in the US, not just substantively but in belief and rhetoric.  Bernie had was a natural in that.  The Democrats need other naturals.     

Regarding the sentiment in bold expressed by FatKidsDad:  I actually disagree.

I don't believe that "The high road" will achieve anything other than to yield a lifetime appointment to the high court without any sign of resistance.   Showing the opposition for what they are?  There is plenty that has been shown already.  Those who want to believe one way or the other are not going to suddenly be shown the light of wisdom as the Dems stand proudly on the deck of a sinking ship.

I know that the politics of obstruction are distasteful.  But the practical reality is that the Tea Party and the alt-right have set the stage where they are now going to be the norm.

The Democrats have an obligation to their constituency to do anything legally in their power to prevent or at least resist the implementation of policies that goes against their platform.   If that means they have to boycott or filibuster, to delay and obstruct, then that is part of the legal arsenal and should be used.

The period from now to the mid-term elections is the window in which the Republicans are guaranteed to have the majorities and thus can act without check.    On any particular ruling, order or appointment, a delay of a couple of months or one month or even just a week or two eats into that 24 month window.    Even if the delay is just against the inevitable, that doesn't mean the delay isn't worth doing.

Except there's this little thing called RUNNING THE COUNTRY that kind of needs to be done.  It's how democracy works.

You have an election.
Sometimes, the other side wins.
They get to do what they want, often in part and rarely in whole.
If what they do works, you have to adjust in response to that.
If what they do fails, you win the next time and get to do what you want.
Repeat over and over and over.

That's the ONLY way democracy can work.  If we start denying electoral winners the right/ability to pursue their agenda, the system breaks down.  But there will still be this little thing called RUNNING THE COUNTRY that will have to be done and if it can't be done democratically, then it will eventually be done non-democratically.

There is no other way this story ends.

Yes, it burns that Republicans mindlessly obstructed President Obama and seemingly benefited form it in the short run.  But if everyone is only thinking about the short run, none of us are going to survive in the long run.

Mike

Mike -- I tend to generally agree with your sentiments.  My initial reaction to the Trump victory was that power shifts more quickly than people think -- Congressional campaigns will be in full bloom in about 18 months and this mid-term has a chance to be a powerful referendum on Trump's first 2 years in office. Trump earned his term fair and square and has every right to steer the country in his chosen direction(s).  The difference with Trump, which has become a fear for some and perhaps a curiosity for others, is his sanity.   Is his narcissism an act/game, evidence of inner strength, or evidence of a delusional and fragile character disorder?  If it is the latter, which I am not sure it isn't, the fragility behind the narcissism should scare everyone.  That is because in order to protect a fragile core, a narcissist can become quite desperate in efforts to sustain the ego and rationalize one's grandeur.   The fall from narcissism, when it occurs, is also precipitous. 

So my hope as an American is that the behavioral evidence of a Narcissistic Personality Disorder is actually a conscious façade, and a tactic of leadership fostered to instill confidence and promote "followship".    This explanation wouldn't make me like him much better, but would at least mitigate my worry that we've elected a mentally unstable man. 

Among my biggest worries is his selection of Bannon as his chief strategist and advisor, and Bannon's quick rise in power within the administration and within the national security construct.  Bannon is just the type of brilliant manipulator who could take a narcissist, continually feed the narcissism, and coax the implementation of a democratically disruptive, nationalist, extremist agenda -- which Bannon unabashedly identifies with .

I am not worried enough yet to be among (or even all that supportive of) the protestors.  I despised the republican obstruction and I am not in favor of blind obstruction and protest. Mitch McConnell is not a role model.  But, with each seemingly uninformed, or impulsive, or grandiose-sounding decision, I get just a little more worried about this POTUS.  Which makes this power cycle a little different (possibly) than previous cycles.
Agree with all that.  However, I would say it would be extremely difficult to continuously pretend to have Narcissistic Personality Disorder, much easier to actually have NPD sorry to say. 

Quote
Trump earned his term fair and square and has every right to steer the country in his chosen direction(s). 
Technically yes, he won the electoral college, but he lost the popular vote by an unprecedented amount.  And yes, he has the right to govern but that is not the point.  Since he lost the popular vote, he should be trying to finds ways to bring the country together and work with his opponents.  He is not doing that and on an ethical level I do not see he has the "right to steer the country in his chosen direction(s)"

Bannon is a Nazi and very dangerous, probably more dangerous that the POTUS.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: greece666 on February 02, 2017, 10:20:56 PM
U.S. judge orders Trump administration to allow entry to immigrant visa holders (https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-judge-orders-trump-administration-allow-entry-immigrant-053752390.html) (Reuters)

Quote
A federal judge in Los Angeles has ruled President Donald Trump's administration must allow immigrants with initial clearance for legal residency to enter the United States from seven Muslim-majority nations, despite an executive order ban.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 03, 2017, 08:49:33 AM
I have a feeling we are all going to get tired of saying this, but THIS might be the scariest thing so far:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kellyanne-conway-creates-fake-bowling-green-massacre-story-a7560526.html

We have a Trump spokesperson on national TV describing a terrorist incident as justification for a crackdown on muslims...except there was no attack!

To sum up: in 2017 in America we a have a spokesperson for the president making up a terrorist incident as justification for a religion specific crackdown.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 03, 2017, 08:50:37 AM
U.S. judge orders Trump administration to allow entry to immigrant visa holders (https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-judge-orders-trump-administration-allow-entry-immigrant-053752390.html) (Reuters)

Quote
A federal judge in Los Angeles has ruled President Donald Trump's administration must allow immigrants with initial clearance for legal residency to enter the United States from seven Muslim-majority nations, despite an executive order ban.

And apparently, the executive branch (not sure how high the orders go up) is ignoring the court order, with no one to enforce the court order. This does sound like a direct challenge to an entire pillar of our 3 pillar government.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 03, 2017, 08:55:27 AM
Trump team turns off recording during Trump-Putin phone call.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/foreign-policy-insider-no-readout-of-trump-putin-call-because-white-house-turned-off-recording/


Quote
Ilan Berman, vice president of the conservative American Foreign Policy Council think tank, reported that the White House turned off its recording equipment during President Donald Trump’s call with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Following the call with Putin on Saturday, the Kremlin published a readout of the hour-long conversation that suggested the Russian president was pleased with Trump’s tone.
Quote
But while the Kremlin produced a detailed 10-paragraph readout of the call, the White House released only a vague one-paragraph statement saying that Trump received a “congratulatory call from Russian President Vladimir Putin.”

During a Wednesday forum on Russian-Turkish relations at the Bipartisan Policy Center, Berman suggested that the White House could not provide additional details about the call because staff had disabled recording equipment, according to Turkish journalist Ilhan Tanir.

I saw this reported. Not Jumping on this because I have no idea: is it standard to record such phone calls? Standard not to? Historically, would this be no big deal or is this like the one time its happened?
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 03, 2017, 09:09:02 AM
Also, with a grain of salt about as big as a car, i've been following this twitter account:
@RoguePOTUSStaff

It is either legit or very cleverly fake. I say that because they do not leak things that are at all that outlandish, and sometimes they seem to beat other sources to some nuggets later confirmed as factual.

This was from right now:
Quote
POTUS refusing intel briefing again. Response: "Take the [dang] briefing! This is why we screwed the pooch in Yemen!"

Quote
POTUS & Bannon warned to never again say they R glad about an 8 year old child being killed in US military action, no matter her father.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: KGs Knee on February 03, 2017, 09:16:30 AM
U.S. judge orders Trump administration to allow entry to immigrant visa holders (https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-judge-orders-trump-administration-allow-entry-immigrant-053752390.html) (Reuters)

Quote
A federal judge in Los Angeles has ruled President Donald Trump's administration must allow immigrants with initial clearance for legal residency to enter the United States from seven Muslim-majority nations, despite an executive order ban.

And apparently, the executive branch (not sure how high the orders go up) is ignoring the court order, with no one to enforce the court order. This does sound like a direct challenge to an entire pillar of our 3 pillar government.

I'm not surprised by this, on multiple levels.

First, that Trump has gone rogue is pretty much to be expected. I imagine Sinatra's "My Way" playing over and over in his head. That's just who he is. I don't like it as a quality in my President, but apparently there are plenty of people that now do.

And second, I think this was eventually just the next progression of where Executive Orders were heading. Presidents have been "going around congress" for a long time now. I figured some day someone would try to rule by decree. I expect the other branches to fight back at some point, as they should.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 03, 2017, 09:20:42 AM
What do folks make of Trumps 180 on Middle East policy?

In December, he blasted the Obama Administration for trying to curb Israeli settlements. Now Trump is asking Israel to curb settlements.

On the campaign trail Trump blasted Obama Administration for Iran policy, saying he would rip up the Iran deal on day one. Now that he is in office, he hasn't ripped up the deal and is basically "staying the course" on Iran policy.

Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 03, 2017, 09:25:19 AM
I have a feeling we are all going to get tired of saying this, but THIS might be the scariest thing so far:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kellyanne-conway-creates-fake-bowling-green-massacre-story-a7560526.html

We have a Trump spokesperson on national TV describing a terrorist incident as justification for a crackdown on muslims...except there was no attack!

To sum up: in 2017 in America we a have a spokesperson for the president making up a terrorist incident as justification for a religion specific crackdown.

Spicer also claimed Iran tried to attack a US Navy ship, which would be an act of war. In actuality it was Houthi rebels (Yemen militia with Iranian support) attacking a Saudi ship.

The preference for selective anecdotes over data is bad enough, but the flatout fabrication is extremely dangerous, especially when a lot of people are buying it.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: TheTruthFot18 on February 03, 2017, 09:30:27 AM
What do folks make of Trumps 180 on Middle East policy?

In December, he blasted the Obama Administration for trying to curb Israeli settlements. Now Trump is asking Israel to curb settlements.

On the campaign trail Trump blasted Obama Administration for Iran policy, saying he would rip up the Iran deal on day one. Now that he is in office, he hasn't ripped up the deal and is basically "staying the course" on Iran policy.

He's actually done a lot of things he said he would (that people thought it wouldn't actually do).

Have we come to expect him to do everything he promised now?

Perhaps he listed to his advisors and people who have more knowledge on these topics and realized maybe his ideas were not the best.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 03, 2017, 09:32:00 AM
What do folks make of Trumps 180 on Middle East policy?

In December, he blasted the Obama Administration for trying to curb Israeli settlements. Now Trump is asking Israel to curb settlements.

On the campaign trail Trump blasted Obama Administration for Iran policy, saying he would rip up the Iran deal on day one. Now that he is in office, he hasn't ripped up the deal and is basically "staying the course" on Iran policy.

He's actually done a lot of things he said he would (that people thought it wouldn't actually do).

Have we come to expect him to do everything he promised now?

Perhaps he listed to his advisors and people who have more knowledge on these topics and realized maybe his ideas were not the best.

Agree with you on all points!
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 03, 2017, 09:33:13 AM
I have a feeling we are all going to get tired of saying this, but THIS might be the scariest thing so far:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kellyanne-conway-creates-fake-bowling-green-massacre-story-a7560526.html

We have a Trump spokesperson on national TV describing a terrorist incident as justification for a crackdown on muslims...except there was no attack!

To sum up: in 2017 in America we a have a spokesperson for the president making up a terrorist incident as justification for a religion specific crackdown.

Spicer also claimed Iran tried to attack a US Navy ship, which would be an act of war. In actuality it was Houthi rebels (Yemen militia with Iranian support) attacking a Saudi ship.

The preference for selective anecdotes over data is bad enough, but the flatout fabrication is extremely dangerous, especially when a lot of people are buying it.

In fairness to Conway, it was sort of an unscripted moment, and I'm guessing she misspoke, Her comments after the fact (or tweets) suggest she made a mistake. I don't think this is some insidious plot to create fake massacres.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: indeedproceed on February 03, 2017, 09:45:28 AM
I have a feeling we are all going to get tired of saying this, but THIS might be the scariest thing so far:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kellyanne-conway-creates-fake-bowling-green-massacre-story-a7560526.html

We have a Trump spokesperson on national TV describing a terrorist incident as justification for a crackdown on muslims...except there was no attack!

To sum up: in 2017 in America we a have a spokesperson for the president making up a terrorist incident as justification for a religion specific crackdown.

Spicer also claimed Iran tried to attack a US Navy ship, which would be an act of war. In actuality it was Houthi rebels (Yemen militia with Iranian support) attacking a Saudi ship.

The preference for selective anecdotes over data is bad enough, but the flatout fabrication is extremely dangerous, especially when a lot of people are buying it.

In fairness to Conway, it was sort of an unscripted moment, and I'm guessing she misspoke, Her comments after the fact (or tweets) suggest she made a mistake. I don't think this is some insidious plot to create fake massacres.

I don't think Kell-ee-ann-Con-Way (http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/kellyanne-conway/3457926?snl=1) thinks that's how massacres are born either. I think more likely, she just didn't know what she was talking about, and didn't care. Because nobody cares. This is what we are now.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 03, 2017, 09:51:13 AM
I have a feeling we are all going to get tired of saying this, but THIS might be the scariest thing so far:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kellyanne-conway-creates-fake-bowling-green-massacre-story-a7560526.html

We have a Trump spokesperson on national TV describing a terrorist incident as justification for a crackdown on muslims...except there was no attack!

To sum up: in 2017 in America we a have a spokesperson for the president making up a terrorist incident as justification for a religion specific crackdown.

Spicer also claimed Iran tried to attack a US Navy ship, which would be an act of war. In actuality it was Houthi rebels (Yemen militia with Iranian support) attacking a Saudi ship.

The preference for selective anecdotes over data is bad enough, but the flatout fabrication is extremely dangerous, especially when a lot of people are buying it.
This may be tangential to the discussion, but I feel like it lies squarely on the shoulders of Paul Ryan to determine whether GOP will be the party of McCain and Graham or Conway and Bannon.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: slamtheking on February 03, 2017, 10:26:19 AM
I have a feeling we are all going to get tired of saying this, but THIS might be the scariest thing so far:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kellyanne-conway-creates-fake-bowling-green-massacre-story-a7560526.html

We have a Trump spokesperson on national TV describing a terrorist incident as justification for a crackdown on muslims...except there was no attack!

To sum up: in 2017 in America we a have a spokesperson for the president making up a terrorist incident as justification for a religion specific crackdown.

Spicer also claimed Iran tried to attack a US Navy ship, which would be an act of war. In actuality it was Houthi rebels (Yemen militia with Iranian support) attacking a Saudi ship.

The preference for selective anecdotes over data is bad enough, but the flatout fabrication is extremely dangerous, especially when a lot of people are buying it.
This may be tangential to the discussion, but I feel like it lies squarely on the shoulders of Paul Ryan to determine whether GOP will be the party of McCain and Graham or Conway and Bannon.
can we get a 3rd option for where the GOP should be headed?   
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: wiley on February 03, 2017, 10:34:07 AM
I have a feeling we are all going to get tired of saying this, but THIS might be the scariest thing so far:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kellyanne-conway-creates-fake-bowling-green-massacre-story-a7560526.html

We have a Trump spokesperson on national TV describing a terrorist incident as justification for a crackdown on muslims...except there was no attack!

To sum up: in 2017 in America we a have a spokesperson for the president making up a terrorist incident as justification for a religion specific crackdown.

Spicer also claimed Iran tried to attack a US Navy ship, which would be an act of war. In actuality it was Houthi rebels (Yemen militia with Iranian support) attacking a Saudi ship.

The preference for selective anecdotes over data is bad enough, but the flatout fabrication is extremely dangerous, especially when a lot of people are buying it.

In fairness to Conway, it was sort of an unscripted moment, and I'm guessing she misspoke, Her comments after the fact (or tweets) suggest she made a mistake. I don't think this is some insidious plot to create fake massacres.

For someone who created a new meme just a week or so ago-"alternative facts"- I can't see that as a slip up.  I mean, "massacre"?    This is right in line with creating a fog in which to go to war, along with Fox news constant screw-ups....and apparently Spicer's. 

These are BIG mistakes to make...attacked "our" ship?  Fox reports, Spicer parrots.  Conway "misspeaks", and now it's out there in the muck and the fog. 
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: nickagneta on February 03, 2017, 11:36:58 AM
I have a feeling we are all going to get tired of saying this, but THIS might be the scariest thing so far:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kellyanne-conway-creates-fake-bowling-green-massacre-story-a7560526.html

We have a Trump spokesperson on national TV describing a terrorist incident as justification for a crackdown on muslims...except there was no attack!

To sum up: in 2017 in America we a have a spokesperson for the president making up a terrorist incident as justification for a religion specific crackdown.
The amount of misinformation and mistakes that is coming from the administration is unnerving. They are either outright lying to sway the public to support their moves or are incompetent or both. Judging from Trump's past, I think the administration is doing it purposefully with specific motives behind doing it. Hopefully the media continues to call them out on it and everyone, including Trump supporters see what us happening and does something about it.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 03, 2017, 11:45:33 AM
A more light hearted, but spot-on accurate, comment:

Quote
Kumail Nanjiani ‏@kumailn  40m40 minutes ago

 My superpower is that I can predict 100% of the time which terrorist attacks Trump will condemn & which ones he won't.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 03, 2017, 11:52:02 AM
Also, no shocker that Trump "defender of the little guy, only one who could stand up to wall street" is pursuing this:

Quote
Matthew Yglesias ‏@mattyglesias  1h1 hour ago

 Trump is signing an order making it legal for banks to deliberately give you bad financial advice for profit.

For more detail, relatively recently our government took the revolutionary step of requiring that people who call themselves "financial advisors" are bound to give clients advise that best serves the clients' best monetary interests. Prior to that, it was legal to be dishonest, take risky gambles with other peoples' money, etc. It is a Fiduciary rule. Trump, in a move that everyone with a brain saw coming, is planning to remove that rule, so that investors can once again legally withhold information, lie, and gamble with clients' money.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 03, 2017, 12:13:38 PM
I have a feeling we are all going to get tired of saying this, but THIS might be the scariest thing so far:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kellyanne-conway-creates-fake-bowling-green-massacre-story-a7560526.html

We have a Trump spokesperson on national TV describing a terrorist incident as justification for a crackdown on muslims...except there was no attack!

To sum up: in 2017 in America we a have a spokesperson for the president making up a terrorist incident as justification for a religion specific crackdown.

Spicer also claimed Iran tried to attack a US Navy ship, which would be an act of war. In actuality it was Houthi rebels (Yemen militia with Iranian support) attacking a Saudi ship.

The preference for selective anecdotes over data is bad enough, but the flatout fabrication is extremely dangerous, especially when a lot of people are buying it.

In fairness to Conway, it was sort of an unscripted moment, and I'm guessing she misspoke, Her comments after the fact (or tweets) suggest she made a mistake. I don't think this is some insidious plot to create fake massacres.

I think the "misspeak" explanation would hold more water with me if this wasn't such a constant theme, and if they weren't using statements like this to try and spread unwarranted fear and hatred toward some of the most vulnerable and oppressed people on Earth.


On a related note, in a lawsuit today the government revealed the Muslim ban order caused over 100,000 visas to be permanently revoked. Some people who are here can't leave, some who are outside can't come back. A lot of families got abruptly split and could take years to be able to get back together.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: slamtheking on February 03, 2017, 12:14:36 PM
Also, no shocker that Trump "defender of the little guy, only one who could stand up to wall street" is pursuing this:

Quote
Matthew Yglesias ‏@mattyglesias  1h1 hour ago

 Trump is signing an order making it legal for banks to deliberately give you bad financial advice for profit.

For more detail, relatively recently our government took the revolutionary step of requiring that people who call themselves "financial advisors" are bound to give clients advise that best serves the clients' best monetary interests. Prior to that, it was legal to be dishonest, take risky gambles with other peoples' money, etc. It is a Fiduciary rule. Trump, in a move that everyone with a brain saw coming, is planning to remove that rule, so that investors can once again legally withhold information, lie, and gamble with clients' money.
I'm not sure whether to consider it pathetic or comical that anyone would have actually believed he was fighting for the little guy.  Trump only cares about filling his pockets and if possible, filling his friends' pockets at the same time.  He'll spin his self-serving moves as much as possible to play it off like it helps 'the little people'.

I'm sure there'll be a kicker for this such that not only would this be legal but there will be no ability to bring a lawsuit for 'bad faith' predatory moves by the financial industry.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: greece666 on February 03, 2017, 12:18:57 PM
Trump team turns off recording during Trump-Putin phone call.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/foreign-policy-insider-no-readout-of-trump-putin-call-because-white-house-turned-off-recording/


Quote
Ilan Berman, vice president of the conservative American Foreign Policy Council think tank, reported that the White House turned off its recording equipment during President Donald Trump’s call with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Following the call with Putin on Saturday, the Kremlin published a readout of the hour-long conversation that suggested the Russian president was pleased with Trump’s tone.
Quote
But while the Kremlin produced a detailed 10-paragraph readout of the call, the White House released only a vague one-paragraph statement saying that Trump received a “congratulatory call from Russian President Vladimir Putin.”

During a Wednesday forum on Russian-Turkish relations at the Bipartisan Policy Center, Berman suggested that the White House could not provide additional details about the call because staff had disabled recording equipment, according to Turkish journalist Ilhan Tanir.

I saw this reported. Not Jumping on this because I have no idea: is it standard to record such phone calls? Standard not to? Historically, would this be no big deal or is this like the one time its happened?

Quote
The calls aren’t recorded, several sources said (that’s been a no-no since Richard Nixon’s Watergate tapes). But the White House produces an internal, informal transcript. “Up to three national security staffers are in a room next to the Sit’ Room conference room, listening to the audio and are typing as fast as they can,” one Bush-era aide said. (No one would say how they get the audio.) The resulting document can be shared with top aides or a larger group, “or not at all,” depending on the sensitivity of the information, one source said.

Here (https://www.yahoo.com/news/how-the-president-makes-a-phone-call-212133128.html?ref=gs) is the source, which has more details on the history and practice of presidential phone calls.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 03, 2017, 12:24:19 PM
I have a feeling we are all going to get tired of saying this, but THIS might be the scariest thing so far:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kellyanne-conway-creates-fake-bowling-green-massacre-story-a7560526.html

We have a Trump spokesperson on national TV describing a terrorist incident as justification for a crackdown on muslims...except there was no attack!

To sum up: in 2017 in America we a have a spokesperson for the president making up a terrorist incident as justification for a religion specific crackdown.

Spicer also claimed Iran tried to attack a US Navy ship, which would be an act of war. In actuality it was Houthi rebels (Yemen militia with Iranian support) attacking a Saudi ship.

The preference for selective anecdotes over data is bad enough, but the flatout fabrication is extremely dangerous, especially when a lot of people are buying it.
This may be tangential to the discussion, but I feel like it lies squarely on the shoulders of Paul Ryan to determine whether GOP will be the party of McCain and Graham or Conway and Bannon.

Ryan has already decided which way he's going on this. He's tied himself to Trump/Conway/Bannon.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: mef730 on February 03, 2017, 12:58:38 PM
I have a feeling we are all going to get tired of saying this, but THIS might be the scariest thing so far:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kellyanne-conway-creates-fake-bowling-green-massacre-story-a7560526.html

We have a Trump spokesperson on national TV describing a terrorist incident as justification for a crackdown on muslims...except there was no attack!

To sum up: in 2017 in America we a have a spokesperson for the president making up a terrorist incident as justification for a religion specific crackdown.

Too often, we on Celticsblog get caught up in our own lives and don't think about those who are less fortunate. I want to change that.

I'm announcing that I'm starting the official CB charity for victims and their families of the Bowling Green massacre. Every penny raised will go to those that this campaign intends to help (I'll keep whatever little remains afterward to cover administrative expenses.).

I prefer cash, but will accept paypal.

Mike
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 03, 2017, 05:52:45 PM
unfortunately, there is currently no place for someone like this at our state department:

https://www.justsecurity.org/37239/full-text-remarks-top-state-dept-official-discharged-trump-white-house-tom-countrymans-powerful-farewell-address/
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 03, 2017, 09:48:45 PM
Just for fun:
Quote
Jim Sciutto ‏@jimsciutto  3h3 hours ago

 Louvre attack suspect ID'd as Egyptian national who lived in UAE & had Saudi visa in passport, 3 countries not on Trump's #travelban list 1/
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 03, 2017, 09:51:13 PM
Now, will be very interesting what the WH and DHS does now in response to this:

Federal judge in Seattle temporarily halts Trump’s immigration order nationwide

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/03/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-trumps-travel-ban-from-majority-muslim-countries.html
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: wiley on February 03, 2017, 10:08:44 PM
Just for fun:
Quote
Jim Sciutto ‏@jimsciutto  3h3 hours ago

 Louvre attack suspect ID'd as Egyptian national who lived in UAE & had Saudi visa in passport, 3 countries not on Trump's #travelban list 1/

I'm guessing Jim Sciutto doesn't work for Fox news. 
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 03, 2017, 10:17:29 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3w64qAVYAADAx7?format=jpg&name=large)
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: slamtheking on February 03, 2017, 10:35:43 PM
Just for fun:
Quote
Jim Sciutto ‏@jimsciutto  3h3 hours ago

 Louvre attack suspect ID'd as Egyptian national who lived in UAE & had Saudi visa in passport, 3 countries not on Trump's #travelban list 1/
well obviously Trump knows that terrorists from those countries go to France, not the USA.    ::)
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: wiley on February 03, 2017, 11:07:47 PM
Graduated med school at top of her class, working as a doctor, escorted by two customs officials out of the US. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/nyregion/trump-ban-suha-amin-abdullah-abushamma.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

And here, the obvious consequences of blocking our allies in the war on terror from entering the country:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/world/asia/travel-ban-drives-wedge-between-iraqi-soldiers-and-americans.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

And some beautiful photos from Japan.  Let's hope 4 years is not long enough to completely destabilize the amazing planet we live on: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/science/jewel-ice-tokachi-river-hokkaido-japan.html?mabReward=CTM4&recp=2&moduleDetail=recommendations-2&action=click&contentCollection=Asia%20Pacific&region=Footer&module=WhatsNext&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&src=recg&pgtype=article
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 04, 2017, 10:38:25 AM
Quote
The LancetVerified account
‏@TheLancet

 Follow

Comment: "there is no evidence that the global gag rule has ever resulted in its stated aim of reducing abortion"
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)30270-2/fulltext …
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Donoghus on February 04, 2017, 10:39:36 AM
Quote
The LancetVerified account
‏@TheLancet

 Follow

Comment: "there is no evidence that the global gag rule has ever resulted in its stated aim of reducing abortion"
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)30270-2/fulltext …

Let's not travel down that path, shall we?
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 04, 2017, 10:40:42 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C31L785WcAA-Blp.jpg:large)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/02/04/the-white-house-cabinet-battle-over-trumps-immigration-ban/?utm_term=.300dae6fe9eb
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 04, 2017, 10:41:40 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C31OkTbWAAAZKmj.jpg:large)
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 04, 2017, 05:12:05 PM
A sickening thought has been trolling in my brain for the last 24 hours that I thought I'd share.

If a single individual from any of the 7 named countries should make it to America and engage in a terror attack while the ban is lifted, the political fallout will undoubtedly be that Trump will secure a huge boost in trust and support.   Think about what is happening:  Trump is creating significant insecurity amongst friends and enemies throughout the world in his first weeks in office.  His actions are solidifying division at home, and also may be hardening hatred and negativity toward America amongst those who would potentially do us harm.   I suspect his actions have increased the likelihood that someone from one of the 7 countries will attempt something.   

The biggest concern I have is probably my most conspiratorial thought ever.  That is that Steve Bannon, a self-professed disrupter -- someone who seems to love the possibilities for change that emerge from shaking things up -- may be orchestrating some of this.  What that means exactly, I am not sure -- but I think Bannon is loving the craziness that is occurring as a result of the Executive Order.   I am very nervous not only that we may have heightened the likelihood of a terrorist attack, but also that such an attack will then justify the unleashing of Trump v. Terror.  Such an attack would put the country solidly behind Trump to save us from the Muslims and Middle-Easterners, and save from the "liberals" who want to just let anyone in. Simultaneously, our reaction (if aggressive in word and deed) will provide affirmation of America's evil intent to those looking to justify their own aggressive actions.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: wiley on February 04, 2017, 08:28:16 PM
A sickening thought has been trolling in my brain for the last 24 hours that I thought I'd share.

If a single individual from any of the 7 named countries should make it to America and engage in a terror attack while the ban is lifted, the political fallout will undoubtedly be that Trump will secure a huge boost in trust and support.   Think about what is happening:  Trump is creating significant insecurity amongst friends and enemies throughout the world in his first weeks in office.  His actions are solidifying division at home, and also may be hardening hatred and negativity toward America amongst those who would potentially do us harm.   I suspect his actions have increased the likelihood that someone from one of the 7 countries will attempt something.   

The biggest concern I have is probably my most conspiratorial thought ever.  That is that Steve Bannon, a self-professed disrupter -- someone who seems to love the possibilities for change that emerge from shaking things up -- may be orchestrating some of this.  What that means exactly, I am not sure -- but I think Bannon is loving the craziness that is occurring as a result of the Executive Order.   I am very nervous not only that we may have heightened the likelihood of a terrorist attack, but also that such an attack will then justify the unleashing of Trump v. Terror.  Such an attack would put the country solidly behind Trump to save us from the Muslims and Middle-Easterners, and save from the "liberals" who want to just let anyone in. Simultaneously, our reaction (if aggressive in word and deed) will provide affirmation of America's evil intent to those looking to justify their own aggressive actions.

This unfortunately is not all that conspiratorial.  People who DON'T want war with Islam do not talk the way Trump and Bannon do.  Nor act.  They seek to up the ante and create hysteria.  Attacks will help them.  They are pros.  It is also not all that surprising.  All over the world this is what human beings with great power do, all the time.  The US is supposed to be above it.  Not always. 

Interestingly, however, if the attack is by a Saudi like in Paris, or some other non-ban Muslim, Trump may feel some heat and have to take a look at his business dealings there.  (Don't be surprised though if Fox or another right wing outlet first reports that the attack was from someone in one of the 7 banned nations, then walks it back later and says oops sorry.  By then it's too late. Easier to back off a story...less easy to quell the hysteria and the fog it creates.

Success in creating hysteria means that a huge portion of the US population believes that we don't already have stringent vetting in place for refugees, increased and honed during all the years since 9/11.  But right wing media is a very powerful tool in the US right now. 

I've made clear in other threads my concern with far right media, fake news and even Fox News, not to mention hate radio, etc.  This former right wing radio host of many years agrees with me:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/opinion/sunday/why-nobody-cares-the-president-is-lying.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0

Basically, they overdid it by a hugely damaging amount. 

excerpt from article:
For years, as a conservative radio talk show host, I played a role in that conditioning by hammering the mainstream media for its bias and double standards. But the price turned out to be far higher than I imagined. The cumulative effect of the attacks was to delegitimize those outlets and essentially destroy much of the right’s immunity to false information. We thought we were creating a savvier, more skeptical audience. Instead, we opened the door for President Trump, who found an audience that could be easily misled.


Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: KGs Knee on February 04, 2017, 09:01:22 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C31L785WcAA-Blp.jpg:large)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/02/04/the-white-house-cabinet-battle-over-trumps-immigration-ban/?utm_term=.300dae6fe9eb

Good grief...this really is going to be the "Reality TV Presidency", complete with dysfunction and immature behavior.  Who knew!?
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 04, 2017, 09:07:32 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C31OkTbWAAAZKmj.jpg:large)

In short: DJT Administration is flying by the seat of its pants, but hey, if hundreds of thousands of people are adversely affected, them's the breaks!
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: indeedproceed on February 04, 2017, 09:33:17 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/i/web/status/828026170302148608

Quote
Bill O'Reily: But he's a killer though. Put in is a killer.

DJT: there are a lot of killers. We've got a lot of killers. What do you think--our country is so innocent?


I'm legitimately distressed by this. Like just taken aback.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Evantime34 on February 04, 2017, 09:50:58 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/i/web/status/828026170302148608

Quote
Bill O'Reily: But he's a killer though. Putin is a killer.

DJT: there are a lot of killers. We've got a lot of killers. What do you think--our country is so innocent?


I'm legitimately distressed by this. Like just taken aback.
It would be interesting to see Trump supporters defend him if he openly killed political opponents like Putin.

This doesn't distress me more than the other things he's done and said so far.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 04, 2017, 09:52:35 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/i/web/status/828026170302148608

Quote
Bill O'Reily: But he's a killer though. Put in is a killer.

DJT: there are a lot of killers. We've got a lot of killers. What do you think--our country is so innocent?


I'm legitimately distressed by this. Like just taken aback.

But Hillary Clinton.......

Nevermind.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: indeedproceed on February 04, 2017, 09:59:54 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/i/web/status/828026170302148608

Quote
Bill O'Reily: But he's a killer though. Putin is a killer.

DJT: there are a lot of killers. We've got a lot of killers. What do you think--our country is so innocent?


I'm legitimately distressed by this. Like just taken aback.
It would be interesting to see Trump supporters defend him if he openly killed political opponents like Putin.

This doesn't distress me more than the other things he's done and said so far.

Think about what he's saying here. "We've got a lot of killers" what does that mean?

Does he mean soldiers? Generals that order strikes? Former presidents who ordered those strikes ordered? Or criminals? And is he equating all those things? Is he equating any of Jose hints with things Putin has done? Is he equating our military with Putin killing political rivals and journalists? What in the actual expletive!
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Jon on February 04, 2017, 10:25:26 PM
Donald Trump is an unreedmable human being with literally zero positive qualities. His entire life has been a drain on humanity and society. He is a pathological liar who has cheated and scammed everyone he's ever come into contact with.  I cannot fathom how anyone, liberal, centrist, or conservative can support him.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 05, 2017, 09:15:11 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C38gWVkVUAA3vYY?format=jpg&name=large)

Is this real? Did he really not know? That sloppy and lazy? Did bannon just put it in a stack? Is this a fake leak to try to distance himself from a horrible and horribly unpopular move?
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: FatKidsDad on February 05, 2017, 10:54:09 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C38gWVkVUAA3vYY?format=jpg&name=large)

Is this real? Did he really not know? That sloppy and lazy? Did bannon just put it in a stack? Is this a fake leak to try to distance himself from a horrible and horribly unpopular move?
Link please.  I'd like to look at this in full context.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: MBunge on February 05, 2017, 11:32:40 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/i/web/status/828026170302148608

Quote
Bill O'Reily: But he's a killer though. Putin is a killer.

DJT: there are a lot of killers. We've got a lot of killers. What do you think--our country is so innocent?


I'm legitimately distressed by this. Like just taken aback.
It would be interesting to see Trump supporters defend him if he openly killed political opponents like Putin.

This doesn't distress me more than the other things he's done and said so far.

Think about what he's saying here. "We've got a lot of killers" what does that mean?

Does he mean soldiers? Generals that order strikes? Former presidents who ordered those strikes ordered? Or criminals? And is he equating all those things? Is he equating any of Jose hints with things Putin has done? Is he equating our military with Putin killing political rivals and journalists? What in the actual expletive!

Uhm, are you even vaguely aware of some of the horrendous stuff the United States has either done, directly supported or indirectly condoned around the world?  Trump's 70, so his memory stretches back to the 1960s but that's not even necessary.  You do remember that whole "invading Iraq" thing?  The one that got hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed?  The one where the United States military tortured prisoners?  All of it ultimately for no good reason whatsoever?  And absolutely NONE of the important people who did it were ever held responsible?  What exactly has Putin done in Crimea that compares to that?

Mike
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Evantime34 on February 05, 2017, 11:49:00 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/i/web/status/828026170302148608

Quote
Bill O'Reily: But he's a killer though. Putin is a killer.

DJT: there are a lot of killers. We've got a lot of killers. What do you think--our country is so innocent?


I'm legitimately distressed by this. Like just taken aback.
It would be interesting to see Trump supporters defend him if he openly killed political opponents like Putin.

This doesn't distress me more than the other things he's done and said so far.

Think about what he's saying here. "We've got a lot of killers" what does that mean?

Does he mean soldiers? Generals that order strikes? Former presidents who ordered those strikes ordered? Or criminals? And is he equating all those things? Is he equating any of Jose hints with things Putin has done? Is he equating our military with Putin killing political rivals and journalists? What in the actual expletive!

Uhm, are you even vaguely aware of some of the horrendous stuff the United States has either done, directly supported or indirectly condoned around the world?  Trump's 70, so his memory stretches back to the 1960s but that's not even necessary.  You do remember that whole "invading Iraq" thing?  The one that got hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed?  The one where the United States military tortured prisoners?  All of it ultimately for no good reason whatsoever?  And absolutely NONE of the important people who did it were ever held responsible?  What exactly has Putin done in Crimea that compares to that?

Mike
We should aspire to be better though. Praising someone who kills political opponents shows we have no problem doing terrible things.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: blink on February 05, 2017, 11:52:33 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/i/web/status/828026170302148608

Quote
Bill O'Reily: But he's a killer though. Putin is a killer.

DJT: there are a lot of killers. We've got a lot of killers. What do you think--our country is so innocent?


I'm legitimately distressed by this. Like just taken aback.
It would be interesting to see Trump supporters defend him if he openly killed political opponents like Putin.

This doesn't distress me more than the other things he's done and said so far.

Think about what he's saying here. "We've got a lot of killers" what does that mean?

Does he mean soldiers? Generals that order strikes? Former presidents who ordered those strikes ordered? Or criminals? And is he equating all those things? Is he equating any of Jose hints with things Putin has done? Is he equating our military with Putin killing political rivals and journalists? What in the actual expletive!

Uhm, are you even vaguely aware of some of the horrendous stuff the United States has either done, directly supported or indirectly condoned around the world?  Trump's 70, so his memory stretches back to the 1960s but that's not even necessary.  You do remember that whole "invading Iraq" thing?  The one that got hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed?  The one where the United States military tortured prisoners?  All of it ultimately for no good reason whatsoever?  And absolutely NONE of the important people who did it were ever held responsible?  What exactly has Putin done in Crimea that compares to that?

Mike

I don't think anyone is trying to deny that the US has done bad things, started wars that weren't justified, made numerous geopolitical blunders during our history.  But the context of the statement is that Trump has this inexplicable support of Putin that is not in the best interests of the US at best and criminal at worst. 

It is not like Trump campaigned as some human rights reformer and is saying the US should be held to a higher standard.  Trump called for a religous ban, called for reinstatement of torture tactics.  Trump is saying he admires Putin and thinks that what he is doing is ok.  Trump is basically using Russia as a low bar standard that he can shoot for to limit civil rights and restrict freedom of the press.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 06, 2017, 03:35:40 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C38gWVkVUAA3vYY?format=jpg&name=large)

Is this real? Did he really not know? That sloppy and lazy? Did bannon just put it in a stack? Is this a fake leak to try to distance himself from a horrible and horribly unpopular move?
Link please.  I'd like to look at this in full context.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/us/politics/trump-white-house-aides-strategy.html?referer=https://t.co/4sFV11e2Jo
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: greece666 on February 06, 2017, 08:24:12 AM
U.S. Ambassador To UN Says No Lifting Of Russia Sanctions Until Crimea Returned (http://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-un-ambassador-haley-condemns-russia/28275953.html)

(I copy the full text)

>>The new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, has expressed "strong condemnation of Russia's actions" in eastern Ukraine and warned that Ukraine-related sanctions against Russia will not be lifted until Crimea is returned to Kyiv.

"Crimea is a part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control of the peninsula to Ukraine," she said on February 2 in her first public remarks before the Security Council since being sworn into office.

"Eastern Ukraine, of course, is not the only part of the country suffering because of Russia's aggressive actions. The United States continues to condemn and call for an immediate end to the Russian occupation of Crimea," Haley said.

The new American envoy said it was "unfortunate" that she had to condemn Russia in her first appearance before the council.

"We do want to better our relations with Russia," she said, but "the dire situation in eastern Ukraine is one that demands clear and strong condemnation of Russian actions."

Russia took control of Crimea in March 2014 after sending in troops and staging a referendum condemned by Ukraine and 99 other countries in the UN as illegitimate.

More than 9,750 people have been killed since the conflict between Kyiv’s forces and Russia-backed separatists erupted in the Donetsk and Luhansk provinces the following month.

Fighting has flared in the past week in the country's east, with heavy fighting between government forces and Russia-backed separatists entering its fifth day.

Ukrainian officials had earlier reported the deaths of eight soldiers in the past few days, a significant spike in casualties, and separatist fighters and civilians have also been killed and injured.

Russia and Ukraine have traded blame for the increase in violence. Russia's UN ambassador said observers have blamed the escalation on Ukrainian forces and he accused Ukraine of "desperately, frantically" trying to achieve a military victory.

Vitaly Churkin, echoing comments by Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier in the day, told the UN council late on February 2 that Kyiv needs money which it "can swindle out of the European Union, certain European countries, and from the United States and from international financial institutions by pretending to be the victims of aggression."

He called for a cease-fire and return to implementation of the Minsk peace agreement.

But U.S. Senator John McCain said Russia is testing President Donald Trump by escalating the violence in Ukraine. He dismissed Putin's accusations that Kyiv is fomenting the latest fighting in an effort to gain support from the new U.S. administration.

McCain, a senior Republican senator from Arizona and a regular critic of Trump as well as Russia, sent a letter to the president in which he urged him to provide lethal aid to Kyiv.

"That this surge of attacks began the day after [Putin] talked with you by phone is a clear indication that Vladimir Putin is moving quickly to test you as commander in chief. America's response will have lasting consequences," McCain said in the letter released by his office.>>

 Discussion on reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/5s8svd/us_ambassador_to_un_says_no_lifting_of_russia/?utm_content=comments&utm_medium=user&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=frontpage)
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 06, 2017, 08:50:45 AM
https://mobile.twitter.com/i/web/status/828026170302148608

Quote
Bill O'Reily: But he's a killer though. Putin is a killer.

DJT: there are a lot of killers. We've got a lot of killers. What do you think--our country is so innocent?


I'm legitimately distressed by this. Like just taken aback.
It would be interesting to see Trump supporters defend him if he openly killed political opponents like Putin.

This doesn't distress me more than the other things he's done and said so far.

Think about what he's saying here. "We've got a lot of killers" what does that mean?

Does he mean soldiers? Generals that order strikes? Former presidents who ordered those strikes ordered? Or criminals? And is he equating all those things? Is he equating any of Jose hints with things Putin has done? Is he equating our military with Putin killing political rivals and journalists? What in the actual expletive!

Uhm, are you even vaguely aware of some of the horrendous stuff the United States has either done, directly supported or indirectly condoned around the world?  Trump's 70, so his memory stretches back to the 1960s but that's not even necessary.  You do remember that whole "invading Iraq" thing?  The one that got hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed?  The one where the United States military tortured prisoners?  All of it ultimately for no good reason whatsoever?  And absolutely NONE of the important people who did it were ever held responsible?  What exactly has Putin done in Crimea that compares to that?

Mike

I don't think anyone is trying to deny that the US has done bad things, started wars that weren't justified, made numerous geopolitical blunders during our history.  But the context of the statement is that Trump has this inexplicable support of Putin that is not in the best interests of the US at best and criminal at worst. 

It is not like Trump campaigned as some human rights reformer and is saying the US should be held to a higher standard.  Trump called for a religous ban, called for reinstatement of torture tactics.  Trump is saying he admires Putin and thinks that what he is doing is ok.  Trump is basically using Russia as a low bar standard that he can shoot for to limit civil rights and restrict freedom of the press.

Yeah, exactly this. Anyone who knows US history knows we've had our hands in plenty of stuff ranging from shady to atrocious. But the reason this statement's so troubling is that it's being used to handwave away murder of political opponents, major crackdowns on free speech + press, abandonment of democracy, etc. And it's coming from a guy who literally thinks the Tianamen Square Massacre was a good thing because it "showed strength". It's yet another in a series of statements more in common with a 3rd world dictator than the President of a democratic republic with civil rights and checks and balances. And of course, yet another example of how he strangely refuses to criticize Putin under any circumstances.

It has been kinda morbidly fascinating watching many of my R friends go from 8 years of "apology tour!!!" after Obama said we'd made some foreign policy mistakes to "Yeah, America sucks, we're just as bad as Putin", though.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 06, 2017, 02:45:48 PM
I stumbled onto this nugget when perusing SI for SB LI coverage (SI, by the way, had by far the best feature content of all the major sports outlets). It's a Trump article from 1984, before all of the hoopla started:

http://www.si.com/vault/1984/02/13/619725/the-usfls-trump-card

The lighlight from the closing paragraph:
Quote
Donald Trump has no doubt that the USFL will make it and make it big. To Trump, it's "absolute nonsense" that 1984 will prove to be the make-or-break year for the league.

The USFL played its last season in 1985 and folded promptly thereafter...
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 06, 2017, 02:48:18 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C37TR1PUcAEmN4c?format=jpg&name=large)
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: GratefulCs on February 06, 2017, 02:50:25 PM
I stumbled onto this nugget when perusing SI for SB LI coverage (SI, by the way, had by far the best feature content of all the major sports outlets). It's a Trump article from 1984, before all of the hoopla started:

http://www.si.com/vault/1984/02/13/619725/the-usfls-trump-card

The lighlight from the closing paragraph:
Quote
Donald Trump has no doubt that the USFL will make it and make it big. To Trump, it's "absolute nonsense" that 1984 will prove to be the make-or-break year for the league.

The USFL played its last season in 1985 and folded promptly thereafter...
ha!

'Believe me, the usfl will have TREMENDOUS success'
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: indeedproceed on February 07, 2017, 12:11:24 PM
Quote from: Dallas Morning News (http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2017/02/07/trump-offers-destroy-texas-senator-help-rockwall-sheriff)
WASHINGTON —There's a Texas state senator with a target on his back today, courtesy of President Donald Trump and the Rockwall County sheriff.

At a meeting this morning with sheriffs from around the country, Sheriff Harold Eavenson complained about a state senator for getting in the way of some measures he felt would be helpful.

"Want to give his name? We'll destroy his career," Trump offered.

Video: https://twitter.com/SteveKopack/status/829007910277636097

Point: Donald Trump is a terrible president who would have more in common with a room full of gangsters than a room full of patriots.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Donoghus on February 07, 2017, 12:23:08 PM
I stumbled onto this nugget when perusing SI for SB LI coverage (SI, by the way, had by far the best feature content of all the major sports outlets). It's a Trump article from 1984, before all of the hoopla started:

http://www.si.com/vault/1984/02/13/619725/the-usfls-trump-card

The lighlight from the closing paragraph:
Quote
Donald Trump has no doubt that the USFL will make it and make it big. To Trump, it's "absolute nonsense" that 1984 will prove to be the make-or-break year for the league.

The USFL played its last season in 1985 and folded promptly thereafter...
ha!

'Believe me, the usfl will have TREMENDOUS success'

They were idiots for trying to move the USFL to a fall league.  Trump spearheaded that effort.  Just a boneheaded idea.  If they had stayed a spring league, who knows what would've happened.   That anti-trust lawsuit against the NFL didn't help them any, either.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: nickagneta on February 07, 2017, 12:44:26 PM
Quote from: Dallas Morning News (http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2017/02/07/trump-offers-destroy-texas-senator-help-rockwall-sheriff)
WASHINGTON —There's a Texas state senator with a target on his back today, courtesy of President Donald Trump and the Rockwall County sheriff.

At a meeting this morning with sheriffs from around the country, Sheriff Harold Eavenson complained about a state senator for getting in the way of some measures he felt would be helpful.

"Want to give his name? We'll destroy his career," Trump offered.

Video: https://twitter.com/SteveKopack/status/829007910277636097

Point: Donald Trump is a terrible president who would have more in common with a room full of gangsters than a room full of patriots.
Kind of explains why the President doesn't want to criticize Putin for murdering his critics and opponents. Trump has no problem with ruining the lives of those that have different beliefs from his and would oppose his points of view. Just insult them, attack them physically like Trump called for during the election and now destroy their careers and lives because they have different political beliefs. How long before we see him calling for imprisonment and killing of those that oppose him. That really is the next step and if Trump does that...he is Putin.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: liam on February 07, 2017, 12:48:10 PM
Quote from: Dallas Morning News (http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2017/02/07/trump-offers-destroy-texas-senator-help-rockwall-sheriff)
WASHINGTON —There's a Texas state senator with a target on his back today, courtesy of President Donald Trump and the Rockwall County sheriff.

At a meeting this morning with sheriffs from around the country, Sheriff Harold Eavenson complained about a state senator for getting in the way of some measures he felt would be helpful.

"Want to give his name? We'll destroy his career," Trump offered.

Video: https://twitter.com/SteveKopack/status/829007910277636097

Point: Donald Trump is a terrible president who would have more in common with a room full of gangsters than a room full of patriots.
Kind of explains why the President doesn't want to criticize Putin for murdering his critics and opponents. Trump has no problem with ruining the lives of those that have different beliefs from his and would oppose his points of view. Just insult them, attack them physically like Trump called for during the election and now destroy their careers and lives because they have different political beliefs. How long before we see him calling for imprisonment and killing of those that oppise him. That really is the next step and if Trump does that...he is Putin.

Don't you remember "Lock her up!"
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 07, 2017, 12:52:03 PM
I stumbled onto this nugget when perusing SI for SB LI coverage (SI, by the way, had by far the best feature content of all the major sports outlets). It's a Trump article from 1984, before all of the hoopla started:

http://www.si.com/vault/1984/02/13/619725/the-usfls-trump-card

The lighlight from the closing paragraph:
Quote
Donald Trump has no doubt that the USFL will make it and make it big. To Trump, it's "absolute nonsense" that 1984 will prove to be the make-or-break year for the league.

The USFL played its last season in 1985 and folded promptly thereafter...
ha!

'Believe me, the usfl will have TREMENDOUS success'

They were idiots for trying to move the USFL to a fall league.  Trump spearheaded that effort.  Just a boneheaded idea. If they had stayed a spring league, who knows what would've happened.   That anti-trust lawsuit against the NFL didn't help them any, either.
My point precisely. I think that's pretty instructive for the MO of this President. Except it seems like many who voted for him don't seem to understand that the country is not a Limited Liability Partnership and can't be run like one.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: mmmmm on February 07, 2017, 03:40:34 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/us/politics/betsy-devos-education-secretary-confirmed.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Quote
WASHINGTON — The Senate confirmed Betsy DeVos on Tuesday as education secretary, approving the embattled nominee only with the help of a historic tiebreaking vote from Vice President Mike Pence.

The 51-to-50 vote elevates Ms. DeVos — a wealthy donor from Michigan who has devoted much of her life to expanding educational choice through charter schools and vouchers, but has limited experience with the public school system — to be steward of the nation’s schools.

The tyranny of the (wealthy) minority continues.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Jon on February 07, 2017, 04:12:24 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/us/politics/betsy-devos-education-secretary-confirmed.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Quote
WASHINGTON — The Senate confirmed Betsy DeVos on Tuesday as education secretary, approving the embattled nominee only with the help of a historic tiebreaking vote from Vice President Mike Pence.

The 51-to-50 vote elevates Ms. DeVos — a wealthy donor from Michigan who has devoted much of her life to expanding educational choice through charter schools and vouchers, but has limited experience with the public school system — to be steward of the nation’s schools.

The tyranny of the (wealthy) minority continues.

It's one thing if wealthier economic conservatives voted for Trump to support their own self interests. But I can't believe many people were dumb enough to buy his schtick that he was ever interested in helping the average American. This is a man born with a silver spoon in his mouth and sits on a golden toilet who has only ever expressed a desire to associate with the rich and famous. Unfortunately, a lot of innocent people are going to have to be hurt for his followers to learn the hard way that a leopard can't change his spots.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Big333223 on February 07, 2017, 04:22:19 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/us/politics/betsy-devos-education-secretary-confirmed.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Quote
WASHINGTON — The Senate confirmed Betsy DeVos on Tuesday as education secretary, approving the embattled nominee only with the help of a historic tiebreaking vote from Vice President Mike Pence.

The 51-to-50 vote elevates Ms. DeVos — a wealthy donor from Michigan who has devoted much of her life to expanding educational choice through charter schools and vouchers, but has limited experience with the public school system — to be steward of the nation’s schools.

The tyranny of the (wealthy) minority continues.

It's one thing if wealthier economic conservatives voted for Trump to support their own self interests. But I can't believe many people were dumb enough to buy his schtick that he was ever interested in helping the average American. This is a man born with a silver spoon in his mouth and sits on a golden toilet who has only ever expressed a desire to associate with the rich and famous. Unfortunately, a lot of innocent people are going to have to be hurt for his followers to learn the hard way that a leopard can't change his spots.
I put the odds that he has actually installed a literal golden toilet in the White House at 1 to 2.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: CapnDunks on February 07, 2017, 04:53:48 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/us/politics/betsy-devos-education-secretary-confirmed.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Quote
WASHINGTON — The Senate confirmed Betsy DeVos on Tuesday as education secretary, approving the embattled nominee only with the help of a historic tiebreaking vote from Vice President Mike Pence.

The 51-to-50 vote elevates Ms. DeVos — a wealthy donor from Michigan who has devoted much of her life to expanding educational choice through charter schools and vouchers, but has limited experience with the public school system — to be steward of the nation’s schools.

The tyranny of the (wealthy) minority continues.

It's one thing if wealthier economic conservatives voted for Trump to support their own self interests. But I can't believe many people were dumb enough to buy his schtick that he was ever interested in helping the average American. This is a man born with a silver spoon in his mouth and sits on a golden toilet who has only ever expressed a desire to associate with the rich and famous. Unfortunately, a lot of innocent people are going to have to be hurt for his followers to learn the hard way that a leopard can't change his spots.

I think its crazy optimistic to think that anyone's going to learn anything at this point. People will just stick their fingers in their ears. America is just so full of carnage, as long as you don't get stabbed by an immigrant or blown up by IS on your way to work you'd better get on your knees and thank Trump.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: mmmmm on February 07, 2017, 08:01:19 PM
This page has a nice log of the panel hearing today on the executive order on immigration:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2017/live-updates/trump-white-house/hearing-on-trump-travel-ban-updates-from-the-federal-appeals-court/what-if-the-order-said-no-muslims/?utm_term=.4ec157305b96

It starts at the bottom and logs updates of the discourse every 10 minutes or so, newer entries on top.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 07, 2017, 09:13:05 PM
This page has a nice log of the panel hearing today on the executive order on immigration:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2017/live-updates/trump-white-house/hearing-on-trump-travel-ban-updates-from-the-federal-appeals-court/what-if-the-order-said-no-muslims/?utm_term=.4ec157305b96

It starts at the bottom and logs updates of the discourse every 10 minutes or so, newer entries on top.

Quote
As the hearing approached its end, Friedland asked Flentje directly: “What if the order said, ‘No Muslims’?”

Flentje, the government’s lawyer, said that would likely be unconstitutional but “that’s not the order we have here.”
Of course not. What we have is a ban for Muslim-majority countries with an exemption for religious minorities.

Is that really what you're going to go with here?

/facepalm
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 08, 2017, 12:47:21 PM
In conflict of interest news, today the President tweeted an attack on Nordstrom's for dropping his daughter's clothing line. The line was dropped due to poor sales, with a targeted boycott likely contributing to it.

And then just to really hammer home the use of public office for family business interests, he retweeted it from the official POTUS account.

Bonus round: according to the official White House schedule, the original message was posted when Trump was supposed to be receiving his daily intelligence briefing.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 08, 2017, 12:59:49 PM
In conflict of interest news, today the President tweeted an attack on Nordstrom's for dropping his daughter's clothing line. The line was dropped due to poor sales, with a targeted boycott likely contributing to it.

And then just to really hammer home the use of public office for family business interests, he retweeted it from the official POTUS account.

Bonus round: according to the official White House schedule, the original message was posted when Trump was supposed to be receiving his daily intelligence briefing.
The funny part is that his daughter is probably the most decent of the lot. She is also, in all likelihood, a Democrat, having the past contributed to previous Hillary Clinton and Cory Booker campaigns.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 08, 2017, 02:07:18 PM
In conflict of interest news, today the President tweeted an attack on Nordstrom's for dropping his daughter's clothing line. The line was dropped due to poor sales, with a targeted boycott likely contributing to it.

And then just to really hammer home the use of public office for family business interests, he retweeted it from the official POTUS account.

Bonus round: according to the official White House schedule, the original message was posted when Trump was supposed to be receiving his daily intelligence briefing.
The funny part is that his daughter is probably the most decent of the lot. She is also, in all likelihood, a Democrat, having the past contributed to previous Hillary Clinton and Cory Booker campaigns.

Actually, the funny part is that Nordstrom stock is up about 2% today (overall market is flat). I can just imagine the folks in Nordstrom's C-suite kicking back in their chairs and giggling while their personal portfolios rise.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 08, 2017, 03:23:44 PM
Now TJ Maxx, Marshalls pulling back on Ivanka Trump clothing line:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/business/ivanka-trump-nordstrom-tj-maxx.html?_r=0
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: greece666 on February 09, 2017, 06:42:07 AM
Trump’s call with France didn’t go so well either (http://nypost.com/2017/02/08/trumps-call-with-france-didnt-go-so-well-either/)

Quote
President Trump went on a rant about how NATO members and China are taking advantage of the US during a phone call with French President Francois Hollande in another odd exchange with a foreign leader, it was reported Wednesday.

“It was a difficult conversation, because he talks like he’s speaking publicly,” Politico quoted a senior official as saying.

“It’s not the usual way heads of state speak to each other. He speaks with slogans and the conversation was not completely organized.”

Trump’s call with Hollande on Jan. 28 did address issues of concern to the two countries – namely terrorism and the Islamic State – but also veered off into NATO paying its fair share, the website reported.

Pressing Hollande on the alliance, Trump said the US “wants our money back,” said the source, adding that he seemed to be “obsessing over money.”

The president’s phone conversation with Hollande follows a similar pattern of calls with the leaders Australia and Mexico.

In a Jan. 28 call with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, Trump blasted an agreement between the two countries for the US to accept 1,250 refugees.

“This was the worst call by far,” Trump told the Australian leader about the deal negotiated by former President Obama.

In a call with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto on Jan. 27, Trump repeated his pledge that Mexico will pay for a border wall and jokingly offered to help rid the country of “bad hombres down there” running drug cartels.

The White House’s readout of Trump’s call with Hollande said the president “reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to NATO” and “the leaders also lauded our combined efforts to eliminate ISIS in Iraq and Syria.”
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 09, 2017, 12:48:13 PM
In other news from today, KAC encouraged people to buy Ivanka Trump's clothing line in a WH press conference, and Trump had a private company announce a private business deal from the Oval Office.

What an embarrassment.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 09, 2017, 01:27:09 PM
In other news from today, KAC encouraged people to buy Ivanka Trump's clothing line in a WH press conference, and Trump had a private company announce a private business deal from the Oval Office.

What an embarrassment.

Conway's comments were likely a violation of federal ethics law forbidding employees to endorse products. Problem is the White House would be responsible for enforcing it. Slap on the wrist or nothing at all, most likely.


If anyone's interested in reading more specifics on the disastrous Yemen raid, an independent journalism group went to the village where the operation took place and interviewed residents.

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2017/02/08/nine-young-children-killed-full-details-botched-us-raid-yemen/

Reported death toll was 14 Al-Qaeda members, 25 civilians, including 7 children 8 and younger and a late-pregnancy woman. We lost 1 Navy SEAL, CPO William Owens in the operation, as well as having to intentionally destroy a $70 million aircraft, and Yemen has reportedly forbidden us from conducting any more ground missions without prior approval.

The administration is currently claiming that any criticism of the mission is an insult to Owens' memory and those criticizing should apologize to his family. As the icing on the cake they're singling out McCain in particular for it. No word on when the President plans on apologizing to the families of those lost in Iraq.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: GratefulCs on February 09, 2017, 02:01:06 PM
In other news from today, KAC encouraged people to buy Ivanka Trump's clothing line in a WH press conference, and Trump had a private company announce a private business deal from the Oval Office.

What an embarrassment.

Conway's comments were likely a violation of federal ethics law forbidding employees to endorse products. Problem is the White House would be responsible for enforcing it. Slap on the wrist or nothing at all, most likely.


If anyone's interested in reading more specifics on the disastrous Yemen raid, an independent journalism group went to the village where the operation took place and interviewed residents.

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2017/02/08/nine-young-children-killed-full-details-botched-us-raid-yemen/

Reported death toll was 14 Al-Qaeda members, 25 civilians, including 7 children 8 and younger and a late-pregnancy woman. We lost 1 Navy SEAL, CPO William Owens in the operation, as well as having to intentionally destroy a $70 million aircraft, and Yemen has reportedly forbidden us from conducting any more ground missions without prior approval.

The administration is currently claiming that any criticism of the mission is an insult to Owens' memory and those criticizing should apologize to his family. As the icing on the cake they're singling out McCain in particular for it. No word on when the President plans on apologizing to the families of those lost in Iraq.
the way spicer is addressing this at the pressers is making me so mad


Essentially: how dare you question this raid!? You're a terrible American if you're questioning us


Unreal. Just unreal
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 09, 2017, 02:03:28 PM
In other news from today, KAC encouraged people to buy Ivanka Trump's clothing line in a WH press conference, and Trump had a private company announce a private business deal from the Oval Office.

What an embarrassment.

Conway's comments were likely a violation of federal ethics law forbidding employees to endorse products. Problem is the White House would be responsible for enforcing it. Slap on the wrist or nothing at all, most likely.


If anyone's interested in reading more specifics on the disastrous Yemen raid, an independent journalism group went to the village where the operation took place and interviewed residents.

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2017/02/08/nine-young-children-killed-full-details-botched-us-raid-yemen/

Reported death toll was 14 Al-Qaeda members, 25 civilians, including 7 children 8 and younger and a late-pregnancy woman. We lost 1 Navy SEAL, CPO William Owens in the operation, as well as having to intentionally destroy a $70 million aircraft, and Yemen has reportedly forbidden us from conducting any more ground missions without prior approval.

The administration is currently claiming that any criticism of the mission is an insult to Owens' memory and those criticizing should apologize to his family. As the icing on the cake they're singling out McCain in particular for it. No word on when the President plans on apologizing to the families of those lost in Iraq.
the way spicer is addressing this at the pressers is making me so mad


Essentially: how dare you question this raid!? You're a terrible American if you're questioning us


Unreal. Just unreal

MO for this current GOP for the last 8 yrs or so.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 09, 2017, 02:14:29 PM
In other news from today, KAC encouraged people to buy Ivanka Trump's clothing line in a WH press conference, and Trump had a private company announce a private business deal from the Oval Office.

What an embarrassment.

My sentiments entirely. Its just a matter of time before this clown gets impeached.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 09, 2017, 02:16:30 PM

If anyone's interested in reading more specifics on the disastrous Yemen raid, an independent journalism group went to the village where the operation took place and interviewed residents.

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2017/02/08/nine-young-children-killed-full-details-botched-us-raid-yemen/

Reported death toll was 14 Al-Qaeda members, 25 civilians, including 7 children 8 and younger and a late-pregnancy woman. We lost 1 Navy SEAL, CPO William Owens in the operation, as well as having to intentionally destroy a $70 million aircraft, and Yemen has reportedly forbidden us from conducting any more ground missions without prior approval.

The administration is currently claiming that any criticism of the mission is an insult to Owens' memory and those criticizing should apologize to his family. As the icing on the cake they're singling out McCain in particular for it. No word on when the President plans on apologizing to the families of those lost in Iraq.

But Hillary...
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: liam on February 09, 2017, 02:23:53 PM
Draft dodger n chief!
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: nickagneta on February 09, 2017, 02:26:59 PM
In other news from today, KAC encouraged people to buy Ivanka Trump's clothing line in a WH press conference, and Trump had a private company announce a private business deal from the Oval Office.

What an embarrassment.

My sentiments entirely. Its just a matter of time before this clown gets impeached.
This administration is definitely pushing the limits of what is legal for a President to do. I feel he and his people will eventually cross a line that Congressional Republicans will not cross with him and he will be impeached.

As smart as Trump likes to tell us he is, he is doing some monumentually stupid stuff and I believe his ego isn't going to allow him to see that he just isn't allowed to break the law just because he is the Presidentm
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: GratefulCs on February 09, 2017, 02:36:36 PM

If anyone's interested in reading more specifics on the disastrous Yemen raid, an independent journalism group went to the village where the operation took place and interviewed residents.

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2017/02/08/nine-young-children-killed-full-details-botched-us-raid-yemen/

Reported death toll was 14 Al-Qaeda members, 25 civilians, including 7 children 8 and younger and a late-pregnancy woman. We lost 1 Navy SEAL, CPO William Owens in the operation, as well as having to intentionally destroy a $70 million aircraft, and Yemen has reportedly forbidden us from conducting any more ground missions without prior approval.

The administration is currently claiming that any criticism of the mission is an insult to Owens' memory and those criticizing should apologize to his family. As the icing on the cake they're singling out McCain in particular for it. No word on when the President plans on apologizing to the families of those lost in Iraq.

But Hillary...
check the emails!!
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 09, 2017, 02:37:29 PM
In other news from today, KAC encouraged people to buy Ivanka Trump's clothing line in a WH press conference, and Trump had a private company announce a private business deal from the Oval Office.

What an embarrassment.

Conway's comments were likely a violation of federal ethics law forbidding employees to endorse products. Problem is the White House would be responsible for enforcing it. Slap on the wrist or nothing at all, most likely.


If anyone's interested in reading more specifics on the disastrous Yemen raid, an independent journalism group went to the village where the operation took place and interviewed residents.

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2017/02/08/nine-young-children-killed-full-details-botched-us-raid-yemen/

Reported death toll was 14 Al-Qaeda members, 25 civilians, including 7 children 8 and younger and a late-pregnancy woman. We lost 1 Navy SEAL, CPO William Owens in the operation, as well as having to intentionally destroy a $70 million aircraft, and Yemen has reportedly forbidden us from conducting any more ground missions without prior approval.

The administration is currently claiming that any criticism of the mission is an insult to Owens' memory and those criticizing should apologize to his family. As the icing on the cake they're singling out McCain in particular for it. No word on when the President plans on apologizing to the families of those lost in Iraq.
the way spicer is addressing this at the pressers is making me so mad


Essentially: how dare you question this raid!? You're a terrible American if you're questioning us


Unreal. Just unreal

Ironically Jeb! tried a similar tack against Trump during the primaries with his criticism of Iraq. Didn't get far with it. But it feels like an entirely different animal when it's a developing story and the dead have barely been buried. I agree it's gross and an incredibly tawdry use of a dead sailor. A serial draft-dodger attacking John McCain over it is just another layer of pathetic.


Its just a matter of time before this clown gets impeached.

You need Republicans to do it - a lot of them - and there's virtually 0 indication any significant number are willing to take any such action. We'll see a lot worse than this swept under the rug before anything changes.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 09, 2017, 02:38:12 PM
In other news from today, KAC encouraged people to buy Ivanka Trump's clothing line in a WH press conference, and Trump had a private company announce a private business deal from the Oval Office.

What an embarrassment.

My sentiments entirely. Its just a matter of time before this clown gets impeached.
This administration is definitely pushing the limits of what is legal for a President to do. I feel he and his people will eventually cross a line that Congressional Republicans will not cross with him and he will be impeached.

As smart as Trump likes to tell us he is, he is doing some monumentually stupid stuff and I believe his ego isn't going to allow him to see that he just isn't allowed to break the law just because he is the Presidentm

I'd like to find out where that line is, but it has been invisible so far. Even McCain, who has spoken against certain things (and what he said has been very far from controversial, that's how out there this administration is) is still voting with the GOP and Trump. No signs of actual meaningful diversion so far. I don't think a single GOP will stand up to trump with words AND actions on the basis of ethics, morals, principles, etc. None have the spine to do that. They will only bail if it gets so so bad that it makes them susceptible to losing their seat.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Surferdad on February 09, 2017, 02:46:15 PM
In other news from today, KAC encouraged people to buy Ivanka Trump's clothing line in a WH press conference, and Trump had a private company announce a private business deal from the Oval Office.

What an embarrassment.

My sentiments entirely. Its just a matter of time before this clown gets impeached.
This administration is definitely pushing the limits of what is legal for a President to do. I feel he and his people will eventually cross a line that Congressional Republicans will not cross with him and he will be impeached.

As smart as Trump likes to tell us he is, he is doing some monumentually stupid stuff and I believe his ego isn't going to allow him to see that he just isn't allowed to break the law just because he is the Presidentm

I'd like to find out where that line is, but it has been invisible so far. Even McCain, who has spoken against certain things (and what he said has been very far from controversial, that's how out there this administration is) is still voting with the GOP and Trump. No signs of actual meaningful diversion so far. I don't think a single GOP will stand up to trump with words AND actions on the basis of ethics, morals, principles, etc. None have the spine to do that. They will only bail if it gets so so bad that it makes them susceptible to losing their seat.
I hope so.  I'd like to think that some of them will also consider their legacy as senators and even how they will live with themselves for the rest of their lives.  In other words, make sure you end up on the right side of history, because we ALL know that history will not be kind to this administration or the repubs in general.  DJT can say what he wants about the press, but many of them are the ones who will write the history books.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: slamtheking on February 09, 2017, 02:56:48 PM
In other news from today, KAC encouraged people to buy Ivanka Trump's clothing line in a WH press conference, and Trump had a private company announce a private business deal from the Oval Office.

What an embarrassment.

My sentiments entirely. Its just a matter of time before this clown gets impeached.
This administration is definitely pushing the limits of what is legal for a President to do. I feel he and his people will eventually cross a line that Congressional Republicans will not cross with him and he will be impeached.

As smart as Trump likes to tell us he is, he is doing some monumentually stupid stuff and I believe his ego isn't going to allow him to see that he just isn't allowed to break the law just because he is the Presidentm

I'd like to find out where that line is, but it has been invisible so far. Even McCain, who has spoken against certain things (and what he said has been very far from controversial, that's how out there this administration is) is still voting with the GOP and Trump. No signs of actual meaningful diversion so far. I don't think a single GOP will stand up to trump with words AND actions on the basis of ethics, morals, principles, etc. None have the spine to do that. They will only bail if it gets so so bad that it makes them susceptible to losing their seat.
I hope so.  I'd like to think that some of them will also consider their legacy as senators and even how they will live with themselves for the rest of their lives.  In other words, make sure you end up on the right side of history, because we ALL know that history will not be kind to this administration or the repubs in general.  DJT can say what he wants about the press, but many of them are the ones who will write the history books.
I don't see Trump getting impeached for the very reason it would take a lot of Republicans to go along with that.  I seriously think Trump could get away with actual criminal activity, worse than Nixon, and continue to have the support of a Republican congress. 

It would take Dems taking over congress which won't happen because the Reps have a stranglehold on gerrymandered districts in the house and more importantly, the Reps from red states are seen as the solution by their constituents, not the problem.  Same applies to the Dems in terms of their constituencies.  I'd hazard a guess that less than 10% of the seats total in either house of congress are really in play for either side. 
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Evantime34 on February 09, 2017, 02:59:11 PM
In other news from today, KAC encouraged people to buy Ivanka Trump's clothing line in a WH press conference, and Trump had a private company announce a private business deal from the Oval Office.

What an embarrassment.

My sentiments entirely. Its just a matter of time before this clown gets impeached.
This administration is definitely pushing the limits of what is legal for a President to do. I feel he and his people will eventually cross a line that Congressional Republicans will not cross with him and he will be impeached.

As smart as Trump likes to tell us he is, he is doing some monumentually stupid stuff and I believe his ego isn't going to allow him to see that he just isn't allowed to break the law just because he is the Presidentm

I'd like to find out where that line is, but it has been invisible so far. Even McCain, who has spoken against certain things (and what he said has been very far from controversial, that's how out there this administration is) is still voting with the GOP and Trump. No signs of actual meaningful diversion so far. I don't think a single GOP will stand up to trump with words AND actions on the basis of ethics, morals, principles, etc. None have the spine to do that. They will only bail if it gets so so bad that it makes them susceptible to losing their seat.
I don't think there is a line. If Trump is going to be impeached it will be after democrats get control of the Senate and/or the house. That's why I hope everyone checks out swingleft.org
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: FatKidsDad on February 09, 2017, 03:05:46 PM
In other news from today, KAC encouraged people to buy Ivanka Trump's clothing line in a WH press conference, and Trump had a private company announce a private business deal from the Oval Office.

What an embarrassment.

My sentiments entirely. Its just a matter of time before this clown gets impeached.
This administration is definitely pushing the limits of what is legal for a President to do. I feel he and his people will eventually cross a line that Congressional Republicans will not cross with him and he will be impeached.

As smart as Trump likes to tell us he is, he is doing some monumentually stupid stuff and I believe his ego isn't going to allow him to see that he just isn't allowed to break the law just because he is the Presidentm

I'd like to find out where that line is, but it has been invisible so far. Even McCain, who has spoken against certain things (and what he said has been very far from controversial, that's how out there this administration is) is still voting with the GOP and Trump. No signs of actual meaningful diversion so far. I don't think a single GOP will stand up to trump with words AND actions on the basis of ethics, morals, principles, etc. None have the spine to do that. They will only bail if it gets so so bad that it makes them susceptible to losing their seat.
I hope so.  I'd like to think that some of them will also consider their legacy as senators and even how they will live with themselves for the rest of their lives.  In other words, make sure you end up on the right side of history, because we ALL know that history will not be kind to this administration or the repubs in general.  DJT can say what he wants about the press, but many of them are the ones who will write the history books.
I don't see Trump getting impeached for the very reason it would take a lot of Republicans to go along with that.  I seriously think Trump could get away with actual criminal activity, worse than Nixon, and continue to have the support of a Republican congress. 

It would take Dems taking over congress which won't happen because the Reps have a stranglehold on gerrymandered districts in the house and more importantly, the Reps from red states are seen as the solution by their constituents, not the problem.  Same applies to the Dems in terms of their constituencies.  I'd hazard a guess that less than 10% of the seats total in either house of congress are really in play for either side.

I think this holds true unless Trump does something that is both egregious and completely contrary to the Republican agenda. Republicans then may calculate that they are better off with Pence and a hand-picked appointee to the VP slot.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 09, 2017, 03:14:00 PM
In other news from today, KAC encouraged people to buy Ivanka Trump's clothing line in a WH press conference, and Trump had a private company announce a private business deal from the Oval Office.

What an embarrassment.

Conway's comments were likely a violation of federal ethics law forbidding employees to endorse products. Problem is the White House would be responsible for enforcing it. Slap on the wrist or nothing at all, most likely.
She got "counseled" and that is that, so that you know.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/white-house-conway-counseled-after-possible-ethics-violation/article/2614400
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: slamtheking on February 09, 2017, 03:32:30 PM
In other news from today, KAC encouraged people to buy Ivanka Trump's clothing line in a WH press conference, and Trump had a private company announce a private business deal from the Oval Office.

What an embarrassment.

My sentiments entirely. Its just a matter of time before this clown gets impeached.
This administration is definitely pushing the limits of what is legal for a President to do. I feel he and his people will eventually cross a line that Congressional Republicans will not cross with him and he will be impeached.

As smart as Trump likes to tell us he is, he is doing some monumentually stupid stuff and I believe his ego isn't going to allow him to see that he just isn't allowed to break the law just because he is the Presidentm

I'd like to find out where that line is, but it has been invisible so far. Even McCain, who has spoken against certain things (and what he said has been very far from controversial, that's how out there this administration is) is still voting with the GOP and Trump. No signs of actual meaningful diversion so far. I don't think a single GOP will stand up to trump with words AND actions on the basis of ethics, morals, principles, etc. None have the spine to do that. They will only bail if it gets so so bad that it makes them susceptible to losing their seat.
I hope so.  I'd like to think that some of them will also consider their legacy as senators and even how they will live with themselves for the rest of their lives.  In other words, make sure you end up on the right side of history, because we ALL know that history will not be kind to this administration or the repubs in general.  DJT can say what he wants about the press, but many of them are the ones who will write the history books.
I don't see Trump getting impeached for the very reason it would take a lot of Republicans to go along with that.  I seriously think Trump could get away with actual criminal activity, worse than Nixon, and continue to have the support of a Republican congress. 

It would take Dems taking over congress which won't happen because the Reps have a stranglehold on gerrymandered districts in the house and more importantly, the Reps from red states are seen as the solution by their constituents, not the problem.  Same applies to the Dems in terms of their constituencies.  I'd hazard a guess that less than 10% of the seats total in either house of congress are really in play for either side.

I think this holds true unless Trump does something that is both egregious and completely contrary to the Republican agenda. Republicans then may calculate that they are better off with Pence and a hand-picked appointee to the VP slot.
well, in previous years, what Trump said and did on the campaign trail would be egregious enough to be out of the race within a few months.  after this campaign, I'm not sure what it would take for Trump to hit that point for Reps. 
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 09, 2017, 03:41:57 PM
In other news from today, KAC encouraged people to buy Ivanka Trump's clothing line in a WH press conference, and Trump had a private company announce a private business deal from the Oval Office.

What an embarrassment.

My sentiments entirely. Its just a matter of time before this clown gets impeached.
This administration is definitely pushing the limits of what is legal for a President to do. I feel he and his people will eventually cross a line that Congressional Republicans will not cross with him and he will be impeached.

As smart as Trump likes to tell us he is, he is doing some monumentually stupid stuff and I believe his ego isn't going to allow him to see that he just isn't allowed to break the law just because he is the Presidentm

I'd like to find out where that line is, but it has been invisible so far. Even McCain, who has spoken against certain things (and what he said has been very far from controversial, that's how out there this administration is) is still voting with the GOP and Trump. No signs of actual meaningful diversion so far. I don't think a single GOP will stand up to trump with words AND actions on the basis of ethics, morals, principles, etc. None have the spine to do that. They will only bail if it gets so so bad that it makes them susceptible to losing their seat.
I hope so.  I'd like to think that some of them will also consider their legacy as senators and even how they will live with themselves for the rest of their lives.  In other words, make sure you end up on the right side of history, because we ALL know that history will not be kind to this administration or the repubs in general.  DJT can say what he wants about the press, but many of them are the ones who will write the history books.
I don't see Trump getting impeached for the very reason it would take a lot of Republicans to go along with that.  I seriously think Trump could get away with actual criminal activity, worse than Nixon, and continue to have the support of a Republican congress. 

It would take Dems taking over congress which won't happen because the Reps have a stranglehold on gerrymandered districts in the house and more importantly, the Reps from red states are seen as the solution by their constituents, not the problem.  Same applies to the Dems in terms of their constituencies.  I'd hazard a guess that less than 10% of the seats total in either house of congress are really in play for either side.

I think this holds true unless Trump does something that is both egregious and completely contrary to the Republican agenda. Republicans then may calculate that they are better off with Pence and a hand-picked appointee to the VP slot.
well, in previous years, what Trump said and did on the campaign trail would be egregious enough to be out of the race within a few months.  after this campaign, I'm not sure what it would take for Trump to hit that point for Reps.

They are scared of him, and don't yet know what to make of him. As the embarrassments and ethically dubious actions pile up, people will start to splinter off, especially if (a) something happens with the economy or (b) there is a terrorist attack.

Some Rs are trying to get out in front of this. McCain, for example, on foreign relations. Pretty soon Trump will send his budget to Congress, and then we'll see who breaks with him and tries to get out in front on the economic issues.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: FatKidsDad on February 09, 2017, 03:45:00 PM
In other news from today, KAC encouraged people to buy Ivanka Trump's clothing line in a WH press conference, and Trump had a private company announce a private business deal from the Oval Office.

What an embarrassment.

My sentiments entirely. Its just a matter of time before this clown gets impeached.
This administration is definitely pushing the limits of what is legal for a President to do. I feel he and his people will eventually cross a line that Congressional Republicans will not cross with him and he will be impeached.

As smart as Trump likes to tell us he is, he is doing some monumentually stupid stuff and I believe his ego isn't going to allow him to see that he just isn't allowed to break the law just because he is the Presidentm

I'd like to find out where that line is, but it has been invisible so far. Even McCain, who has spoken against certain things (and what he said has been very far from controversial, that's how out there this administration is) is still voting with the GOP and Trump. No signs of actual meaningful diversion so far. I don't think a single GOP will stand up to trump with words AND actions on the basis of ethics, morals, principles, etc. None have the spine to do that. They will only bail if it gets so so bad that it makes them susceptible to losing their seat.
I hope so.  I'd like to think that some of them will also consider their legacy as senators and even how they will live with themselves for the rest of their lives.  In other words, make sure you end up on the right side of history, because we ALL know that history will not be kind to this administration or the repubs in general.  DJT can say what he wants about the press, but many of them are the ones who will write the history books.
I don't see Trump getting impeached for the very reason it would take a lot of Republicans to go along with that.  I seriously think Trump could get away with actual criminal activity, worse than Nixon, and continue to have the support of a Republican congress. 

It would take Dems taking over congress which won't happen because the Reps have a stranglehold on gerrymandered districts in the house and more importantly, the Reps from red states are seen as the solution by their constituents, not the problem.  Same applies to the Dems in terms of their constituencies.  I'd hazard a guess that less than 10% of the seats total in either house of congress are really in play for either side.

I think this holds true unless Trump does something that is both egregious and completely contrary to the Republican agenda. Republicans then may calculate that they are better off with Pence and a hand-picked appointee to the VP slot.
well, in previous years, what Trump said and did on the campaign trail would be egregious enough to be out of the race within a few months.  after this campaign, I'm not sure what it would take for Trump to hit that point for Reps.
Egregious isn't the trigger. Its the excuse.

They will be willing to get rid of him if he is a danger to the agenda or dogma. They have been willing to overlook everything he does because they saw him as the vehicle to get where they want to be. If he is not getting them there, they will be less likely to look the other way, and they will have all the ammunition they need to dump him in favor of Pence.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 09, 2017, 04:23:29 PM
In other news from today, KAC encouraged people to buy Ivanka Trump's clothing line in a WH press conference, and Trump had a private company announce a private business deal from the Oval Office.

What an embarrassment.

My sentiments entirely. Its just a matter of time before this clown gets impeached.
This administration is definitely pushing the limits of what is legal for a President to do. I feel he and his people will eventually cross a line that Congressional Republicans will not cross with him and he will be impeached.

As smart as Trump likes to tell us he is, he is doing some monumentually stupid stuff and I believe his ego isn't going to allow him to see that he just isn't allowed to break the law just because he is the Presidentm

I'd like to find out where that line is, but it has been invisible so far. Even McCain, who has spoken against certain things (and what he said has been very far from controversial, that's how out there this administration is) is still voting with the GOP and Trump. No signs of actual meaningful diversion so far. I don't think a single GOP will stand up to trump with words AND actions on the basis of ethics, morals, principles, etc. None have the spine to do that. They will only bail if it gets so so bad that it makes them susceptible to losing their seat.
I hope so.  I'd like to think that some of them will also consider their legacy as senators and even how they will live with themselves for the rest of their lives.  In other words, make sure you end up on the right side of history, because we ALL know that history will not be kind to this administration or the repubs in general.  DJT can say what he wants about the press, but many of them are the ones who will write the history books.

This president who setting us up for a feast AND famine term of office.  It will be feast for those who love disruption, bully-talk, America-boasting, decorum-busting, gun rights, and media-blasting.  Those who benefit from wealthy tax breaks, de-regulation, conservative supreme court dominance, and local control should also be happy.   It will be famine for those who hope for compromise and collaboration, interpersonal decency in leaders, high quality healthcare for women, educational protections and supports for disabled or poor children, assurance of support for those unable to sustain self-support (elderly, mentally/physically disabled, hungry children), and those who favor reproductive choice, repeal of the Citizens United decision, and sensible gun restrictions.   

The interesting dynamic that I think will emerge is that it will take only one good hit out of every 5 or 10 Trump policy proposals or strategy statements (including lies in speeches/press conferences, or asinine tweets) to keep his base energized and supportive.  It is already clear that the "mistakes" Trump makes are forgotten once he again taps into the emotions that got him elected. 

The only question I have is whether his apparent narcissism, and the influence of Steve Bannon, will cause devastating results in terms of international relations, our economy, and/our safety that will start to sway some of the previously unswayable and create a mid-term shake-up in Congress.   If the Dems do get control of Congress, my most fervent hope is that they'll be smart enough not to make Nancy P speaker again (though my bet is that they will). 
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 09, 2017, 05:47:29 PM
I found this article pretty interesting even though it is more or less standard fare in terms of describing Trump's key advisors' views on Islam and related strategies to address the threat.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-their-own-words-how-top-trump-advisers-view-muslims/ar-AAmLs95?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Trump's latest cryptic message around the incredible danger we are in -- presumably from the 7 countries named in the travel ban, is rhetoric that speaks in perfect alignment with his closest advisors -- and feels frighteningly foreboding.  His advisors seem as determined for war with ISIS and Islam as Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld were for war with Iraq. 

For most of us, it all comes down, I think, to what you believe about Islam and what you accept as fact from your favored talking heads.  If you are prone to agree with the Bannon/Gorka/Flynn perspective, you HAVE to be in favor of bans, walls (anything that protects us), and war.  If your tendency is to mistrust the President's brain trust, and have a nuanced view of Islam that includes belief that the fringe extremists do not represent the religion at all, then your view is likely to be in opposition to walls, bans, and declaration of war.   What is happening, unfortunately, in this world of cryptic messages, fear-speak, and "fake news" (from each side), is a heightening of divisiveness and an escalation of fear.  The fear, and associated emotions (at times shifting to anger or hopelessness), is driving a bigger wedge between those on each end of the political spectrum and even pushing those in moderate camps to pick sides.

It's getting a little scarier by the day.   

A report I saw on the news yesterday about the Maine GOP organizing a web-site to address fake news (though from the perspective of holding the "liberal media" accountable) gave me food for thought.

http://www.necn.com/news/new-england/Fake-News-Alert-Maine-GOP-Trashes-News-Reports-413231303.html

I am wondering whether every state might do well to have their state-level GOP and Dem parties identify 2 (or whatever sounds like the correct number) sound, savvy, trustworthy members to head a collaborative fake/real news web-site in which the two parties partner to weed out the facts and fiction of news reports.   I think one of the biggest areas of concern these days is that most of us don't really know who to trust and we end up accepting the "facts" of those news organization that we tend to align most closely with ideologically.  As a result, we actually get more embedded and more indoctrinated into polarized beliefs because we tend to hear news almost exclusively from the news angle that we've decided to trust.   

We are headed down a scary road and BOTH sides really need to stop throwing stones and start to get some non-biased truth from which to make sound, rational, less impulsive/emotional decisions.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: nickagneta on February 09, 2017, 06:17:50 PM
Trump's attempt to reinstate his travel ban is thwarted as Appeal's court doesn't overturn the decision to halt the ban. Supreme Court next though that will end 4-4.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: wiley on February 09, 2017, 06:28:51 PM
I found this article pretty interesting even though it is more or less standard fare in terms of describing Trump's key advisors' views on Islam and related strategies to address the threat.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-their-own-words-how-top-trump-advisers-view-muslims/ar-AAmLs95?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Trump's latest cryptic message around the incredible danger we are in -- presumably from the 7 countries named in the travel ban, is rhetoric that speaks in perfect alignment with his closest advisors -- and feels frighteningly foreboding.  His advisors seem as determined for war with ISIS and Islam as Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld were for war with Iraq. 

For most of us, it all comes down, I think, to what you believe about Islam and what you accept as fact from your favored talking heads.  If you are prone to agree with the Bannon/Gorka/Ryan perspective, you HAVE to be in favor of bans, walls (anything that protects us), and war.  If your tendency is to mistrust the President's brain trust, and have a nuanced view of Islam that includes belief that the fringe extremists do not represent the religion at all, then your view is likely to be in opposition to walls, bans, and declaration of war.   What is happening, unfortunately, in this world of cryptic messages, fear-speak, and "fake news" (from each side), is a heightening of divisiveness and an escalation of fear.  The fear, and associated emotions (at times shifting to anger or hopelessness), is driving a bigger wedge between those on each end of the political spectrum and even pushing those in moderate camps to pick sides.

It's getting a little scarier by the day.   

A report I saw on the news yesterday about the Maine GOP organizing a web-site to address fake news (though from the perspective of holding the "liberal media" accountable) gave me food for thought.

http://www.necn.com/news/new-england/Fake-News-Alert-Maine-GOP-Trashes-News-Reports-413231303.html

I am wondering whether every state might do well to have their state-level GOP and Dem parties identify 2 (or whatever sounds like the correct number) sound, savvy, trustworthy members to head a collaborative fake/real news web-site in which the two parties partner to weed out the facts and fiction of news reports.   I think one of the biggest areas of concern these days is that most of us don't really know who to trust and we end up accepting the "facts" of those news organization that we tend to align most closely with ideologically.  As a result, we actually get more embedded and more indoctrinated into polarized beliefs because we tend to hear news almost exclusively from the news angle that we've decided to trust.   

We are headed down a scary road and BOTH sides really need to stop throwing stones and start to get some non-biased truth from which to make sound, rational, less impulsive/emotional decisions.

The kind of war Trump's aids are advocating for is the kind of war that wipes certain countries and most of their people off the map.  This is what they want (I'm not saying Trump wants this) and apparently they think it will end terrorism.  Not only will it not end terrorism, it will massively increase it and make terrorism the new norm. They are, basically, delusional racist idiots drunk on power and out for blood.  My guess as the country we may see disappeared:  Iran.  Flynn (like is son)  is good at spreading fake news...just waiting for him to concoct a long list of fake or wildly exaggerated claims about Iran. 

Meanwhile, in all other areas of governance, Trump is off to a good start turning the United States into a thug-filled gated community style third world dictatorship, leaving out the environment of course. 

If someone can get to Trump's brain (someone like Mattis?) soon enough to intercept the Bannon/Flynn/Anton propaganda machine, maybe the US can avert a catastrophe that makes the Iraq war debacle look like a parking violation. 
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Donoghus on February 09, 2017, 06:31:13 PM
For those who enjoy some light reading.

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/ca9_trump_20170209.pdf

Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 09, 2017, 06:37:53 PM
I found this article pretty interesting even though it is more or less standard fare in terms of describing Trump's key advisors' views on Islam and related strategies to address the threat.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-their-own-words-how-top-trump-advisers-view-muslims/ar-AAmLs95?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Trump's latest cryptic message around the incredible danger we are in -- presumably from the 7 countries named in the travel ban, is rhetoric that speaks in perfect alignment with his closest advisors -- and feels frighteningly foreboding.  His advisors seem as determined for war with ISIS and Islam as Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld were for war with Iraq. 

For most of us, it all comes down, I think, to what you believe about Islam and what you accept as fact from your favored talking heads.  If you are prone to agree with the Bannon/Gorka/Ryan perspective, you HAVE to be in favor of bans, walls (anything that protects us), and war.  If your tendency is to mistrust the President's brain trust, and have a nuanced view of Islam that includes belief that the fringe extremists do not represent the religion at all, then your view is likely to be in opposition to walls, bans, and declaration of war.   What is happening, unfortunately, in this world of cryptic messages, fear-speak, and "fake news" (from each side), is a heightening of divisiveness and an escalation of fear.  The fear, and associated emotions (at times shifting to anger or hopelessness), is driving a bigger wedge between those on each end of the political spectrum and even pushing those in moderate camps to pick sides.

It's getting a little scarier by the day.   

A report I saw on the news yesterday about the Maine GOP organizing a web-site to address fake news (though from the perspective of holding the "liberal media" accountable) gave me food for thought.

http://www.necn.com/news/new-england/Fake-News-Alert-Maine-GOP-Trashes-News-Reports-413231303.html

I am wondering whether every state might do well to have their state-level GOP and Dem parties identify 2 (or whatever sounds like the correct number) sound, savvy, trustworthy members to head a collaborative fake/real news web-site in which the two parties partner to weed out the facts and fiction of news reports.   I think one of the biggest areas of concern these days is that most of us don't really know who to trust and we end up accepting the "facts" of those news organization that we tend to align most closely with ideologically.  As a result, we actually get more embedded and more indoctrinated into polarized beliefs because we tend to hear news almost exclusively from the news angle that we've decided to trust.   

We are headed down a scary road and BOTH sides really need to stop throwing stones and start to get some non-biased truth from which to make sound, rational, less impulsive/emotional decisions.

The kind of war Trump's aids are advocating for is the kind of war that wipes certain countries and most of their people off the map.  This is what they want (I'm not saying Trump wants this) and apparently they think it will end terrorism.  Not only will it not end terrorism, it will massively increase it and make terrorism the new norm. They are, basically, delusional racist idiots drunk on power and out for blood.  My guess as the country we may see disappeared:  Iran.  Flynn (like is son)  is good at spreading fake news...just waiting for him to concoct a long list of fake or wildly exaggerated claims about Iran. 

Meanwhile, in all other areas of governance, Trump is off to a good start turning the United States into a thug-filled gated community style third world dictatorship, leaving out the environment of course. 

If someone can get to Trump's brain (someone like Mattis?) soon enough to intercept the Bannon/Flynn/Anton propaganda machine, maybe the US can avert a catastrophe that makes the Iraq war debacle look like a parking violation.

BTW -- I said "Ryan" in my post and meant Flynn.  Modified the original.

Wiley -- your mindset is one I tend to agree with, but frankly doesn't assure me that you (or I ) am correct.   I'd like to trust the news a little more than I do.  And in fairness, I am almost as dubious of some of the reporting I hear at MSNBC as I am of FOX News.  The "almost" indicates my bias, but frankly I need a trusted source that is non-partisan -- or a collaborative of partisans from either side who have agreed to seek truth over politics.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 09, 2017, 06:48:22 PM
Quote
David Duke
‏@DrDavidDuke
Mr. Trump’s appointment of Bannon, Flynn and Sessions are the first steps in the project of taking America back.
At least we know who stands for what here.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 09, 2017, 07:02:56 PM
Im assuming trump will bring a lot of attention to this as a thwarted underreported terrorist attack.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ga-man-apparent-white-supremacy-ties-arrested-ricin-article-1.2968318
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: wiley on February 09, 2017, 07:09:28 PM
I found this article pretty interesting even though it is more or less standard fare in terms of describing Trump's key advisors' views on Islam and related strategies to address the threat.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-their-own-words-how-top-trump-advisers-view-muslims/ar-AAmLs95?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Trump's latest cryptic message around the incredible danger we are in -- presumably from the 7 countries named in the travel ban, is rhetoric that speaks in perfect alignment with his closest advisors -- and feels frighteningly foreboding.  His advisors seem as determined for war with ISIS and Islam as Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld were for war with Iraq. 

For most of us, it all comes down, I think, to what you believe about Islam and what you accept as fact from your favored talking heads.  If you are prone to agree with the Bannon/Gorka/Ryan perspective, you HAVE to be in favor of bans, walls (anything that protects us), and war.  If your tendency is to mistrust the President's brain trust, and have a nuanced view of Islam that includes belief that the fringe extremists do not represent the religion at all, then your view is likely to be in opposition to walls, bans, and declaration of war.   What is happening, unfortunately, in this world of cryptic messages, fear-speak, and "fake news" (from each side), is a heightening of divisiveness and an escalation of fear.  The fear, and associated emotions (at times shifting to anger or hopelessness), is driving a bigger wedge between those on each end of the political spectrum and even pushing those in moderate camps to pick sides.

It's getting a little scarier by the day.   

A report I saw on the news yesterday about the Maine GOP organizing a web-site to address fake news (though from the perspective of holding the "liberal media" accountable) gave me food for thought.

http://www.necn.com/news/new-england/Fake-News-Alert-Maine-GOP-Trashes-News-Reports-413231303.html

I am wondering whether every state might do well to have their state-level GOP and Dem parties identify 2 (or whatever sounds like the correct number) sound, savvy, trustworthy members to head a collaborative fake/real news web-site in which the two parties partner to weed out the facts and fiction of news reports.   I think one of the biggest areas of concern these days is that most of us don't really know who to trust and we end up accepting the "facts" of those news organization that we tend to align most closely with ideologically.  As a result, we actually get more embedded and more indoctrinated into polarized beliefs because we tend to hear news almost exclusively from the news angle that we've decided to trust.   

We are headed down a scary road and BOTH sides really need to stop throwing stones and start to get some non-biased truth from which to make sound, rational, less impulsive/emotional decisions.

The kind of war Trump's aids are advocating for is the kind of war that wipes certain countries and most of their people off the map.  This is what they want (I'm not saying Trump wants this) and apparently they think it will end terrorism.  Not only will it not end terrorism, it will massively increase it and make terrorism the new norm. They are, basically, delusional racist idiots drunk on power and out for blood.  My guess as the country we may see disappeared:  Iran.  Flynn (like is son)  is good at spreading fake news...just waiting for him to concoct a long list of fake or wildly exaggerated claims about Iran. 

Meanwhile, in all other areas of governance, Trump is off to a good start turning the United States into a thug-filled gated community style third world dictatorship, leaving out the environment of course. 

If someone can get to Trump's brain (someone like Mattis?) soon enough to intercept the Bannon/Flynn/Anton propaganda machine, maybe the US can avert a catastrophe that makes the Iraq war debacle look like a parking violation.

BTW -- I said "Ryan" in my post and meant Flynn.  Modified the original.

Wiley -- your mindset is one I tend to agree with, but frankly doesn't assure me that you (or I ) am correct.   I'd like to trust the news a little more than I do.  And in fairness, I am almost as dubious of some of the reporting I hear at MSNBC as I am of FOX News.  The "almost" indicates my bias, but frankly I need a trusted source that is non-partisan -- or a collaborative of partisans from either side who have agreed to seek truth over politics.

Appreciate the post and the concern over valid news.  I don't look at MSNBC, Fox or CNN.  That will reduce a lot of the tension you feel around whether or not you can trust what you're hearing.  I read the Guardian a lot, which is owned by shareholders (it's free they ask for donations).  Also NYT and  Washington Post before it asks for money.  At least these are journals where if you are caught writing a story that turns out to be a false representation you are disciplined/suspended/fired, etc.

I cannot tolerate Fake news of any kind.  I am almost even more outraged when it comes in "support" of left wing causes.  How to kill a valid concern about right wing media like Breitbart? Imitate them...Yuck!

As for the players on Trump's team.  They have left long records.  You don't need to look at right or left media to review who these people are. It's in plain site for all to see. 




 



Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: liam on February 09, 2017, 07:16:15 PM
I found this article pretty interesting even though it is more or less standard fare in terms of describing Trump's key advisors' views on Islam and related strategies to address the threat.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-their-own-words-how-top-trump-advisers-view-muslims/ar-AAmLs95?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Trump's latest cryptic message around the incredible danger we are in -- presumably from the 7 countries named in the travel ban, is rhetoric that speaks in perfect alignment with his closest advisors -- and feels frighteningly foreboding.  His advisors seem as determined for war with ISIS and Islam as Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld were for war with Iraq. 

For most of us, it all comes down, I think, to what you believe about Islam and what you accept as fact from your favored talking heads.  If you are prone to agree with the Bannon/Gorka/Ryan perspective, you HAVE to be in favor of bans, walls (anything that protects us), and war.  If your tendency is to mistrust the President's brain trust, and have a nuanced view of Islam that includes belief that the fringe extremists do not represent the religion at all, then your view is likely to be in opposition to walls, bans, and declaration of war.   What is happening, unfortunately, in this world of cryptic messages, fear-speak, and "fake news" (from each side), is a heightening of divisiveness and an escalation of fear.  The fear, and associated emotions (at times shifting to anger or hopelessness), is driving a bigger wedge between those on each end of the political spectrum and even pushing those in moderate camps to pick sides.

It's getting a little scarier by the day.   

A report I saw on the news yesterday about the Maine GOP organizing a web-site to address fake news (though from the perspective of holding the "liberal media" accountable) gave me food for thought.

http://www.necn.com/news/new-england/Fake-News-Alert-Maine-GOP-Trashes-News-Reports-413231303.html

I am wondering whether every state might do well to have their state-level GOP and Dem parties identify 2 (or whatever sounds like the correct number) sound, savvy, trustworthy members to head a collaborative fake/real news web-site in which the two parties partner to weed out the facts and fiction of news reports.   I think one of the biggest areas of concern these days is that most of us don't really know who to trust and we end up accepting the "facts" of those news organization that we tend to align most closely with ideologically.  As a result, we actually get more embedded and more indoctrinated into polarized beliefs because we tend to hear news almost exclusively from the news angle that we've decided to trust.   

We are headed down a scary road and BOTH sides really need to stop throwing stones and start to get some non-biased truth from which to make sound, rational, less impulsive/emotional decisions.

The kind of war Trump's aids are advocating for is the kind of war that wipes certain countries and most of their people off the map.  This is what they want (I'm not saying Trump wants this) and apparently they think it will end terrorism.  Not only will it not end terrorism, it will massively increase it and make terrorism the new norm. They are, basically, delusional racist idiots drunk on power and out for blood.  My guess as the country we may see disappeared:  Iran.  Flynn (like is son)  is good at spreading fake news...just waiting for him to concoct a long list of fake or wildly exaggerated claims about Iran. 

Meanwhile, in all other areas of governance, Trump is off to a good start turning the United States into a thug-filled gated community style third world dictatorship, leaving out the environment of course. 

If someone can get to Trump's brain (someone like Mattis?) soon enough to intercept the Bannon/Flynn/Anton propaganda machine, maybe the US can avert a catastrophe that makes the Iraq war debacle look like a parking violation.

BTW -- I said "Ryan" in my post and meant Flynn.  Modified the original.

Wiley -- your mindset is one I tend to agree with, but frankly doesn't assure me that you (or I ) am correct.   I'd like to trust the news a little more than I do.  And in fairness, I am almost as dubious of some of the reporting I hear at MSNBC as I am of FOX News.  The "almost" indicates my bias, but frankly I need a trusted source that is non-partisan -- or a collaborative of partisans from either side who have agreed to seek truth over politics.

Appreciate the post and the concern over valid news.  I don't look at MSNBC, Fox or CNN.  That will reduce a lot of the tension you feel around whether or not you can trust what you're hearing.  I read the Guardian a lot, which is owned by shareholders (it's free they ask for donations).  Also NYT and  Washington Post before it asks for money.  At least these are journals where if you are caught writing a story that turns out to be a false representation you are disciplined/suspended/fired, etc.

I cannot tolerate Fake news of any kind.  I am almost even more outraged when it comes in "support" of left wing causes.  How to kill a valid concern about right wing media like Breitbart? Imitate them...Yuck!

As for the players on Trump's team.  They have left long records.  You don't need to look at right or left media to review who these people are. It's in plain site for all to see.

I would add the BBC, Wall Street Journal, and The Christian Science Monitor to good sources!
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: saltlover on February 09, 2017, 07:18:45 PM
For those who enjoy some light reading.

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/ca9_trump_20170209.pdf

Decently strong rebuke.  Also, a 3-0 decision including a W appointed judge gives him little likelihood of success on appeal.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 09, 2017, 07:27:42 PM
For those who enjoy some light reading.

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/ca9_trump_20170209.pdf

Decently strong rebuke.  Also, a 3-0 decision including a W appointed judge gives him little likelihood of success on appeal.


Would the supreme court even hear it at 3-0?
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: saltlover on February 09, 2017, 07:30:03 PM
For those who enjoy some light reading.

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/ca9_trump_20170209.pdf

Decently strong rebuke.  Also, a 3-0 decision including a W appointed judge gives him little likelihood of success on appeal.


Would the supreme court even hear it at 3-0?

Probably.  It's a pretty charged case.  Some judges who agree with the decision might like a chance to affirm it.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: wiley on February 09, 2017, 07:46:12 PM
related to media/ban/Trump:  This is the kind of story more Americans should be exposed to, even if the media they choose leans right wing.  It highlights how easy it is to breed hatred in the absence of direct experience, such as with the Quebec killer. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/man-who-hated-muslims-refugees-omaha_us_589ca5d0e4b04061313c13f0?gulb30hv1icp1ra4i&

 
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Donoghus on February 09, 2017, 08:09:58 PM
$21.6 billion....yes, billion dollars for a wall.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-wall-exclusive-idUSKBN15O2ZN?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social


Quote
By Julia Edwards Ainsley | WASHINGTON
President Donald Trump’s “wall” along the U.S.-Mexico border would be a series of fences and walls that would cost as much as $21.6 billion, and take more than three years to construct, based on a U.S. Department of Homeland Security internal report seen by Reuters on Thursday.

The report’s estimated price-tag is much higher than a $12-billion figure cited by Trump in his campaign and estimates as high as $15 billion from Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

The report is expected to be presented to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary John Kelly in coming days, although the administration will not necessarily take actions it recommends.

The plan lays out what it would take to seal the border in three phases of construction of fences and walls covering just over 1,250 miles (2,000 km) by the end of 2020.

With 654 miles (1,046 km) of the border already fortified, the new construction would extend almost the length of the entire border.

Many cost estimates and timelines have been floated since Trump campaigned on the promise of building a wall. The report seen by Reuters is the work of a group commissioned by Kelly as a final step before moving forward with requesting U.S. taxpayer funds from Congress and getting started on construction.

A DHS spokeswoman said the department does "not comment on or confirm the potential existence of pre-decisional, deliberative documents."

A White House spokeswoman said it would be “premature” to comment on a report that has not officially been presented to the president.

The report said the first phase would be the smallest, targeting sections covering 26 miles (42 km) near San Diego, California; El Paso, Texas; and in Texas's Rio Grande Valley.

The report assumes DHS would get funding from Congress by April or May, giving the department sufficient time to secure contractors and begin construction by September. Trump has said Congress should fund the wall upfront, but that Mexico will reimburse U.S. taxpayers. Mexico has said it will not pay.

Several U.S. congressional delegations are visiting the border this month to assess funding needs, according to several people familiar with the travel plans.

The report shows the U.S. government has begun seeking waivers to address environmental laws on building in some areas. It also shows the government has begun working with existing contractors and planning steel purchases for the project.

Trump told law enforcement officials on Wednesday, "The wall is getting designed right now."

The report accounted for the time and cost of acquiring private land, one reason for its steep price increase compared to estimates from Trump and members of Congress.

Bernstein Research, an investment research group that tracks material costs, has said that uncertainties around the project could drive its cost up to as much as $25 billion.

The second phase of construction proposed in the report would cover 151 miles (242 km) of border in and around the Rio Grande Valley; Laredo, Texas; Tucson, Arizona; El Paso, Texas and Big Bend, Texas. The third phase would cover an unspecified 1,080 miles (1,728 km), essentially sealing off the entire U.S.-Mexico border.



The report lays out costs to cover the border with barriers, but funding constraints and legal battles are likely to place limits on those plans.

It also does not account for major physical barriers, like mountains, in areas where it would not be feasible to build.

A source familiar with the plans said DHS may have to go to court to seek eminent domain in order to acquire some of the private land needed to cover the final and most ambitious phase.

The first phase, estimated to cost only $360 million, could be a relatively easy way for Trump to satisfy supporters eager to see him make good on his campaign promises to limit illegal migration. But the rest of the construction will be markedly more expensive, covering a much larger stretch of land, much of it privately owned or inaccessible by road.

In addition to seeking eminent domain and environmental waivers, the U.S. government would also have to meet the requirements of the International Boundary and Water Commission, a U.S.-Mexico pact over shared waters. The report estimated that agreement alone could bring the cost from $11 million per mile to $15 million per mile in one area.

Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 09, 2017, 08:19:01 PM
$21.6 billion....yes, billion dollars for a wall.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-wall-exclusive-idUSKBN15O2ZN?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social


Quote
By Julia Edwards Ainsley | WASHINGTON
President Donald Trump’s “wall” along the U.S.-Mexico border would be a series of fences and walls that would cost as much as $21.6 billion, and take more than three years to construct, based on a U.S. Department of Homeland Security internal report seen by Reuters on Thursday.

The report’s estimated price-tag is much higher than a $12-billion figure cited by Trump in his campaign and estimates as high as $15 billion from Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

The report is expected to be presented to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary John Kelly in coming days, although the administration will not necessarily take actions it recommends.

The plan lays out what it would take to seal the border in three phases of construction of fences and walls covering just over 1,250 miles (2,000 km) by the end of 2020.

With 654 miles (1,046 km) of the border already fortified, the new construction would extend almost the length of the entire border.

Many cost estimates and timelines have been floated since Trump campaigned on the promise of building a wall. The report seen by Reuters is the work of a group commissioned by Kelly as a final step before moving forward with requesting U.S. taxpayer funds from Congress and getting started on construction.

A DHS spokeswoman said the department does "not comment on or confirm the potential existence of pre-decisional, deliberative documents."

A White House spokeswoman said it would be “premature” to comment on a report that has not officially been presented to the president.

The report said the first phase would be the smallest, targeting sections covering 26 miles (42 km) near San Diego, California; El Paso, Texas; and in Texas's Rio Grande Valley.

The report assumes DHS would get funding from Congress by April or May, giving the department sufficient time to secure contractors and begin construction by September. Trump has said Congress should fund the wall upfront, but that Mexico will reimburse U.S. taxpayers. Mexico has said it will not pay.

Several U.S. congressional delegations are visiting the border this month to assess funding needs, according to several people familiar with the travel plans.

The report shows the U.S. government has begun seeking waivers to address environmental laws on building in some areas. It also shows the government has begun working with existing contractors and planning steel purchases for the project.

Trump told law enforcement officials on Wednesday, "The wall is getting designed right now."

The report accounted for the time and cost of acquiring private land, one reason for its steep price increase compared to estimates from Trump and members of Congress.

Bernstein Research, an investment research group that tracks material costs, has said that uncertainties around the project could drive its cost up to as much as $25 billion.

The second phase of construction proposed in the report would cover 151 miles (242 km) of border in and around the Rio Grande Valley; Laredo, Texas; Tucson, Arizona; El Paso, Texas and Big Bend, Texas. The third phase would cover an unspecified 1,080 miles (1,728 km), essentially sealing off the entire U.S.-Mexico border.



The report lays out costs to cover the border with barriers, but funding constraints and legal battles are likely to place limits on those plans.

It also does not account for major physical barriers, like mountains, in areas where it would not be feasible to build.

A source familiar with the plans said DHS may have to go to court to seek eminent domain in order to acquire some of the private land needed to cover the final and most ambitious phase.

The first phase, estimated to cost only $360 million, could be a relatively easy way for Trump to satisfy supporters eager to see him make good on his campaign promises to limit illegal migration. But the rest of the construction will be markedly more expensive, covering a much larger stretch of land, much of it privately owned or inaccessible by road.

In addition to seeking eminent domain and environmental waivers, the U.S. government would also have to meet the requirements of the International Boundary and Water Commission, a U.S.-Mexico pact over shared waters. The report estimated that agreement alone could bring the cost from $11 million per mile to $15 million per mile in one area.


Imagine what actual beneficial things could be done with 21 billion dollars. Serious long term investments. Crazy, from a party that generally wants to invest nothing in the public's future.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: 2short on February 09, 2017, 09:04:25 PM
$21.6 billion....yes, billion dollars for a wall.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-wall-exclusive-idUSKBN15O2ZN?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social


Quote
By Julia Edwards Ainsley | WASHINGTON
President Donald Trump’s “wall” along the U.S.-Mexico border would be a series of fences and walls that would cost as much as $21.6 billion, and take more than three years to construct, based on a U.S. Department of Homeland Security internal report seen by Reuters on Thursday.

The report’s estimated price-tag is much higher than a $12-billion figure cited by Trump in his campaign and estimates as high as $15 billion from Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

The report is expected to be presented to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary John Kelly in coming days, although the administration will not necessarily take actions it recommends.

The plan lays out what it would take to seal the border in three phases of construction of fences and walls covering just over 1,250 miles (2,000 km) by the end of 2020.

With 654 miles (1,046 km) of the border already fortified, the new construction would extend almost the length of the entire border.

Many cost estimates and timelines have been floated since Trump campaigned on the promise of building a wall. The report seen by Reuters is the work of a group commissioned by Kelly as a final step before moving forward with requesting U.S. taxpayer funds from Congress and getting started on construction.

A DHS spokeswoman said the department does "not comment on or confirm the potential existence of pre-decisional, deliberative documents."

A White House spokeswoman said it would be “premature” to comment on a report that has not officially been presented to the president.

The report said the first phase would be the smallest, targeting sections covering 26 miles (42 km) near San Diego, California; El Paso, Texas; and in Texas's Rio Grande Valley.

The report assumes DHS would get funding from Congress by April or May, giving the department sufficient time to secure contractors and begin construction by September. Trump has said Congress should fund the wall upfront, but that Mexico will reimburse U.S. taxpayers. Mexico has said it will not pay.

Several U.S. congressional delegations are visiting the border this month to assess funding needs, according to several people familiar with the travel plans.

The report shows the U.S. government has begun seeking waivers to address environmental laws on building in some areas. It also shows the government has begun working with existing contractors and planning steel purchases for the project.

Trump told law enforcement officials on Wednesday, "The wall is getting designed right now."

The report accounted for the time and cost of acquiring private land, one reason for its steep price increase compared to estimates from Trump and members of Congress.

Bernstein Research, an investment research group that tracks material costs, has said that uncertainties around the project could drive its cost up to as much as $25 billion.

The second phase of construction proposed in the report would cover 151 miles (242 km) of border in and around the Rio Grande Valley; Laredo, Texas; Tucson, Arizona; El Paso, Texas and Big Bend, Texas. The third phase would cover an unspecified 1,080 miles (1,728 km), essentially sealing off the entire U.S.-Mexico border.



The report lays out costs to cover the border with barriers, but funding constraints and legal battles are likely to place limits on those plans.

It also does not account for major physical barriers, like mountains, in areas where it would not be feasible to build.

A source familiar with the plans said DHS may have to go to court to seek eminent domain in order to acquire some of the private land needed to cover the final and most ambitious phase.

The first phase, estimated to cost only $360 million, could be a relatively easy way for Trump to satisfy supporters eager to see him make good on his campaign promises to limit illegal migration. But the rest of the construction will be markedly more expensive, covering a much larger stretch of land, much of it privately owned or inaccessible by road.

In addition to seeking eminent domain and environmental waivers, the U.S. government would also have to meet the requirements of the International Boundary and Water Commission, a U.S.-Mexico pact over shared waters. The report estimated that agreement alone could bring the cost from $11 million per mile to $15 million per mile in one area.

That Mexico will pay for.....wait
Through tariffs that will be passed on to american citizens...
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 09, 2017, 09:05:19 PM
$21.6 billion....yes, billion dollars for a wall.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-wall-exclusive-idUSKBN15O2ZN?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social


Quote
By Julia Edwards Ainsley | WASHINGTON
President Donald Trump’s “wall” along the U.S.-Mexico border would be a series of fences and walls that would cost as much as $21.6 billion, and take more than three years to construct, based on a U.S. Department of Homeland Security internal report seen by Reuters on Thursday.

The report’s estimated price-tag is much higher than a $12-billion figure cited by Trump in his campaign and estimates as high as $15 billion from Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

The report is expected to be presented to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary John Kelly in coming days, although the administration will not necessarily take actions it recommends.

The plan lays out what it would take to seal the border in three phases of construction of fences and walls covering just over 1,250 miles (2,000 km) by the end of 2020.

With 654 miles (1,046 km) of the border already fortified, the new construction would extend almost the length of the entire border.

Many cost estimates and timelines have been floated since Trump campaigned on the promise of building a wall. The report seen by Reuters is the work of a group commissioned by Kelly as a final step before moving forward with requesting U.S. taxpayer funds from Congress and getting started on construction.

A DHS spokeswoman said the department does "not comment on or confirm the potential existence of pre-decisional, deliberative documents."

A White House spokeswoman said it would be “premature” to comment on a report that has not officially been presented to the president.

The report said the first phase would be the smallest, targeting sections covering 26 miles (42 km) near San Diego, California; El Paso, Texas; and in Texas's Rio Grande Valley.

The report assumes DHS would get funding from Congress by April or May, giving the department sufficient time to secure contractors and begin construction by September. Trump has said Congress should fund the wall upfront, but that Mexico will reimburse U.S. taxpayers. Mexico has said it will not pay.

Several U.S. congressional delegations are visiting the border this month to assess funding needs, according to several people familiar with the travel plans.

The report shows the U.S. government has begun seeking waivers to address environmental laws on building in some areas. It also shows the government has begun working with existing contractors and planning steel purchases for the project.

Trump told law enforcement officials on Wednesday, "The wall is getting designed right now."

The report accounted for the time and cost of acquiring private land, one reason for its steep price increase compared to estimates from Trump and members of Congress.

Bernstein Research, an investment research group that tracks material costs, has said that uncertainties around the project could drive its cost up to as much as $25 billion.

The second phase of construction proposed in the report would cover 151 miles (242 km) of border in and around the Rio Grande Valley; Laredo, Texas; Tucson, Arizona; El Paso, Texas and Big Bend, Texas. The third phase would cover an unspecified 1,080 miles (1,728 km), essentially sealing off the entire U.S.-Mexico border.



The report lays out costs to cover the border with barriers, but funding constraints and legal battles are likely to place limits on those plans.

It also does not account for major physical barriers, like mountains, in areas where it would not be feasible to build.

A source familiar with the plans said DHS may have to go to court to seek eminent domain in order to acquire some of the private land needed to cover the final and most ambitious phase.

The first phase, estimated to cost only $360 million, could be a relatively easy way for Trump to satisfy supporters eager to see him make good on his campaign promises to limit illegal migration. But the rest of the construction will be markedly more expensive, covering a much larger stretch of land, much of it privately owned or inaccessible by road.

In addition to seeking eminent domain and environmental waivers, the U.S. government would also have to meet the requirements of the International Boundary and Water Commission, a U.S.-Mexico pact over shared waters. The report estimated that agreement alone could bring the cost from $11 million per mile to $15 million per mile in one area.


The nation is about to get the "Big Dig" treatment.
"It'll only be $2B..."
$10B dollars later: "It'll only be $2B *more*"

Dollar tag on this wall will be well north of $20B I imagine. Most of the money going to Cemex, of course.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 09, 2017, 09:05:48 PM
^^^Yes, Cemex. The large Mexican cement producer.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 09, 2017, 09:10:37 PM
100% U.S. steel, right?
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 09, 2017, 09:13:51 PM
Im assuming trump will bring a lot of attention to this as a thwarted underreported terrorist attack.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ga-man-apparent-white-supremacy-ties-arrested-ricin-article-1.2968318

This kid is a loser. Just like the kid in Quebec. Just like Dylann Roof, and just like anyone else who thinks their race is superior to another.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 09, 2017, 10:00:51 PM
Tax cuts; $21B for The Wall; fighting for and enforcing the travel ban; "winning" the war with ISIS/Islamic Terrorism; Devos at Education; Carson at HUD; Pruitt at the EPA; Perry at Energy (overseeing a soon to be expanding nuclear arsenal); Bannon and Flynn in Trump's ear...  The money that is going to "make America safe" at the expense of the environment, public education, shelter for poor families, etc. better at least keep America safe.  Doesn't feel safer so far. 
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: nickagneta on February 09, 2017, 10:25:37 PM
Tax cuts; $21B for The Wall; fighting for and enforcing the travel ban; "winning" the war with ISIS/Islamic Terrorism; Devos at Education; Carson at HUD; Pruitt at the EPA; Perry at Energy (overseeing a soon to be expanding nuclear arsenal); Bannon and Flynn in Trump's ear...  The money that is going to "make America safe" at the expense of the environment, public education, shelter for poor families, etc. better at least keep America safe.  Doesn't feel safer so far.
Funny thing is...I never thought America was unsafe in the first place.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Evantime34 on February 09, 2017, 10:39:51 PM
Tax cuts; $21B for The Wall; fighting for and enforcing the travel ban; "winning" the war with ISIS/Islamic Terrorism; Devos at Education; Carson at HUD; Pruitt at the EPA; Perry at Energy (overseeing a soon to be expanding nuclear arsenal); Bannon and Flynn in Trump's ear...  The money that is going to "make America safe" at the expense of the environment, public education, shelter for poor families, etc. better at least keep America safe.  Doesn't feel safer so far.
Funny thing is...I never thought America was unsafe in the first place.
When people feel unsafe, they are more likely to vote for Trump. It is a huge part of his strategy (and republican strategy in general) to make sure people feel unsafe, so that he can sell them safety.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: SCeltic34 on February 09, 2017, 11:10:42 PM
Quote
By Julia Edwards Ainsley | WASHINGTON
President Donald Trump’s “wall” along the U.S.-Mexico border would be a series of fences and walls that would cost as much as $21.6 billion, and take more than three years to construct, based on a U.S. Department of Homeland Security internal report seen by Reuters on Thursday.

The report’s estimated price-tag is much higher than a $12-billion figure cited by Trump in his campaign and estimates as high as $15 billion from Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

The report is expected to be presented to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary John Kelly in coming days, although the administration will not necessarily take actions it recommends.

The plan lays out what it would take to seal the border in three phases of construction of fences and walls covering just over 1,250 miles (2,000 km) by the end of 2020.

With 654 miles (1,046 km) of the border already fortified, the new construction would extend almost the length of the entire border.

Many cost estimates and timelines have been floated since Trump campaigned on the promise of building a wall. The report seen by Reuters is the work of a group commissioned by Kelly as a final step before moving forward with requesting U.S. taxpayer funds from Congress and getting started on construction.

A DHS spokeswoman said the department does "not comment on or confirm the potential existence of pre-decisional, deliberative documents."

A White House spokeswoman said it would be “premature” to comment on a report that has not officially been presented to the president.

The report said the first phase would be the smallest, targeting sections covering 26 miles (42 km) near San Diego, California; El Paso, Texas; and in Texas's Rio Grande Valley.

The report assumes DHS would get funding from Congress by April or May, giving the department sufficient time to secure contractors and begin construction by September. Trump has said Congress should fund the wall upfront, but that Mexico will reimburse U.S. taxpayers. Mexico has said it will not pay.

Several U.S. congressional delegations are visiting the border this month to assess funding needs, according to several people familiar with the travel plans.

The report shows the U.S. government has begun seeking waivers to address environmental laws on building in some areas. It also shows the government has begun working with existing contractors and planning steel purchases for the project.

Trump told law enforcement officials on Wednesday, "The wall is getting designed right now."

The report accounted for the time and cost of acquiring private land, one reason for its steep price increase compared to estimates from Trump and members of Congress.

Bernstein Research, an investment research group that tracks material costs, has said that uncertainties around the project could drive its cost up to as much as $25 billion.

The second phase of construction proposed in the report would cover 151 miles (242 km) of border in and around the Rio Grande Valley; Laredo, Texas; Tucson, Arizona; El Paso, Texas and Big Bend, Texas. The third phase would cover an unspecified 1,080 miles (1,728 km), essentially sealing off the entire U.S.-Mexico border.



The report lays out costs to cover the border with barriers, but funding constraints and legal battles are likely to place limits on those plans.

It also does not account for major physical barriers, like mountains, in areas where it would not be feasible to build.

A source familiar with the plans said DHS may have to go to court to seek eminent domain in order to acquire some of the private land needed to cover the final and most ambitious phase.

The first phase, estimated to cost only $360 million, could be a relatively easy way for Trump to satisfy supporters eager to see him make good on his campaign promises to limit illegal migration. But the rest of the construction will be markedly more expensive, covering a much larger stretch of land, much of it privately owned or inaccessible by road.

In addition to seeking eminent domain and environmental waivers, the U.S. government would also have to meet the requirements of the International Boundary and Water Commission, a U.S.-Mexico pact over shared waters. The report estimated that agreement alone could bring the cost from $11 million per mile to $15 million per mile in one area.

Just more blatant lies from Trump.  Shouldn't come as a surprise at this point.  "Hey America, we'll construct wall spanning the entire border, all for the low, low price of $12 billion.  And to top it off, this wall will paid for by Mexico - that's right, they're going to pay us to hinder their own migration efforts into our country!"

Back in Honolulu, Hawaii - where I'm originally from - the population passed a close vote to build a rail from the Western part of the island into Honolulu to help alleviate major traffic problems. 

The initial price - which, if you were foolish enough to believe was accurate - was $5 billion for a 20 mile rail line.  Initial construction was delayed for years due to lawsuits/challenges regarding the environment, historic burial grounds, and others.  Finally began in 2012, well behind schedule.

The rail was supposed to be completed by 2019.  Instead, the cost of the rail is now estimated to be $8.1 billion instead of $5 billion, and completion of the rail is estimated to be in 2024. (By the way, we got $1.5 billion in federal funding.  Thanks for funding our incompetence, America).  Not only is this a frustrating setback to Hawaii taxpayers and those who commute into Honolulu from the west side of the island to work, we now have this incomplete, ungodly eyesore in the middle of what is widely agreed to be among the most naturally beautiful places on Earth:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Honolulu_rail_project_construction_in_Waipahu_near_Fort_Weaver_Road_2015-07-29.jpg/250px-Honolulu_rail_project_construction_in_Waipahu_near_Fort_Weaver_Road_2015-07-29.jpg)
(http://www.summitzine.com/webhook-uploads/1437006669524/Honolulu%20rapid%20transit%20elevated%20rail.jpg)

And while a rail is not a wall, there are simple lessons to the story.  Never believe the initial quote, especially from a snake like Trump.  The wall might not be completed in the allotted time frame.  Logistics problems will arise.  The price will be much, much higher than $12-15 billion like Trump and spineless Republicans like Ryan would have you believe.  And perhaps most of all, there's no guarantee that this wall will actually be effective, and may instead give rise to unforeseen problems much like Honolulu's rail debacle.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: SCeltic34 on February 09, 2017, 11:25:18 PM
Tax cuts; $21B for The Wall; fighting for and enforcing the travel ban; "winning" the war with ISIS/Islamic Terrorism; Devos at Education; Carson at HUD; Pruitt at the EPA; Perry at Energy (overseeing a soon to be expanding nuclear arsenal); Bannon and Flynn in Trump's ear...  The money that is going to "make America safe" at the expense of the environment, public education, shelter for poor families, etc. better at least keep America safe.  Doesn't feel safer so far.

The Republicans / 1%ers MO.  Pretend externality costs don't exist.  They don't show up on the balance sheet.  Relay the costs on to 3rd parties and rake in the greenbacks.  Look no further than our industrialized animal and commodity crop agriculture as a blatant example.

With regard to safety - can't say I ever felt unsafe in America.  And I lived 1 mile away from the Boston Marathon bombing when it happened.  I ain't scared of ISIS or terrorists.  I have a far greater chance of dying every time I get into my car and drive to work.

It's funny (though not really) how much hysteria some of Trump's rhetoric incites.  Seriously dude, some terrorist is really gonna attack your remote town in the middle of Iowa?  You're worried about that?

Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: the TRUTH on February 10, 2017, 01:19:20 AM
I've only read the last two pages of this thread, but figured I'd chime in with some thoughts from the Republican side. Out of the seven candidates that were in the race when the primaries began, I would have been thrilled to see any of the other six win the nomination ahead of Trump, and was extremely upset that Trump kept winning state after state and that all six eventually dropped out.

I ended up reluctantly voting for Trump in the general election, because based on my general political views, I felt like he was the lesser of two evils. I know a lot of Republicans, and the vast majority of them felt the same way I did - they would've been thrilled to see any of the other six win the nomination instead of Trump.

Just wanted to clarify the stance of many traditional Republicans, as many of us aren't thrilled he's our President either, so I'm not crazy about how some in this thread are portraying the party in general.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: liam on February 10, 2017, 01:23:17 AM
I've only read the last two pages of this thread, but figured I'd chime in with some thoughts from the Republican side. Out of the seven candidates that were in the race when the primaries began, I would have been thrilled to see any of the other six win the nomination ahead of Trump, and was extremely upset that Trump kept winning state after state and that all six eventually dropped out.

I ended up reluctantly voting for Trump in the general election, because based on my general political views, I felt like he was the lesser of two evils. I know a lot of Republicans, and the vast majority of them felt the same way I did - they would've been thrilled to see any of the other six win the nomination instead of Trump.

Just wanted to clarify the stance of many traditional Republicans, as many of us aren't thrilled he's our President either, so I'm not crazy about how some in this thread are portraying the party in general.

If you vote for someone you hold partial responsibility for there actions. Republicans could now be raining in this fool but they are supporting him instead. Evil is evil and the country pays the price.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: KGs Knee on February 10, 2017, 02:13:41 AM
Not that it means anything, but I'll just say, this thread is funny.  Its basically turned into a day after day place where liberals come to vent about Trump.  Ain't nothing going to come of it, though.  Especially considering most of the posters in this thread probably live in states that elected Democrats to Congress.

I see no way we're not in for at least two, but likely four, years of Trump.  Republicans in Congress aren't going to impeach him.  They'd have to get a lot of phone calls, letters, emails, and polling data to suggest their seat might be in serious jeopardy to do something that drastic.

This is going to be one long thread.

 
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: GreenFaith1819 on February 10, 2017, 04:57:51 AM
My thoughts are that I'm mostly saddened by his actions so far.

While I'm hopefully that he "Brings this country together" as he promised numerous times he is not doing that so far.

In the old election thread that was active on here a few months ago I stated that even though the person I voted for did not win (I was for Her, and still am) - I "DID" and still "DO" wish Mr. Trump and Mr. Pence well and I HOPE they do well - in moving the country forward.

They are not doing a good job so far. It's still early though.

My gut observations and feelings is that they have some "DISTRACTIONS" among them. It will be up to them to figure out those distractions, root them out and move this country forward - as they PROMISED.

If they fail in doing this these less than 4 years will go by quickly for them and not be successful. This prospect bothers me because - as former President Obama stated - "If Mr. Trump succeeds - America succeeds."

The jury is still out. I'm still hoping, but being watchful of his actions.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 10, 2017, 07:40:37 AM
I've only read the last two pages of this thread, but figured I'd chime in with some thoughts from the Republican side. Out of the seven candidates that were in the race when the primaries began, I would have been thrilled to see any of the other six win the nomination ahead of Trump, and was extremely upset that Trump kept winning state after state and that all six eventually dropped out.

I ended up reluctantly voting for Trump in the general election, because based on my general political views, I felt like he was the lesser of two evils. I know a lot of Republicans, and the vast majority of them felt the same way I did - they would've been thrilled to see any of the other six win the nomination instead of Trump.

Just wanted to clarify the stance of many traditional Republicans, as many of us aren't thrilled he's our President either, so I'm not crazy about how some in this thread are portraying the party in general.

This was entirely predictable. Which means that if you voted for Trump you are in fact ok with white supremacy. It is that simple. If you werent at least tolerant of white supremacy, you wouldnt have voted for him for the other reasons.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Roy H. on February 10, 2017, 07:44:40 AM
I've only read the last two pages of this thread, but figured I'd chime in with some thoughts from the Republican side. Out of the seven candidates that were in the race when the primaries began, I would have been thrilled to see any of the other six win the nomination ahead of Trump, and was extremely upset that Trump kept winning state after state and that all six eventually dropped out.

I ended up reluctantly voting for Trump in the general election, because based on my general political views, I felt like he was the lesser of two evils. I know a lot of Republicans, and the vast majority of them felt the same way I did - they would've been thrilled to see any of the other six win the nomination instead of Trump.

Just wanted to clarify the stance of many traditional Republicans, as many of us aren't thrilled he's our President either, so I'm not crazy about how some in this thread are portraying the party in general.

This was entirely predictable. Which means that if you voted for Trump you are in fact ok with white supremacy. It is that simple. If you werent at least tolerant of white supremacy, you wouldnt have voted for him for the other reasons.

That's complete nonsense. Are traditional Democrats also white supremacists, since they're the party that historically defended slavery and the KKK?

It's sad to see so much stereotyping and prejudice (and more generally, violence and hatred) from those claiming to be tolerant.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: adam8 on February 10, 2017, 08:03:00 AM
I've only read the last two pages of this thread, but figured I'd chime in with some thoughts from the Republican side. Out of the seven candidates that were in the race when the primaries began, I would have been thrilled to see any of the other six win the nomination ahead of Trump, and was extremely upset that Trump kept winning state after state and that all six eventually dropped out.

I ended up reluctantly voting for Trump in the general election, because based on my general political views, I felt like he was the lesser of two evils. I know a lot of Republicans, and the vast majority of them felt the same way I did - they would've been thrilled to see any of the other six win the nomination instead of Trump.

Just wanted to clarify the stance of many traditional Republicans, as many of us aren't thrilled he's our President either, so I'm not crazy about how some in this thread are portraying the party in general.
This is the problem with our country right now, the absolute worst person from my party is better then anyone from the other party(not that I consider Hillary a good candidate). Even if it was Obama on the ballot republicans would have done these mental gymnastics to say this horrible horrible man who says he is republican is better for our country than this smart good man who is a democrat.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: adam8 on February 10, 2017, 08:10:27 AM
I've only read the last two pages of this thread, but figured I'd chime in with some thoughts from the Republican side. Out of the seven candidates that were in the race when the primaries began, I would have been thrilled to see any of the other six win the nomination ahead of Trump, and was extremely upset that Trump kept winning state after state and that all six eventually dropped out.

I ended up reluctantly voting for Trump in the general election, because based on my general political views, I felt like he was the lesser of two evils. I know a lot of Republicans, and the vast majority of them felt the same way I did - they would've been thrilled to see any of the other six win the nomination instead of Trump.

Just wanted to clarify the stance of many traditional Republicans, as many of us aren't thrilled he's our President either, so I'm not crazy about how some in this thread are portraying the party in general.

This was entirely predictable. Which means that if you voted for Trump you are in fact ok with white supremacy. It is that simple. If you werent at least tolerant of white supremacy, you wouldnt have voted for him for the other reasons.

That's complete nonsense. Are traditional Democrats also white supremacists, since they're the party that historically defended slavery and the KKK?

It's sad to see so much stereotyping and prejudice (and more generally, violence and hatred) from those claiming to be tolerant.
While I agree the statement was nonsense to say anyone voting for Trump is a white supremacist, your comparison makes no sense party lines have switched completely from those days. Hard to argue against the fact that white supremacist are more energized, excited, and emboldened than they have ever been in my lifetime.

He is doing things that make white supremacist very very happy, this is not why most of his voters voted for him but it must be a little alarming to see these people cheer on your party though right?
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 10, 2017, 08:12:32 AM
I've only read the last two pages of this thread, but figured I'd chime in with some thoughts from the Republican side. Out of the seven candidates that were in the race when the primaries began, I would have been thrilled to see any of the other six win the nomination ahead of Trump, and was extremely upset that Trump kept winning state after state and that all six eventually dropped out.

I ended up reluctantly voting for Trump in the general election, because based on my general political views, I felt like he was the lesser of two evils. I know a lot of Republicans, and the vast majority of them felt the same way I did - they would've been thrilled to see any of the other six win the nomination instead of Trump.

Just wanted to clarify the stance of many traditional Republicans, as many of us aren't thrilled he's our President either, so I'm not crazy about how some in this thread are portraying the party in general.

This was entirely predictable. Which means that if you voted for Trump you are in fact ok with white supremacy. It is that simple. If you werent at least tolerant of white supremacy, you wouldnt have voted for him for the other reasons.

That's complete nonsense. Are traditional Democrats also white supremacists, since they're the party that historically defended slavery and the KKK?

It's sad to see so much stereotyping and prejudice (and more generally, violence and hatred) from those claiming to be tolerant.


This isnt about party it is about a candidate. The candidate was explicitly supported by and courted david duke, bannon, etc, and others witha long and open record of white supremacy and racually targeted suppression. This was no secret. Even if you are not a white supremicist yourself, if you voted for trump you are, by definition, ok enough with white supremacy to tolerate it in order to have the other stuff you do support.

This is about now. The idea that democrats = kkk is a strawman. If you support the kkk at any time you were a white supremicist. If you voted for them, you were ok with them and their actions. Democrats at the time were, and its terrible, and has no connection to the party today. The repubs were the party of lincoln: elevation of the union, abolition, but clearly they are not any more.

As to the other tired argument, it is not intolerance to speak against and disagree with bigotry and to disagree with the broad institutional implementation of interant bigoted policies. I tolerate the individual: if you personally dont want to have homosexual relations, dont want to marry someone of a different race, etc, that is fine. But if you want to make those things illegal, or, worse, try to "convert" struggling vulnerable people away from such things, it is not "intolerant" to stand against that. Intolerance of bigotry is not in and of itself bigotry, but this rhetorical trick has been a very effective conservative tool.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 10, 2017, 08:17:20 AM
I've only read the last two pages of this thread, but figured I'd chime in with some thoughts from the Republican side. Out of the seven candidates that were in the race when the primaries began, I would have been thrilled to see any of the other six win the nomination ahead of Trump, and was extremely upset that Trump kept winning state after state and that all six eventually dropped out.

I ended up reluctantly voting for Trump in the general election, because based on my general political views, I felt like he was the lesser of two evils. I know a lot of Republicans, and the vast majority of them felt the same way I did - they would've been thrilled to see any of the other six win the nomination instead of Trump.

Just wanted to clarify the stance of many traditional Republicans, as many of us aren't thrilled he's our President either, so I'm not crazy about how some in this thread are portraying the party in general.

This was entirely predictable. Which means that if you voted for Trump you are in fact ok with white supremacy. It is that simple. If you werent at least tolerant of white supremacy, you wouldnt have voted for him for the other reasons.

That's complete nonsense. Are traditional Democrats also white supremacists, since they're the party that historically defended slavery and the KKK?

It's sad to see so much stereotyping and prejudice (and more generally, violence and hatred) from those claiming to be tolerant.
While I agree the statement was nonsense to say anyone voting for Trump is a white supremacist, your comparison makes no sense party lines have switched completely from those days. Hard to argue against the fact that white supremacist are more energized, excited, and emboldened than they have ever been in my lifetime.

He is doing things that make white supremacist very very happy, this is not why most of his voters voted for him but it must be a little alarming to see these people cheer on your party though right?


Which, i want to point out, idid not say. I did not say "is" i said "ok with." Big difference.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: adam8 on February 10, 2017, 08:26:32 AM
I've only read the last two pages of this thread, but figured I'd chime in with some thoughts from the Republican side. Out of the seven candidates that were in the race when the primaries began, I would have been thrilled to see any of the other six win the nomination ahead of Trump, and was extremely upset that Trump kept winning state after state and that all six eventually dropped out.

I ended up reluctantly voting for Trump in the general election, because based on my general political views, I felt like he was the lesser of two evils. I know a lot of Republicans, and the vast majority of them felt the same way I did - they would've been thrilled to see any of the other six win the nomination instead of Trump.

Just wanted to clarify the stance of many traditional Republicans, as many of us aren't thrilled he's our President either, so I'm not crazy about how some in this thread are portraying the party in general.

This was entirely predictable. Which means that if you voted for Trump you are in fact ok with white supremacy. It is that simple. If you werent at least tolerant of white supremacy, you wouldnt have voted for him for the other reasons.

That's complete nonsense. Are traditional Democrats also white supremacists, since they're the party that historically defended slavery and the KKK?

It's sad to see so much stereotyping and prejudice (and more generally, violence and hatred) from those claiming to be tolerant.
While I agree the statement was nonsense to say anyone voting for Trump is a white supremacist, your comparison makes no sense party lines have switched completely from those days. Hard to argue against the fact that white supremacist are more energized, excited, and emboldened than they have ever been in my lifetime.

He is doing things that make white supremacist very very happy, this is not why most of his voters voted for him but it must be a little alarming to see these people cheer on your party though right?


Which, i want to point out, idid not say. I did not say "is" i said "ok with." Big difference.
I won't lie I personally agree with you, I just think that if we the opposition to Trump lob those type of charged accusations it makes people huddle back into their Trump cave. I think there are better ways to show the on the fence Trump voters that they were wrong, his hardcore supporters are in his pocket there's no winning back, but the traditional republican can be won if we try to make the environment less polarized instead of more polarized.

Make crossing party lines less taboo, then when we get a candidate that threatens democracy as we know it both party's voters will reject him.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 10, 2017, 08:37:23 AM
I've only read the last two pages of this thread, but figured I'd chime in with some thoughts from the Republican side. Out of the seven candidates that were in the race when the primaries began, I would have been thrilled to see any of the other six win the nomination ahead of Trump, and was extremely upset that Trump kept winning state after state and that all six eventually dropped out.

I ended up reluctantly voting for Trump in the general election, because based on my general political views, I felt like he was the lesser of two evils. I know a lot of Republicans, and the vast majority of them felt the same way I did - they would've been thrilled to see any of the other six win the nomination instead of Trump.

Just wanted to clarify the stance of many traditional Republicans, as many of us aren't thrilled he's our President either, so I'm not crazy about how some in this thread are portraying the party in general.

This was entirely predictable. Which means that if you voted for Trump you are in fact ok with white supremacy. It is that simple. If you werent at least tolerant of white supremacy, you wouldnt have voted for him for the other reasons.

That's complete nonsense. Are traditional Democrats also white supremacists, since they're the party that historically defended slavery and the KKK?

It's sad to see so much stereotyping and prejudice (and more generally, violence and hatred) from those claiming to be tolerant.
While I agree the statement was nonsense to say anyone voting for Trump is a white supremacist, your comparison makes no sense party lines have switched completely from those days. Hard to argue against the fact that white supremacist are more energized, excited, and emboldened than they have ever been in my lifetime.

He is doing things that make white supremacist very very happy, this is not why most of his voters voted for him but it must be a little alarming to see these people cheer on your party though right?


Which, i want to point out, idid not say. I did not say "is" i said "ok with." Big difference.

Trump's tone and rhetoric appeals to some Americans whose lives are built around rigidity, disdain for "others", blame and prejudice.  That doesn't describe the vast majority of republicans who voted for Trump. Most voted for him because he was ideologically more aligned with them than Hillary, or, they just couldn't stomach Hillary.     

We are where we are, however, due to that coalition of Trump enthusiasts and reluctant Trump supporters AND because the Dems could offer no better option than Hillary or Bernie.

We are all to blame (if blame really matters) if this presidency winds up disastrous.

On another note, repubs/conservatives spent 8 years droning about place of birth, socialism, weakness, spending, obstruction, etc.  I think it's OK that those frustrated with Trump (liberal or otherwise) have an outlet like this to voice frustration, concerns, and to discuss.  I hope the divisiveness starts to diminish, and maybe civil discourse like most of what occurs here, can help.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Roy H. on February 10, 2017, 08:41:07 AM
The majority of Trump supporters are no more "ok with" white supremacy than the majority of Democrats are with cop-killing and violent riots / looting. Just because a negative element aligns itself with the person you're forced to hold your nose and vote for doesn't mean you're "ok with" their views.

I don't like Trump, but he's not a white supremacist, nor are the overwhelming majority of his supporters. Even those favoring nationalism generally support American nationalism / isolationism, rather than "white" nationalism.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: adam8 on February 10, 2017, 08:58:42 AM
The majority of Trump supporters are no more "ok with" white supremacy than the majority of Democrats are with cop-killing and violent riots / looting. Just because a negative element aligns itself with the person you're forced to hold your nose and vote for doesn't mean you're "ok with" their views.

I don't like Trump, but he's not a white supremacist, nor are the overwhelming majority of his supporters. Even those favoring nationalism generally support American nationalism / isolationism, rather than "white" nationalism.
I don't like the hold your nose and vote attitude our country has, if you don't believe in the candidate don't vote for him there aren't only two choices, worst case the nominee who you marginally are more aligned with will lose, but you are able to potentially lead to real change in the system.

I have voted in three presidential elections (I'm 26), the first two I had a candidate I believed in and voted for, this election I did not feel that Hillary was aligned enough with my beliefs (too much big money, changes her stances with public opinion, more supportive of military force than I am) so I voted third party. I really wish she beat Trump because he has just about opposite beliefs as me but I would still never vote for someone that I didn't support.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: JohnP on February 10, 2017, 09:05:57 AM
Saying someone who voted for Trump is ok with white supremacy is a joke.  Everyone is from different places in the country and in those places things are different.  I am not scared of Muslims but where I am from our area schools are awful, inner city the worst its ever been, black and white relations terrible, jobs leaving towns, more people not even trying to find jobs because they can just live off the government and etc. Many people voted for Trump because he said he would try to fix these things and people knew that it would not change if it was Hillary.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 10, 2017, 09:12:00 AM
The majority of Trump supporters are no more "ok with" white supremacy than the majority of Democrats are with cop-killing and violent riots / looting. Just because a negative element aligns itself with the person you're forced to hold your nose and vote for doesn't mean you're "ok with" their views.

I don't like Trump, but he's not a white supremacist, nor are the overwhelming majority of his supporters. Even those favoring nationalism generally support American nationalism / isolationism, rather than "white" nationalism.

This is a completely illogical comparison. There is no coalition of cop killers, or cop killer lobby; every dem ever is against cops getting killed and against cops killing people. How are dems aligned with cop killers? Sounds like a "when did you stop beating your wife" kind of a trick. I don't know where that comes from. And dems both here and from the top are always quicker to denounce violent protests like what happened at UCLA than Trump or his supporters have been to denounce violence that he encouraged at his own rallies.

His cabinet has a well known, well documented history of explicit racially targeted voter suppression, racially targeted prosecution, and white national/white supremacist strategy. This was easily predicted before the election. Trump voters, by definition, are "OK enough with" this element to vote for and defend him.

 
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: D Dub on February 10, 2017, 09:14:46 AM
It's hard for me to fault Trump voters.  No one really knew what we were in for. 

But now the honeymoon is over; he's in there making some highly questionable decisions and I can only hope my republican friends don't stand by and watch him render our democracy impotent.   

Is that too strong a statement?   I'd argue no, not when Trump willfully ignores our checks/balances system.   If you are a republican who champions the spirit of the Constitution, his actions should be very concerning. 


Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Roy H. on February 10, 2017, 09:41:18 AM
The majority of Trump supporters are no more "ok with" white supremacy than the majority of Democrats are with cop-killing and violent riots / looting. Just because a negative element aligns itself with the person you're forced to hold your nose and vote for doesn't mean you're "ok with" their views.

I don't like Trump, but he's not a white supremacist, nor are the overwhelming majority of his supporters. Even those favoring nationalism generally support American nationalism / isolationism, rather than "white" nationalism.

This is a completely illogical comparison. There is no coalition of cop killers, or cop killer lobby; every dem ever is against cops getting killed and against cops killing people. How are dems aligned with cop killers? Sounds like a "when did you stop beating your wife" kind of a trick. I don't know where that comes from. And dems both here and from the top are always quicker to denounce violent protests like what happened at UCLA than Trump or his supporters have been to denounce violence that he encouraged at his own rallies.

His cabinet has a well known, well documented history of explicit racially targeted voter suppression, racially targeted prosecution, and white national/white supremacist strategy. This was easily predicted before the election. Trump voters, by definition, are "OK enough with" this element to vote for and defend him.

Lol. Nothing like alternative facts and pure stereotyping.

By the way, Dems have courted BLM, which has had members advocate violence and which has inspired cop-killing. Many liberals have cheered (and participated in) violent riots. However, nobody should say that all liberals condone those things, just like it's pure blind and hateful hyperpartisanship to suggest that all Trump supporters condone white supremacy.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Roy H. on February 10, 2017, 09:43:46 AM
It's hard for me to fault Trump voters.  No one really knew what we were in for. 

But now the honeymoon is over; he's in there making some highly questionable decisions and I can only hope my republican friends don't stand by and watch him render our democracy impotent.   

Is that too strong a statement?   I'd argue no, not when Trump willfully ignores our checks/balances system.   If you are a republican who champions the spirit of the Constitution, his actions should be very concerning.

I don't like executive orders that bypass legislation. Unfortunately, both parties have made a mockery of checks and balances. Clinton, Bush and Obama have all expanded the scope of executive authority.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 10, 2017, 09:54:46 AM
Not that it means anything, but I'll just say, this thread is funny.  Its basically turned into a day after day place where liberals come to vent about Trump.  Ain't nothing going to come of it, though.  Especially considering most of the posters in this thread probably live in states that elected Democrats to Congress.

I see no way we're not in for at least two, but likely four, years of Trump.  Republicans in Congress aren't going to impeach him.  They'd have to get a lot of phone calls, letters, emails, and polling data to suggest their seat might be in serious jeopardy to do something that drastic.

This is going to be one long thread.

As I posted earlier, Rs in Congress are too afraid of Trump right now to do much. But the more Trump exhibits incompetence (see: EO travel ban), and the more Rs in Congress face backlash back home (see: Chaffetz town meeting), the more they will be willing to grow a spine and break step with Trump.

Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: slamtheking on February 10, 2017, 10:11:08 AM
It's hard for me to fault Trump voters.  No one really knew what we were in for. 

But now the honeymoon is over; he's in there making some highly questionable decisions and I can only hope my republican friends don't stand by and watch him render our democracy impotent.   

Is that too strong a statement?   I'd argue no, not when Trump willfully ignores our checks/balances system.   If you are a republican who champions the spirit of the Constitution, his actions should be very concerning. 

He's acting just as he did during his campaign, during his life and doing what he said he would do once elected.  how can anyone say they didn't know what they were in for when he got elected?

As far as other comments made here about voting for Trump because he more represented their ideology, I think that's a misrepresentation to be fair to those posters.  I think what's actually meant is they prefer the Republican ideology over the Democrat ideology which is perfectly fine.  The issue arises when saying Trump himself is more in line with your ideology because Trump's campaign appealed to the most vile character flaws in our society. 

I get voting Republican if that's the ideology you prefer as the norm.  What I don't get is voting strictly along a party line without accounting for the individual you're actually voting for.  I think Trump is the most blatant example of having to consider the individual over the party when casting your vote.  Trump offers nothing to anyone not in the 1%.  He voices concern for the common person but does any 'common' person actually believe that?  I can't see how.  For the 'common' people who wanted to shake things up because they didn't like the status quo, a vote for Trump was basically a vote to cut your nose off to spite your face. 

As an independent moderate, I find myself evaluating the individual over party when voting because I'm split about 50/50 on the ideologies of the 2 main parties.  I'm not saying that makes me better than anyone or more of an authority on the candidates but it has me gravely concerned that so many people could ever see Trump as an acceptable person to put in as POTUS regardless of ideology.   I have significant worries that this person is so unstable he will have us in another war within 2 years, if not sooner, and I can only hope and pray that it's not a nuclear one.  I can't believe someone with his attitude towards nuclear proliferation and 'we have them, why not use them' was given access to the country's nuclear arsenal. 
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: indeedproceed on February 10, 2017, 10:14:42 AM
The majority of Trump supporters are no more "ok with" white supremacy than the majority of Democrats are with cop-killing and violent riots / looting. Just because a negative element aligns itself with the person you're forced to hold your nose and vote for doesn't mean you're "ok with" their views.

I don't like Trump, but he's not a white supremacist, nor are the overwhelming majority of his supporters. Even those favoring nationalism generally support American nationalism / isolationism, rather than "white" nationalism.

This is a completely illogical comparison. There is no coalition of cop killers, or cop killer lobby; every dem ever is against cops getting killed and against cops killing people. How are dems aligned with cop killers? Sounds like a "when did you stop beating your wife" kind of a trick. I don't know where that comes from. And dems both here and from the top are always quicker to denounce violent protests like what happened at UCLA than Trump or his supporters have been to denounce violence that he encouraged at his own rallies.

His cabinet has a well known, well documented history of explicit racially targeted voter suppression, racially targeted prosecution, and white national/white supremacist strategy. This was easily predicted before the election. Trump voters, by definition, are "OK enough with" this element to vote for and defend him.

 

Agreed. Agreed all over the board.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: greece666 on February 10, 2017, 10:20:01 AM
Not that it means anything, but I'll just say, this thread is funny.  Its basically turned into a day after day place where liberals come to vent about Trump.  Ain't nothing going to come of it, though.  Especially considering most of the posters in this thread probably live in states that elected Democrats to Congress.

I see no way we're not in for at least two, but likely four, years of Trump.  Republicans in Congress aren't going to impeach him.  They'd have to get a lot of phone calls, letters, emails, and polling data to suggest their seat might be in serious jeopardy to do something that drastic.

This is going to be one long thread.

I'm not a liberal, I'm not venting and I obviously do not live in a state that elected Democrats to Congress.

I think what you wrote is unfair to the quality of the  comments in this thread.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Roy H. on February 10, 2017, 10:20:53 AM
The majority of Trump supporters are no more "ok with" white supremacy than the majority of Democrats are with cop-killing and violent riots / looting. Just because a negative element aligns itself with the person you're forced to hold your nose and vote for doesn't mean you're "ok with" their views.

I don't like Trump, but he's not a white supremacist, nor are the overwhelming majority of his supporters. Even those favoring nationalism generally support American nationalism / isolationism, rather than "white" nationalism.

This is a completely illogical comparison. There is no coalition of cop killers, or cop killer lobby; every dem ever is against cops getting killed and against cops killing people. How are dems aligned with cop killers? Sounds like a "when did you stop beating your wife" kind of a trick. I don't know where that comes from. And dems both here and from the top are always quicker to denounce violent protests like what happened at UCLA than Trump or his supporters have been to denounce violence that he encouraged at his own rallies.

His cabinet has a well known, well documented history of explicit racially targeted voter suppression, racially targeted prosecution, and white national/white supremacist strategy. This was easily predicted before the election. Trump voters, by definition, are "OK enough with" this element to vote for and defend him.

 

Agreed. Agreed all over the board.

It wouldn't be the first time you're wrong, either.

Anyone willing to paint every single person who voted for a candidate with a broad, stereotypical, inaccurate brush is part of the problem.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Roy H. on February 10, 2017, 10:24:19 AM
I'm glad Trump won. I don't like him, but I like Neil Gorsuch, and 10 years from now that's probably going to be the most long-lasting effect of Trump's Presidency.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 10, 2017, 10:43:50 AM
Now TJ Maxx, Marshalls pulling back on Ivanka Trump clothing line:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/business/ivanka-trump-nordstrom-tj-maxx.html?_r=0

Apparently also HSN and Niemann Marcus.

In the words of Evan McMullin: "The White House should be used for service to the American people to whom it belongs, not as a marketing platform."
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 10, 2017, 10:48:07 AM
I'm glad Trump won. I don't like him, but I like Neil Gorsuch, and 10 years from now that's probably going to be the most long-lasting effect of Trump's Presidency.

I prefer others to Gorsuch, but I know this is precisely why some voted for Trump (and I have no problem with that, even though I really dislike Trump and his policies to date).

Frankly, I hope Gorsuch will be the most long-lasting effect of Trump's Presidency and that none of the potentially really bad things come to fruit (e.g., crippling trade war, actual war with countries in the middle east or Asia, large corruption scandal, etc, are other candidates that I hope never come to pass).
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 10, 2017, 10:59:33 AM
I ended up reluctantly voting for Trump in the general election, because based on my general political views, I felt like he was the lesser of two evils. I know a lot of Republicans, and the vast majority of them felt the same way I did - they would've been thrilled to see any of the other six win the nomination instead of Trump.
I think this statement is interesting, because the Democratic candidate was as moderate as it can get this cycle. Perhaps someone who "reluctantly voted for Trump" can explain how the highlighted is different from "I would vote for any despicable human being the red ticket serves up as long as they give me a couple of good dog-whistle moments".

This is a honest question. I think this is an issue to a varying degrees on both sides of the isle, although the Rs take the cake now for obvious reasons.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Redz on February 10, 2017, 11:06:47 AM
The majority of Trump supporters are no more "ok with" white supremacy than the majority of Democrats are with cop-killing and violent riots / looting. Just because a negative element aligns itself with the person you're forced to hold your nose and vote for doesn't mean you're "ok with" their views.

I don't like Trump, but he's not a white supremacist, nor are the overwhelming majority of his supporters. Even those favoring nationalism generally support American nationalism / isolationism, rather than "white" nationalism.

This is a completely illogical comparison. There is no coalition of cop killers, or cop killer lobby; every dem ever is against cops getting killed and against cops killing people. How are dems aligned with cop killers? Sounds like a "when did you stop beating your wife" kind of a trick. I don't know where that comes from. And dems both here and from the top are always quicker to denounce violent protests like what happened at UCLA than Trump or his supporters have been to denounce violence that he encouraged at his own rallies.

His cabinet has a well known, well documented history of explicit racially targeted voter suppression, racially targeted prosecution, and white national/white supremacist strategy. This was easily predicted before the election. Trump voters, by definition, are "OK enough with" this element to vote for and defend him.

 

Agreed. Agreed all over the board.

It wouldn't be the first time you're wrong, either.

Anyone willing to paint every single person who voted for a candidate with a broad, stereotypical, inaccurate brush is part of the problem.

I agree that every political candidate has a menu of stances on a variety of economic and social issues and you do your best to match your ideological priorities up with one choice the best you can.  It's nearly impossible that you'd find a perfect match.

But we each also have a scale of which issue is of the highest priority.  Clearly, many Americans voted for Trump for economic reasons and overlooked all of the other traits they might find despicable (it didn't help that they felt sick to their stomachs by Hilary or any Dem candidate regardless). 

What, I don't understand is how on earth blatant ties to white supremacists didn't factor higher into the voting equation.  That would be a non-starter for me.  It's a completely despicable human trait and his presidency has legitimized and emboldened its place in our government and society. 

And that sucks beyond belief.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: indeedproceed on February 10, 2017, 11:07:16 AM
I think if you take the malice out of it, it's unavoidable that people who voted for Trump here were tolerant of the white nationalist stuff. They might not support it, they might abhor it, but a vote for Trump is a vote that is at the very least tolerant of it, if they also get the parts of the Trump platform they wanted.

I think similarly voting for Hillary, you are at the very least tolerant of some of the criticisms of her. As a Hillary voter, I knew I was getting a lifelong politician who has made morally crappy calls in the name of pragmatism and would likely continue to do so if she got into office. I was able to reconcile with that, even if I didn't like it, or didn't like her.

Pretending a vote for Trump was anything else is naive. You may not want them at the party, you wouldn't have invited them if it was your call, but you can't express surprise when they were brought in as part of his +1.

Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: slamtheking on February 10, 2017, 11:12:43 AM
I think if you take the malice out of it, it's unavoidable that people who voted for Trump here were tolerant of the white nationalist stuff. They might not support it, they might abhor it, but a vote for Trump is a vote that is at the very least tolerant of it, if they also get the parts of the Trump platform they wanted.

I think similarly voting for Hillary, you are at the very least tolerant of some of the criticisms of her. As a Hillary voter, I knew I was getting a lifelong politician who has made morally crappy calls in the name of pragmatism and would likely continue to do so if she got into office. I was able to reconcile with that, even if I didn't like it, or didn't like her.

Pretending a vote for Trump was anything else is naive. You may not want them at the party, you wouldn't have invited them if it was your call, but you can't express surprise when they were brought in as part of his +1.
very true.  it was a choice between a career politician that did and said anything to try to win the office vs someone spewing vile comments and beliefs that lacked maturity and mental/emotional stability that's critical for that office.

didn't want to vote for Hillary.  REALLY didn't want to vote for Hillary but did so because installing Trump as president was irresponsible. 
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: indeedproceed on February 10, 2017, 11:28:03 AM
Not that it means anything, but I'll just say, this thread is funny.  Its basically turned into a day after day place where liberals come to vent about Trump.  Ain't nothing going to come of it, though.  Especially considering most of the posters in this thread probably live in states that elected Democrats to Congress.

This is one of the most terrifying/frustrating things about this. My vote didn't matter (for President) last election and it won't matter next election, because of how overwhelmingly blue NY is. And I don't think phone-bank calling some guy in Iowa is really ethical, honestly. If I was getting calls from someone in Arkansas telling me to vote Trump I'd personally take time out of my day to tell them to go..do something unproductive. Because some guy in Arkansas don't understand my life, they're advocating for theirs.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: gift on February 10, 2017, 11:36:35 AM
Not that it means anything, but I'll just say, this thread is funny.  Its basically turned into a day after day place where liberals come to vent about Trump.  Ain't nothing going to come of it, though.  Especially considering most of the posters in this thread probably live in states that elected Democrats to Congress.

This is one of the most terrifying/frustrating things about this. My vote didn't matter (for President) last election and it won't matter next election, because of how overwhelmingly blue NY is. And I don't think phone-bank calling some guy in Iowa is really ethical, honestly. If I was getting calls from someone in Arkansas telling me to vote Trump I'd personally take time out of my day to tell them to go..do something unproductive. Because some guy in Arkansas don't understand my life, they're advocating for theirs.

Your vote only matters if it is the deciding vote anyway. It is extremely unlikely that your vote will ever matter.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: nickagneta on February 10, 2017, 11:51:33 AM
I think its wrong to paint Trump voters with a wide brush and make claims about their beliefs based on voting for what for many was their party's candidate and not their candidate. I voted Hillary but she was not MY candidate, just the best of two horrible choices. I have to believe most people that voted for Trump felt the same way.

Hillary is untrustworthy, a liar, and a dirty systemic politician. That doesn't make people who voted forher those things. Trump is a mysoginist, liar, egotistical, corrupt businessman with possible racist beliefs. That does not make those that voted for him those things.

This election cycle was about chosing between two asshats. All we could hope for was that whoever won didn't make decisions for this country that reflected the very worst traits of their character. Sadly, President Trump looks like he will be doing that on a constant basis and we as a country will all suffer because of it.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 10, 2017, 12:00:30 PM
I think its wrong to paint Trump voters with a wide brush and make claims about their beliefs based on voting for what for many was their party's candidate and not their candidate. I voted Hillary but she was not MY candidate, just the best of two horrible choices. I have to believe most people that voted for Trump felt the same way.

Hillary is untrustworthy, a liar, and a dirty systemic politician. That doesn't make people who voted forher those things. Trump is a mysoginist, liar, egotistical, corrupt businessman with possible racist beliefs. That does not make those that voted for him those things.

This election cycle was about chosing between two asshats. All we could hope for was that whoever won didn't make decisions for this country that reflected the very worst traits of their character. Sadly, President Trump looks like he will be doing that on a constant basis and we as a country will all suffer because of it.
I think it's wrong to suggest that the scale of the issues there were with Hilary Clinton were anything close to the ones there were with Trump -- but to each their own.

Also, if you think "systemic politician" stands to be derogatory, you should pay attention what happens to the country when it's not steered by career bureaucrats (hint: it probably won't be pretty).
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: indeedproceed on February 10, 2017, 12:04:40 PM
I think its wrong to paint Trump voters with a wide brush and make claims about their beliefs based on voting for what for many was their party's candidate and not their candidate. I voted Hillary but she was not MY candidate, just the best of two horrible choices. I have to believe most people that voted for Trump felt the same way.

Hillary is untrustworthy, a liar, and a dirty systemic politician. That doesn't make people who voted forher those things. Trump is a mysoginist, liar, egotistical, corrupt businessman with possible racist beliefs. That does not make those that voted for him those things.

You disagree that voting for Trump means you as a voter were are least tolerant of the white nationalist stuff?

I'm asking because for me it seems so black and white. We knew Trump's ties to white nationalism. We knew Steve Bannon was way up there in terms of people he listened to. We knew he was mercurial and could not help himself. These are the parts of the happy meal Trump voters allowed for when they voted for him. They might not want those parts of the happy meal, they might not need them, but they knew they were getting them.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: nickagneta on February 10, 2017, 12:16:41 PM
I think its wrong to paint Trump voters with a wide brush and make claims about their beliefs based on voting for what for many was their party's candidate and not their candidate. I voted Hillary but she was not MY candidate, just the best of two horrible choices. I have to believe most people that voted for Trump felt the same way.

Hillary is untrustworthy, a liar, and a dirty systemic politician. That doesn't make people who voted forher those things. Trump is a mysoginist, liar, egotistical, corrupt businessman with possible racist beliefs. That does not make those that voted for him those things.

This election cycle was about chosing between two asshats. All we could hope for was that whoever won didn't make decisions for this country that reflected the very worst traits of their character. Sadly, President Trump looks like he will be doing that on a constant basis and we as a country will all suffer because of it.
I think it's wrong to suggest that the scale of the issues there were with Hilary Clinton were anything close to the ones there were with Trump -- but to each their own.

Also, if you think "systemic politician" stands to be derogatory, you should pay attention what happens to the country when it's not steered by career bureaucrats (hint: it probably won't be pretty).
I never stated that Hillary's issues were on a scale similar to Trump's. Obviously I don't feel that way, I voted for Hillary. Also, I am not using "systemic politician" as a derrogatory term. The derrogatory term was "dirty".

But many people were looking for someone outside the system of politics and so voted Trump. Many people weren't going to vote Democrat no matter who ran for either party. And many people were turned off by Hillary on a personal level. That doesn't make them any of the wide brush insults I have seen thrown out here in this thread.

I am happy where I placed my vote. I am going to believe that a very large portion of people who voted Trump will see they made a mistake and place their vote elsewhere in 4 years. My prediction: Trump will be opposed in the Republican primary and lose in the next election.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Evantime34 on February 10, 2017, 12:21:47 PM
I have been kind of discouraged by what has been happen in the republican senate and the white house recently but I think the current situation is leading to a higher level of civic engagement. Seeing people try to become more active in politics might just end up being a positive effect of the trump presidency.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/do-your-job-jason-chaffetz-faces-rowdy-audience-at-town-hall/

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2017/02/surly_crowd_of_600-plus_attend.html

It seems that people have realized how effective the tea party was in influencing elections and now more people are attempting to make their voices heard using the lessons they learned from the Tea Party.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: jambr380 on February 10, 2017, 12:22:43 PM
I think its wrong to paint Trump voters with a wide brush and make claims about their beliefs based on voting for what for many was their party's candidate and not their candidate. I voted Hillary but she was not MY candidate, just the best of two horrible choices. I have to believe most people that voted for Trump felt the same way.

Hillary is untrustworthy, a liar, and a dirty systemic politician. That doesn't make people who voted forher those things. Trump is a mysoginist, liar, egotistical, corrupt businessman with possible racist beliefs. That does not make those that voted for him those things.

This election cycle was about chosing between two asshats. All we could hope for was that whoever won didn't make decisions for this country that reflected the very worst traits of their character. Sadly, President Trump looks like he will be doing that on a constant basis and we as a country will all suffer because of it.
I think it's wrong to suggest that the scale of the issues there were with Hilary Clinton were anything close to the ones there were with Trump -- but to each their own.

Also, if you think "systemic politician" stands to be derogatory, you should pay attention what happens to the country when it's not steered by career bureaucrats (hint: it probably won't be pretty).

Tp to your last couple of posts, Koz. I have been a nick fan on this blog for many many years, but not sure what he is trying to do here.

It is pretty clear a number of Rs voted for Trump only for the Supreme Court seat (slimy enough in itself by leaving it open for a year) without any regard to what he otherwise said or did. Likewise, a number of people voted for Hillary because she was not Trump.

Saying she was the lesser of two evils can be at least partially accurate, but saying they were both horrible is just missing a huge piece of the Trump machine.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: nickagneta on February 10, 2017, 12:29:25 PM
I think its wrong to paint Trump voters with a wide brush and make claims about their beliefs based on voting for what for many was their party's candidate and not their candidate. I voted Hillary but she was not MY candidate, just the best of two horrible choices. I have to believe most people that voted for Trump felt the same way.

Hillary is untrustworthy, a liar, and a dirty systemic politician. That doesn't make people who voted forher those things. Trump is a mysoginist, liar, egotistical, corrupt businessman with possible racist beliefs. That does not make those that voted for him those things.

You disagree that voting for Trump means you as a voter were are least tolerant of the white nationalist stuff?

I'm asking because for me it seems so black and white. We knew Trump's ties to white nationalism. We knew Steve Bannon was way up there in terms of people he listened to. We knew he was mercurial and could not help himself. These are the parts of the happy meal Trump voters allowed for when they voted for him. They might not want those parts of the happy meal, they might not need them, but they knew they were getting them.
I think most people aren't as informed as people posting in this thread. I think most Trump supporters voted for the parts of Trump's message that was important in their lives and didn't bother educating themselves about the man as a whole. I think many like him because he was a reality tv personality and based their knowledge of him on how he was portrayed in that show.

I know a bunch of people who, imo, stupidly fell for parts of Trump's message. But they are not tolerant of white supremacy or mysoginy. They are not racists, bigots or male chauvinusts. They simply weren't informed enough on the man as a whole. They weren't as educated as they needed to be on all his views and character flaws. I know for many of them life came first and they were just to busy to go learn more about such things
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 10, 2017, 12:33:28 PM
I think its wrong to paint Trump voters with a wide brush and make claims about their beliefs based on voting for what for many was their party's candidate and not their candidate. I voted Hillary but she was not MY candidate, just the best of two horrible choices. I have to believe most people that voted for Trump felt the same way.

Hillary is untrustworthy, a liar, and a dirty systemic politician. That doesn't make people who voted forher those things. Trump is a mysoginist, liar, egotistical, corrupt businessman with possible racist beliefs. That does not make those that voted for him those things.

You disagree that voting for Trump means you as a voter were are least tolerant of the white nationalist stuff?

I'm asking because for me it seems so black and white. We knew Trump's ties to white nationalism. We knew Steve Bannon was way up there in terms of people he listened to. We knew he was mercurial and could not help himself. These are the parts of the happy meal Trump voters allowed for when they voted for him. They might not want those parts of the happy meal, they might not need them, but they knew they were getting them.

The underrated aspect of these discussions is always overestimating the average voter's level of knowledge. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that most voters couldn't have even recognized Steve Bannon's name on Election Day, let alone what he stood for. I'd bet a shockingly large minority still don't know who he is. They see speeches on TV or hear about stuff on social media, and that's more or less it. It's easy to consider the "non-politician who says stupid/cruel things but only because he's not polished and PC like the other politicians" the lesser of two evils at that level of knowledge, especially if he's touting simplistic slogans and policies that sound like common sense at that same level. Same goes for plenty of Hillary and 3rd party voters, BTW.

The other aspect is rationalization. An awful lot of people who wound up voting for Trump held attitudes that were consistent with white nationalism before he ever ran. I've heard the stuff all my life. But those attitudes almost always come with the belief that they're really designed to fix the economy, national security, law and order, etc. The indifference or contempt toward data that suggests those problems aren't particularly big right now indicates that they aren't the real reasons, but if the person thinks they are, there you have it. 

Long story short, a lot of Trump voters didn't support white nationalism because they didn't know enough to connect those dots, and many who basically did have spent years convincing themselves that's not why they support those policies.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: indeedproceed on February 10, 2017, 12:35:32 PM
I think its wrong to paint Trump voters with a wide brush and make claims about their beliefs based on voting for what for many was their party's candidate and not their candidate. I voted Hillary but she was not MY candidate, just the best of two horrible choices. I have to believe most people that voted for Trump felt the same way.

Hillary is untrustworthy, a liar, and a dirty systemic politician. That doesn't make people who voted forher those things. Trump is a mysoginist, liar, egotistical, corrupt businessman with possible racist beliefs. That does not make those that voted for him those things.

You disagree that voting for Trump means you as a voter were are least tolerant of the white nationalist stuff?

I'm asking because for me it seems so black and white. We knew Trump's ties to white nationalism. We knew Steve Bannon was way up there in terms of people he listened to. We knew he was mercurial and could not help himself. These are the parts of the happy meal Trump voters allowed for when they voted for him. They might not want those parts of the happy meal, they might not need them, but they knew they were getting them.
I think most people aren't as informed as people posting in this thread. I think most Trump supporters voted for the parts of Trump's message that was important in their lives and didn't bother educating themselves about the man as a whole. I think many like him because he was a reality tv personality and based their knowledge of him on how he was portrayed in that show.

I know a bunch of people who, imo, stupidly fell for parts of Trump's message. But they are tolerant of white supremacy or mysoginy. They are not racists, bigot or msle chauvinusts. They simply weren't informed enough on the man as a whole. They weren't as educated as they needed to be on all his views and character flaws. I know for many of them life came first and they were just to busy to go learn more about such things

That answer for me is actually more depressing if true. The 'Bannon/White Nationalist/Trump is a crazy person don't vote for him seriously' stuff was just inescapable. For someone to miss it, I feel like willful ignorance has to come into play on some level, and if that's the case, we got what we deserved as a country.

TP for the cordial convo though.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: indeedproceed on February 10, 2017, 12:37:18 PM
I think its wrong to paint Trump voters with a wide brush and make claims about their beliefs based on voting for what for many was their party's candidate and not their candidate. I voted Hillary but she was not MY candidate, just the best of two horrible choices. I have to believe most people that voted for Trump felt the same way.

Hillary is untrustworthy, a liar, and a dirty systemic politician. That doesn't make people who voted forher those things. Trump is a mysoginist, liar, egotistical, corrupt businessman with possible racist beliefs. That does not make those that voted for him those things.

You disagree that voting for Trump means you as a voter were are least tolerant of the white nationalist stuff?

I'm asking because for me it seems so black and white. We knew Trump's ties to white nationalism. We knew Steve Bannon was way up there in terms of people he listened to. We knew he was mercurial and could not help himself. These are the parts of the happy meal Trump voters allowed for when they voted for him. They might not want those parts of the happy meal, they might not need them, but they knew they were getting them.

The underrated aspect of these discussions is always overestimating the average voter's level of knowledge. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that most voters couldn't have even recognized Steve Bannon's name on Election Day, let alone what he stood for. I'd bet a shockingly large minority still don't know who he is. They see speeches on TV or hear about stuff on social media, and that's more or less it. It's easy to consider the "non-politician who says stupid/cruel things but only because he's not polished and PC like the other politicians" the lesser of two evils at that level of knowledge, especially if he's touting simplistic slogans and policies that sound like common sense at that same level. Same goes for plenty of Hillary and 3rd party voters, BTW.

The other aspect is rationalization. An awful lot of people who wound up voting for Trump held attitudes that were consistent with white nationalism before he ever ran. I've heard the stuff all my life. But those attitudes almost always come with the belief that they're really designed to fix the economy, national security, law and order, etc. The indifference or contempt toward data that suggests those problems aren't particularly big right now indicates that they aren't the real reasons, but if the person thinks they are, there you have it. 

Long story short, a lot of Trump voters didn't support white nationalism because they didn't know enough to connect those dots, and many who basically did have spent years convincing themselves that's not why they support those policies.

See, your answer is kind of like nick's above in that I almost find that more depressing. It just means that people who knew better got conned along with the people who didn't, and it resulted in an embarrassment of a president. And that sucks.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: indeedproceed on February 10, 2017, 12:39:45 PM
Underrated aspect of Trump win: As a democrat I don't have to defend Hillary to all my republican friends all the time, and Trump is being so terrible at his job that it makes opposition to him easy. Maybe the democratic party needed this, a galvanizing thing to fight so they can feel good about themselves again.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: JohnP on February 10, 2017, 12:43:14 PM
Someone please tell me what the last few administrations did that was so great for our country?
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: wiley on February 10, 2017, 12:50:19 PM
Someone please tell me what the last few administrations did that was so great for our country?

The last three administrations did not start off their presidency with the fundamental premise that the US is a disaster zone that needs to have its institutions torn to shreds in order to then be fixed and put back together better.

Add to that Obama's excellent work towards protecting the environment and adding the regulations that might protect another economic calamity like the 2008 financial collapse. 

Right now it's: blow up public education. Blow up health care.  Blow up the environmental protections, and, initiate dangerous bans that harken to a war on all Islam (see most influential Trump aids in case you think that's over the top...it's not). 
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: JohnP on February 10, 2017, 12:51:59 PM
the school system sucks as it is now so does healthcare. 
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: JohnP on February 10, 2017, 12:53:20 PM
What about Obama's excellent work in the inner cities?
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: wiley on February 10, 2017, 12:57:09 PM
the school system sucks as it is now so does healthcare.

The US used to be a leader in grade school education around the world.  We are now down to 20th or something like that.  A lot of that is because public education over the years was defunded, led by Republicans and not defended by weak and outnumbered Dems in congress. 
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: nickagneta on February 10, 2017, 12:58:00 PM
Can we please keep this thread about the Trump presudency and not have it devolve into what Obama did or didnt do?
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: JohnP on February 10, 2017, 01:00:21 PM
the school system sucks as it is now so does healthcare.

The US used to be a leader in grade school education around the world.  We are now down to 20th or something like that.  A lot of that is because public education over the years was defunded, led by Republicans and not defended by weak and outnumbered Dems in congress.

The school teaches kids to pass a state test to make their school look good and not actually learn anything. 
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: hwangjini_1 on February 10, 2017, 01:01:11 PM
just thought these might be of interest, and partial comedy relief. on bowling green's massacre...

https://twitter.com/camillemmorgan/status/829342768489254913/photo/1

i like harvard now.  ;D

but to balance things out, it seems that trump voters say that the Bowling Green Massacre shows why Trump's immigration policy is needed.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2017/02/americans-now-evenly-divided-on-impeaching-trump.html

make america moronic again.  ;D
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: wiley on February 10, 2017, 01:08:18 PM
I think its wrong to paint Trump voters with a wide brush and make claims about their beliefs based on voting for what for many was their party's candidate and not their candidate. I voted Hillary but she was not MY candidate, just the best of two horrible choices. I have to believe most people that voted for Trump felt the same way.

Hillary is untrustworthy, a liar, and a dirty systemic politician. That doesn't make people who voted forher those things. Trump is a mysoginist, liar, egotistical, corrupt businessman with possible racist beliefs. That does not make those that voted for him those things.

You disagree that voting for Trump means you as a voter were are least tolerant of the white nationalist stuff?

I'm asking because for me it seems so black and white. We knew Trump's ties to white nationalism. We knew Steve Bannon was way up there in terms of people he listened to. We knew he was mercurial and could not help himself. These are the parts of the happy meal Trump voters allowed for when they voted for him. They might not want those parts of the happy meal, they might not need them, but they knew they were getting them.

The underrated aspect of these discussions is always overestimating the average voter's level of knowledge. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that most voters couldn't have even recognized Steve Bannon's name on Election Day, let alone what he stood for. I'd bet a shockingly large minority still don't know who he is. They see speeches on TV or hear about stuff on social media, and that's more or less it. It's easy to consider the "non-politician who says stupid/cruel things but only because he's not polished and PC like the other politicians" the lesser of two evils at that level of knowledge, especially if he's touting simplistic slogans and policies that sound like common sense at that same level. Same goes for plenty of Hillary and 3rd party voters, BTW.

The other aspect is rationalization. An awful lot of people who wound up voting for Trump held attitudes that were consistent with white nationalism before he ever ran. I've heard the stuff all my life. But those attitudes almost always come with the belief that they're really designed to fix the economy, national security, law and order, etc. The indifference or contempt toward data that suggests those problems aren't particularly big right now indicates that they aren't the real reasons, but if the person thinks they are, there you have it. 

Long story short, a lot of Trump voters didn't support white nationalism because they didn't know enough to connect those dots, and many who basically did have spent years convincing themselves that's not why they support those policies.

See, your answer is kind of like nick's above in that I almost find that more depressing. It just means that people who knew better got conned along with the people who didn't, and it resulted in an embarrassment of a president. And that sucks.

I agree with foulweather and nick....Of course racist (and/or tolerant-of-racism) voters are out there, but the majority of Trump voters were closer to just being unaware of the white nationalism connections.  If we're talking about swing voters who went with Trump, many voted for Obama and probably would have again. 

I agree it's very depressing.  Our current culture is not by and large about being informed politically. It's more about just getting by, struggling to make ends meat, and then hoping for some decent entertainment in the downtime. 

Our citizens are falling behind other nations in education...and to bring Trump back into the discussion, DeVos will make it worse. 
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 10, 2017, 01:11:15 PM
I agree with foulweather and nick....Of course racist voters are out there, but the majority of Trump voters were closer to just being unaware of the white nationalism connections.  If we're talking about swing voters who went with Trump, many voted for Obama and probably would have again. 

I agree it's very depressing.  Our current culture is not by and large about being informed politically. It's more about just getting by, struggling to make ends meat, and then hoping for some decent entertainment in the downtime. 

Our citizens are falling behind other nations in education...and to bring Trump back into the discussion, DeVos will make it worse.
Even if you didn't know who Bannon, Flynn and Sessions were, the fact that David Duke endorsed them the way he did should have been a red flag the size of the Citgo sign.

Unfortunately, Trump's media team has watered down reality so hard that many seem to consider what's going with the country a reality show that takes place in Washington, DC.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: indeedproceed on February 10, 2017, 01:14:24 PM
Can we please keep this thread about the Trump presudency and not have it devolve into what Obama did or didnt do?

2nded.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Vermont Green on February 10, 2017, 01:14:30 PM
Long story short, a lot of Trump voters didn't support white nationalism because they didn't know enough to connect those dots, and many who basically did have spent years convincing themselves that's not why they support those policies.

This I believe is accurate, at least for a certain block of Trump supporters.  It is a very difficult nuance to explain (foulweatherfan did a good job of explaining it).  Trump in a way gave people with racist tendencies (different than saying out right racists) a way to feel OK about having these racist tendencies.  There are shades of grey here.   The feeling is probably that "I am not a racist, I just want to protect the country".  "Black Lives Matter people are the racists."  "America is under seige!!!".

There are other blocks of voters that supported Trump for other reasons but it is this block that scares me the most.  Not so much because of the individual people but rather in the way that Trump was able to manipulate them by appealing to their fears.

Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: libermaniac on February 10, 2017, 01:23:54 PM
the school system sucks as it is now so does healthcare.

The US used to be a leader in grade school education around the world.  We are now down to 20th or something like that.  A lot of that is because public education over the years was defunded, led by Republicans and not defended by weak and outnumbered Dems in congress.


The school teaches kids to pass a state test to make their school look good and not actually learn anything.

You know, I would really appreciate a totally unbiased presentation on the plusses and minuses of a voucher-based education system.  I think the financial argument for a voucher system is that it would foster competition and thereby eliminate the inefficiency caused by bureaucracy, thereby bringing down the cost of educating.  The financial argument against, is that the per-student amount available would go way down because people currently sending their kids to private school would also get that voucher amount.

Then, there are also non-financial arguments such regulation type issues, and issues of how to ensure that schools are meet basic standards and don't teach crazy wack-job information.  I'd like to see those arguments too.

Disclosure, I'm a liberal that currently sends two kids to private school, so I'd totally benefit from getting vouchers.  But, my gut tells me this will continue to separate the wealthy from the less-privileged, so my gut tells me this would be bad. But, I'd really appreciate an unbiased analysis of the plusses and minuses of such a system.  In this day and age of partisan politics, I don't think such an analysis is possible.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: JohnP on February 10, 2017, 01:26:10 PM
Long story short, a lot of Trump voters didn't support white nationalism because they didn't know enough to connect those dots, and many who basically did have spent years convincing themselves that's not why they support those policies.

This I believe is accurate, at least for a certain block of Trump supporters.  It is a very difficult nuance to explain (foulweatherfan did a good job of explaining it).  Trump in a way gave people with racist tendencies (different than saying out right racists) a way to feel OK about having these racist tendencies.  There are shades of grey here.   The feeling is probably that "I am not a racist, I just want to protect the country".  "Black Lives Matter people are the racists."  "America is under seige!!!".

There are other blocks of voters that supported Trump for other reasons but it is this block that scares me the most.  Not so much because of the individual people but rather in the way that Trump was able to manipulate them by appealing to their fears.

Feeling OK to have racist tendencies you say. What a joke.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Evantime34 on February 10, 2017, 01:29:44 PM
Someone please tell me what the last few administrations did that was so great for our country?
I think this is important, because I believed a large number of Trump supporters were disillusioned with the system and excited to see an outsider shake things up in Washington.

Trump was a candidate for change. With political campaigns, change from the old system is almost always viewed in a positive light. However, often times change can make things much worse not better.

If people are upset with the quality of our schools, that is understandable. DeVos, a woman who is the secretary of education because she gave a ton of money to politicians is not the one to fix it though.

If people are upset with the quality of our healthcare, that is understandable. Is the best solution to get rid of the ACA without a good replacement plan?

People feel like the system no longer works for them which is understandable, but burning the systems to the ground probably isn't the solution.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 10, 2017, 01:46:22 PM
People feel like the system no longer works for them which is understandable, but burning the systems to the ground probably isn't the solution.
See, the trick wasn't to convince people it's the solution -- it was to convince a small, specific stratum of people that they couldn't possibly be any worse.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: JohnP on February 10, 2017, 01:48:43 PM
People feel like the system no longer works for them which is understandable, but burning the systems to the ground probably isn't the solution.
See, the trick wasn't to convince people it's the solution -- it was to convince a small, specific stratum of people that they couldn't possibly be any worse.

And how do you know Healthcare and education is gonna get worse?
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: indeedproceed on February 10, 2017, 01:56:20 PM
People feel like the system no longer works for them which is understandable, but burning the systems to the ground probably isn't the solution.
See, the trick wasn't to convince people it's the solution -- it was to convince a small, specific stratum of people that they couldn't possibly be any worse.

And how do you know Healthcare and education is gonna get worse?


Well with education I'd say its based on the lack of experience and knowledge of the now current secretary of education.

for healthcare it is mostly based around actual studies done by the bi-partisan CBO that across the board points to growing premiums and less coverage under every known alternative to Obamacare that is publicly available.

Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: liam on February 10, 2017, 02:07:23 PM
People feel like the system no longer works for them which is understandable, but burning the systems to the ground probably isn't the solution.
See, the trick wasn't to convince people it's the solution -- it was to convince a small, specific stratum of people that they couldn't possibly be any worse.

And how do you know Healthcare and education is gonna get worse?


Well with education I'd say its based on the lack of experience and knowledge of the now current secretary of education.

for healthcare it is mostly based around actual studies done by the bi-partisan CBO that across the board points to growing premiums and less coverage under every known alternative to Obamacare that is publicly available.

Good points!
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 10, 2017, 02:14:05 PM
for healthcare it is mostly based around actual studies done by the bi-partisan CBO that across the board points to growing premiums and less coverage under every known alternative to Obamacare that is publicly available.
I believe this is what you're referring to?

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52371

On the other hand, I doubt you'll get anywhere with this line of the argument because...
Quote
Results indicate that conservatives are more likely than liberals to rate neutral media sources ... as ideologically biased.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15456870.2017.1251434
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: JohnP on February 10, 2017, 02:29:17 PM
for healthcare it is mostly based around actual studies done by the bi-partisan CBO that across the board points to growing premiums and less coverage under every known alternative to Obamacare that is publicly available.
I believe this is what you're referring to?

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52371

On the other hand, I doubt you'll get anywhere with this line of the argument because...
Quote
Results indicate that conservatives are more likely than liberals to rate neutral media sources ... as ideologically biased.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15456870.2017.1251434

There are over 300 million people in the USA and you want me to believe a survey that only talked to 351 people...no thanks.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: KGs Knee on February 10, 2017, 02:29:26 PM
Results indicate that conservatives are more likely than liberals to rate neutral media sources ... as ideologically biased.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15456870.2017.1251434

Ha!  Now I've seen it all.

Claiming CNN is even remotely "neutral" is so far off, it's crazy pants territory.

Garbage article.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: MBunge on February 10, 2017, 02:46:40 PM
People feel like the system no longer works for them which is understandable, but burning the systems to the ground probably isn't the solution.
See, the trick wasn't to convince people it's the solution -- it was to convince a small, specific stratum of people that they couldn't possibly be any worse.

No, the trick is how the same people who turned a political nobody like Elizabeth Warren into a bleepin' ROCK STAR because she railed against income inequality and other economic problems have now magically concluded that there's no reason for anyone to be bothered by anything.

Mike
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 10, 2017, 03:35:36 PM
So, yesterday it was confirmed that NSA chief Michael Flynn, before taking office, contacted a Russian diplomat to discuss lifting sanctions. This was done after Obama added additional penalties for Russia's interference with our elections.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-security-adviser-flynn-discussed-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador-despite-denials-officials-say/2017/02/09/f85b29d6-ee11-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-security-adviser-flynn-discussed-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador-despite-denials-officials-say/2017/02/09/f85b29d6-ee11-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?)

The Post got a whopping nine current + former intelligence officials to confirm this. We already knew that Flynn had called the Russian 5 times the day the new sanctions were announced, but he, Pence, Priebus, Conway, etc, all denied they spoke about the sanctions, probably because doing so was likely illegal.

Flynn's now walking back his denial, and Pence's people are claiming he based his denials on what Flynn told him, which would mean he lied to the VP too.  Remember Flynn is already under investigation due to taking money to criticize US foreign policy on the Russia Today network, and attending a Russian state dinner seated next to Putin.



Meanwhile, the President repeated unfounded claims of massive voter fraud in a meeting with Senate Dems, claiming he and Kelly Ayotte would've won in New Hampshire if not for "thousands of illegal voters bused in from Massachusetts". If this is like past claims he probably got it from InfoWars. Let that sink in, again. The President of the United States is a delusional conspiracy theorist, and none of that is hyperbole.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Evantime34 on February 10, 2017, 03:45:20 PM
People feel like the system no longer works for them which is understandable, but burning the systems to the ground probably isn't the solution.
See, the trick wasn't to convince people it's the solution -- it was to convince a small, specific stratum of people that they couldn't possibly be any worse.

No, the trick is how the same people who turned a political nobody like Elizabeth Warren into a bleepin' ROCK STAR because she railed against income inequality and other economic problems have now magically concluded that there's no reason for anyone to be bothered by anything.

Mike

Wait, so you think liberals aren't bothered by anything?  18 pages of this thread say the opposite.

My problem is that I don't think Trump has shown anything that indicates he is capable of fixing the troublesome issues.

I do think income inequality is a big problem, but I don't think giving tax cuts to rich people is the way to solve income inequality. I don't think the ban would have made us more safe. I don't think putting cabinet nominations forward who are against everything their agencies are about is going to make the government work better for us.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: saltlover on February 10, 2017, 03:45:23 PM
People feel like the system no longer works for them which is understandable, but burning the systems to the ground probably isn't the solution.
See, the trick wasn't to convince people it's the solution -- it was to convince a small, specific stratum of people that they couldn't possibly be any worse.

No, the trick is how the same people who turned a political nobody like Elizabeth Warren into a bleepin' ROCK STAR because she railed against income inequality and other economic problems have now magically concluded that there's no reason for anyone to be bothered by anything.

Mike

Actually, Republicans helped turn her into a rock star by blocking her nomination to head the CFPB.  Before then she was a law professor/technocrat.  After that, she became someone whom Republicans feared, and therefore someone for liberals to lionize.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: indeedproceed on February 10, 2017, 03:51:10 PM
So, yesterday it was confirmed that NSA chief Michael Flynn, before taking office, contacted a Russian diplomat to discuss lifting sanctions. This was done after Obama added additional penalties for Russia's interference with our elections.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-security-adviser-flynn-discussed-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador-despite-denials-officials-say/2017/02/09/f85b29d6-ee11-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-security-adviser-flynn-discussed-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador-despite-denials-officials-say/2017/02/09/f85b29d6-ee11-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?)

The Post got a whopping nine current + former intelligence officials to confirm this. We already knew that Flynn had called the Russian 5 times the day the new sanctions were announced, but he, Pence, Priebus, Conway, etc, all denied they spoke about the sanctions, probably because doing so was likely illegal.

Flynn's now walking back his denial, and Pence's people are claiming he based his denials on what Flynn told him, which would mean he lied to the VP too.  Remember Flynn is already under investigation due to taking money to criticize US foreign policy on the Russia Today network, and attending a Russian state dinner seated next to Putin.



Meanwhile, the President repeated unfounded claims of massive voter fraud in a meeting with Senate Dems, claiming he and Kelly Ayotte would've won in New Hampshire if not for "thousands of illegal voters bused in from Massachusetts". If this is like past claims he probably got it from InfoWars. Let that sink in, again. The President of the United States is a delusional conspiracy theorist, and none of that is hyperbole.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDyu-z8q7ko

This needed a chaser.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 10, 2017, 03:55:21 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDyu-z8q7ko

This needed a chaser.

An on-topic chaser is that intelligence officials were baffled Flynn would talk about the sanctions and then deny it, because it's common knowledge in the intelligence community that all calls from Americans to Russian diplomats are monitored and recorded. And he's the head of the NSA now.  :D
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: greece666 on February 10, 2017, 04:27:01 PM
So, yesterday it was confirmed that NSA chief Michael Flynn, before taking office, contacted a Russian diplomat to discuss lifting sanctions. This was done after Obama added additional penalties for Russia's interference with our elections.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-security-adviser-flynn-discussed-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador-despite-denials-officials-say/2017/02/09/f85b29d6-ee11-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-security-adviser-flynn-discussed-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador-despite-denials-officials-say/2017/02/09/f85b29d6-ee11-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?)

The Post got a whopping nine current + former intelligence officials to confirm this. We already knew that Flynn had called the Russian 5 times the day the new sanctions were announced, but he, Pence, Priebus, Conway, etc, all denied they spoke about the sanctions, probably because doing so was likely illegal.

Flynn's now walking back his denial, and Pence's people are claiming he based his denials on what Flynn told him, which would mean he lied to the VP too.  Remember Flynn is already under investigation due to taking money to criticize US foreign policy on the Russia Today network, and attending a Russian state dinner seated next to Putin.



Meanwhile, the President repeated unfounded claims of massive voter fraud in a meeting with Senate Dems, claiming he and Kelly Ayotte would've won in New Hampshire if not for "thousands of illegal voters bused in from Massachusetts". If this is like past claims he probably got it from InfoWars. Let that sink in, again. The President of the United States is a delusional conspiracy theorist, and none of that is hyperbole.

This is a sidenote really, but no conclusive evidence has been presented of the alleged Russian interference. The wording of the bolded part is unfortunate.

And a bit ironic given that there is good evidence that the US has interfered with the elections of many other countries (including the Russian Federation- see 1996).
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: BDeCosta26 on February 10, 2017, 05:00:11 PM
Results indicate that conservatives are more likely than liberals to rate neutral media sources ... as ideologically biased.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15456870.2017.1251434

Ha!  Now I've seen it all.

Claiming CNN is even remotely "neutral" is so far off, it's crazy pants territory.

Garbage article.

CNN has been fairly Neautral (much more so than the Fox's and MSNBC's of the world) for decades, all the way up until about 2016, when a certain candidate for the Presidency decided he would launch a crusade against the networks credability, going so far as to attack them as "fake news" at every possible opportunity, so I really don't blame them for calling out his lies all the time now.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 10, 2017, 05:03:56 PM
So, yesterday it was confirmed that NSA chief Michael Flynn, before taking office, contacted a Russian diplomat to discuss lifting sanctions. This was done after Obama added additional penalties for Russia's interference with our elections.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-security-adviser-flynn-discussed-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador-despite-denials-officials-say/2017/02/09/f85b29d6-ee11-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-security-adviser-flynn-discussed-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador-despite-denials-officials-say/2017/02/09/f85b29d6-ee11-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?)

The Post got a whopping nine current + former intelligence officials to confirm this. We already knew that Flynn had called the Russian 5 times the day the new sanctions were announced, but he, Pence, Priebus, Conway, etc, all denied they spoke about the sanctions, probably because doing so was likely illegal.

Flynn's now walking back his denial, and Pence's people are claiming he based his denials on what Flynn told him, which would mean he lied to the VP too.  Remember Flynn is already under investigation due to taking money to criticize US foreign policy on the Russia Today network, and attending a Russian state dinner seated next to Putin.



Meanwhile, the President repeated unfounded claims of massive voter fraud in a meeting with Senate Dems, claiming he and Kelly Ayotte would've won in New Hampshire if not for "thousands of illegal voters bused in from Massachusetts". If this is like past claims he probably got it from InfoWars. Let that sink in, again. The President of the United States is a delusional conspiracy theorist, and none of that is hyperbole.

This is a sidenote really, but no conclusive evidence has been presented of the alleged Russian interference. The wording of the bolded part is unfortunate.

And a bit ironic given that there is good evidence that the US has interfered with the elections of many other countries (including the Russian Federation- see 1996).

There's no evidence of direct interference with voting - and I don't think anyone's alleging it - but the DNC/Podesta hacks and the origination of fake news stories attacking Clinton and supporting Trump are extensively documented and supported by the intelligence community.

...literally while writing this it just broke that intelligence officials have corroborated some (SOME) of the dossier linking the Trump campaign to Russia.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/russia-dossier-update/index.html


Agreed on the second part, our hands aren't clean by any measure, but that doesn't mean we don't have any right to be upset or react to it. Especially everyday citizens who had nothing to do with those prior actions.

We've bombed plenty of countries, but it would be absurd to say this means we can't have any problem with being bombed. Just as Russia's interference this time doesn't mean they no longer can be angry about our actions in 96.  Every older society on Earth's been a party to atrocities big and small, that doesn't mean no one can ever oppose atrocity again.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: hwangjini_1 on February 10, 2017, 05:06:13 PM
So, yesterday it was confirmed that NSA chief Michael Flynn, before taking office, contacted a Russian diplomat to discuss lifting sanctions. This was done after Obama added additional penalties for Russia's interference with our elections.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-security-adviser-flynn-discussed-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador-despite-denials-officials-say/2017/02/09/f85b29d6-ee11-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-security-adviser-flynn-discussed-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador-despite-denials-officials-say/2017/02/09/f85b29d6-ee11-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?)

The Post got a whopping nine current + former intelligence officials to confirm this. We already knew that Flynn had called the Russian 5 times the day the new sanctions were announced, but he, Pence, Priebus, Conway, etc, all denied they spoke about the sanctions, probably because doing so was likely illegal.

Flynn's now walking back his denial, and Pence's people are claiming he based his denials on what Flynn told him, which would mean he lied to the VP too.  Remember Flynn is already under investigation due to taking money to criticize US foreign policy on the Russia Today network, and attending a Russian state dinner seated next to Putin.



Meanwhile, the President repeated unfounded claims of massive voter fraud in a meeting with Senate Dems, claiming he and Kelly Ayotte would've won in New Hampshire if not for "thousands of illegal voters bused in from Massachusetts". If this is like past claims he probably got it from InfoWars. Let that sink in, again. The President of the United States is a delusional conspiracy theorist, and none of that is hyperbole.

This is a sidenote really, but no conclusive evidence has been presented of the alleged Russian interference. The wording of the bolded part is unfortunate.

And a bit ironic given that there is good evidence that the US has interfered with the elections of many other countries (including the Russian Federation- see 1996).
US interference in the politics and elections of other nations has been going on since the start of the US and continues up to this day. just one part of the hypocracy of the US foreign policy.

that does not make what russia may, or may not, have done acceptable or right. but the level of outrage by the US is comical given its actions in the past.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Vermont Green on February 10, 2017, 05:19:58 PM
So, yesterday it was confirmed that NSA chief Michael Flynn, before taking office, contacted a Russian diplomat to discuss lifting sanctions. This was done after Obama added additional penalties for Russia's interference with our elections.


This is a sidenote really, but no conclusive evidence has been presented of the alleged Russian interference. The wording of the bolded part is unfortunate.

And a bit ironic given that there is good evidence that the US has interfered with the elections of many other countries (including the Russian Federation- see 1996).

Per James Brenner (former Director of CIA):

Quote
Brennan wrote in part:
"Earlier this week, I met separately with (Director) FBI James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election."

Dept. of Homeland Security also has chimed in agreeing with the assessment of CIA, FBI, and DNI.  The only issue is that not all of the evidence can be made public which seems reasonable to me when it comes to spying.  This is only inconclusive if you have reason to think the CIA, FBI, DNI, and DHS (and I think some other intelligence organizations) are all collectively conspiring to mislead the public about this.  I think you have to be pretty cynical of the US Government to have that view. I am sure that is what Donald Trump believes but in this case, I have chosen to believe the multiple Government agencies over Donald Trump.

Whether you believe the hacking or not, it does not excuse what Flynn is alleged to have done or his subsequent false statements about what he allegedly did.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Vermont Green on February 10, 2017, 05:33:02 PM
CNN is reporting that US Intellegence has corroborated some aspects of the 35-page dossier compiled by a former British intelligence agent:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/russia-dossier-update/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/russia-dossier-update/index.html)

Quote
None of the newly learned information relates to the salacious allegations in the dossier. Rather it relates to conversations between foreign nationals. The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals. Sources would not confirm which specific conversations were intercepted or the content of those discussions due to the classified nature of US intelligence collection programs.

Quote
Some of the individuals involved in the intercepted communications were known to the US intelligence community as "heavily involved" in collecting information damaging to Hillary Clinton and helpful to Donald Trump, two of the officials tell CNN.

Quote
Reached for comment this afternoon, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said, "We continue to be disgusted by CNN's fake news reporting."
Spicer later called back and said, "This is more fake news. It is about time CNN focused on the success the President has had bringing back jobs, protecting the nation, and strengthening relationships with Japan and other nations. The President won the election because of his vision and message for the nation."

More fake news I guess.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: 2short on February 10, 2017, 06:52:36 PM
This is a reason why candidates/presidents release their tax documents etc.  We have no way of knowing what trump has for business / debt in russia.

Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 10, 2017, 07:49:30 PM
the school system sucks as it is now so does healthcare.

A sweeping statement about public schools that is untrue.  Average scores in America are actually impacted by America's value system that says that all children, even those with disabilities, are entitled to a fair and equal public education through age 21.  Perfect it is not, but I am in probably 3-5 different public schools every week and the vast majority of children in schools are performing well socially, emotionally, behaviorally and academically.  I've consulted regarding systematic screenings for risk at many schools over the years.  Numbers consistently range from 10 to 25% at-risk (of elevated concern or higher) addressing social, emotional and academic concerns.  There are outliers, troubled schools, troubled districts, high-risk communities (which doesn't mean the community school sucks) as well as exemplar schools and districts, but to say the school system sucks overall is not quite true in my experience. Some districts, some schools, some teachers do suck.  Some absolutely do not.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 10, 2017, 08:13:45 PM
This is a reason why candidates/presidents release their tax documents etc.  We have no way of knowing what trump has for business / debt in russia.

Could Congress (Chaffetz) compel release/disclosure? Not saying he would, but hypothetically?
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: greece666 on February 11, 2017, 06:19:43 AM
@foulweatherfan @hwangjini_1 @Vermont Green

Thanks for the replies. I'm interested in the US version, because I'm usually more exposed to the Russian one.

I did take a look at the link that foulweatherfan posted, it is a good read, but again, unless one starts from the premise that US sources are in principle more reliable than Russian ones, it does not help decide who is right in this conflict.

I understand that the evidence might be classified and so they might have good reasons not to make it public right now, but until they make it public there is no way to evaluate it.

My fear is that in the end the evidence will boil down to something like Russia Today is funded by the Russian government to spread lies about the USA and whoever shares their stories on social medias is a Russia funded troll. Also, some Russian officials did not want Hillary Clinton to get elected and we got them celebrating on video.








Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: indeedproceed on February 11, 2017, 06:31:25 AM
Everything you just said about Russia Today is what my current understanding is.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 11, 2017, 09:41:56 AM
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-watered-down-ethics-rules-let-lobbyist-help-run-agency-he-lobbied


File this under "drain the swamp."

Trump relaxes ethicsrules, allows guy who was a lobbyist in areas of construction becomes head of area he libbied.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 11, 2017, 10:00:20 AM
Everything you just said about Russia Today is what my current understanding is.

This isn't RT directly, but did you see this? Barely covered in US media.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/27/mystery-death-ex-kgb-chief-linked-mi6-spys-dossier-donald-trump/

A Russian official, whose profile is consistent with the description of a major source in the dossier was found dead in the back of his car. Officially died of a "heart attack" but was taken to an FSB facility for the autopsy, so no corroboration. Shady as hell.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 11, 2017, 10:36:18 AM
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-watered-down-ethics-rules-let-lobbyist-help-run-agency-he-lobbied


File this under "drain the swamp."

Trump relaxes ethicsrules, allows guy who was a lobbyist in areas of construction becomes head of area he libbied.
This is rather benign, considering he tabbed a restaurant industry executive who opposes most existing labor regulations to be in charge of t he agency that is supposed to protect workers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/08/us/politics/andrew-puzder-labor-secretary-trump.html
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: MBunge on February 11, 2017, 10:42:01 AM
So, yesterday it was confirmed that NSA chief Michael Flynn, before taking office, contacted a Russian diplomat to discuss lifting sanctions. This was done after Obama added additional penalties for Russia's interference with our elections.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-security-adviser-flynn-discussed-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador-despite-denials-officials-say/2017/02/09/f85b29d6-ee11-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-security-adviser-flynn-discussed-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador-despite-denials-officials-say/2017/02/09/f85b29d6-ee11-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?)

The Post got a whopping nine current + former intelligence officials to confirm this. We already knew that Flynn had called the Russian 5 times the day the new sanctions were announced, but he, Pence, Priebus, Conway, etc, all denied they spoke about the sanctions, probably because doing so was likely illegal.

Flynn's now walking back his denial, and Pence's people are claiming he based his denials on what Flynn told him, which would mean he lied to the VP too.  Remember Flynn is already under investigation due to taking money to criticize US foreign policy on the Russia Today network, and attending a Russian state dinner seated next to Putin.



Meanwhile, the President repeated unfounded claims of massive voter fraud in a meeting with Senate Dems, claiming he and Kelly Ayotte would've won in New Hampshire if not for "thousands of illegal voters bused in from Massachusetts". If this is like past claims he probably got it from InfoWars. Let that sink in, again. The President of the United States is a delusional conspiracy theorist, and none of that is hyperbole.

This is a sidenote really, but no conclusive evidence has been presented of the alleged Russian interference. The wording of the bolded part is unfortunate.

And a bit ironic given that there is good evidence that the US has interfered with the elections of many other countries (including the Russian Federation- see 1996).

There's no evidence of direct interference with voting - and I don't think anyone's alleging it - but the DNC/Podesta hacks and the origination of fake news stories attacking Clinton and supporting Trump are extensively documented and supported by the intelligence community.

...literally while writing this it just broke that intelligence officials have corroborated some (SOME) of the dossier linking the Trump campaign to Russia.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/russia-dossier-update/index.html


Agreed on the second part, our hands aren't clean by any measure, but that doesn't mean we don't have any right to be upset or react to it. Especially everyday citizens who had nothing to do with those prior actions.

We've bombed plenty of countries, but it would be absurd to say this means we can't have any problem with being bombed. Just as Russia's interference this time doesn't mean they no longer can be angry about our actions in 96.  Every older society on Earth's been a party to atrocities big and small, that doesn't mean no one can ever oppose atrocity again.

The allegations about Russia and Wikileaks were widely known before the election.  I think they even came up during one of the debates.  There wasn't much concern before the election, however, because everyone assumed Hillary was going to win.  But after Trump won, Russia became the #1 instrument of denial in explaining Trump's victory as something other than a searing repudiation of our political status quo.  "Trump didn't win for any legitimate reason!  It was Russia!"

But there is no evidence that Russia had any influence at all on the election.  Furthermore, all indications are that the Wikileaks reports on Hillary and the Democrats were accurate and I think we need to be a little careful about being outraged because voters were exposed to the truth.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't be upset about Russia trying to interfere in our election, though we should be less sanctimonious about it.  Nor does it excuse any member of the Trump campaign if the violating the law or ethical standards.  But we can't let hysteria blind us to the real significance of President Trump.

Take this very subject.  Is Russia a bad actor in the world?  Yes.  But China is as bad or worse than Russia in almost every respect.  So why do we kiss China's butt while kicking Russia in the teeth?

The rise of Donald Trump is a reaction to very real and very important failures in American and global civilization and we know that because we can see similar reactions all around the world.  Trump isn't the problem.  He is the response to the problem.  Getting rid of Trump will not fix the problem and if we don't fix the problem, the responses are only going to get worse.

Mike
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 11, 2017, 10:47:14 AM
Take this very subject.  Is Russia a bad actor in the world?  Yes.  But China is as bad or worse than Russia in almost every respect.  So why do we kiss China's butt while kicking Russia in the teeth?
Because no, it actually isn't.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Jon on February 11, 2017, 10:51:22 AM
So, yesterday it was confirmed that NSA chief Michael Flynn, before taking office, contacted a Russian diplomat to discuss lifting sanctions. This was done after Obama added additional penalties for Russia's interference with our elections.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-security-adviser-flynn-discussed-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador-despite-denials-officials-say/2017/02/09/f85b29d6-ee11-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-security-adviser-flynn-discussed-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador-despite-denials-officials-say/2017/02/09/f85b29d6-ee11-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?)

The Post got a whopping nine current + former intelligence officials to confirm this. We already knew that Flynn had called the Russian 5 times the day the new sanctions were announced, but he, Pence, Priebus, Conway, etc, all denied they spoke about the sanctions, probably because doing so was likely illegal.

Flynn's now walking back his denial, and Pence's people are claiming he based his denials on what Flynn told him, which would mean he lied to the VP too.  Remember Flynn is already under investigation due to taking money to criticize US foreign policy on the Russia Today network, and attending a Russian state dinner seated next to Putin.



Meanwhile, the President repeated unfounded claims of massive voter fraud in a meeting with Senate Dems, claiming he and Kelly Ayotte would've won in New Hampshire if not for "thousands of illegal voters bused in from Massachusetts". If this is like past claims he probably got it from InfoWars. Let that sink in, again. The President of the United States is a delusional conspiracy theorist, and none of that is hyperbole.

This is a sidenote really, but no conclusive evidence has been presented of the alleged Russian interference. The wording of the bolded part is unfortunate.

And a bit ironic given that there is good evidence that the US has interfered with the elections of many other countries (including the Russian Federation- see 1996).

There's no evidence of direct interference with voting - and I don't think anyone's alleging it - but the DNC/Podesta hacks and the origination of fake news stories attacking Clinton and supporting Trump are extensively documented and supported by the intelligence community.

...literally while writing this it just broke that intelligence officials have corroborated some (SOME) of the dossier linking the Trump campaign to Russia.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/russia-dossier-update/index.html


Agreed on the second part, our hands aren't clean by any measure, but that doesn't mean we don't have any right to be upset or react to it. Especially everyday citizens who had nothing to do with those prior actions.

We've bombed plenty of countries, but it would be absurd to say this means we can't have any problem with being bombed. Just as Russia's interference this time doesn't mean they no longer can be angry about our actions in 96.  Every older society on Earth's been a party to atrocities big and small, that doesn't mean no one can ever oppose atrocity again.

The allegations about Russia and Wikileaks were widely known before the election.  I think they even came up during one of the debates.  There wasn't much concern before the election, however, because everyone assumed Hillary was going to win.  But after Trump won, Russia became the #1 instrument of denial in explaining Trump's victory as something other than a searing repudiation of our political status quo.  "Trump didn't win for any legitimate reason!  It was Russia!"

But there is no evidence that Russia had any influence at all on the election.  Furthermore, all indications are that the Wikileaks reports on Hillary and the Democrats were accurate and I think we need to be a little careful about being outraged because voters were exposed to the truth.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't be upset about Russia trying to interfere in our election, though we should be less sanctimonious about it.  Nor does it excuse any member of the Trump campaign if the violating the law or ethical standards.  But we can't let hysteria blind us to the real significance of President Trump.

Take this very subject.  Is Russia a bad actor in the world?  Yes.  But China is as bad or worse than Russia in almost every respect.  So why do we kiss China's butt while kicking Russia in the teeth?

The rise of Donald Trump is a reaction to very real and very important failures in American and global civilization and we know that because we can see similar reactions all around the world.  Trump isn't the problem.  He is the response to the problem.  Getting rid of Trump will not fix the problem and if we don't fix the problem, the responses are only going to get worse.

Mike

What tube will you be singing when Wikileaks releases Trump's tax returns and/or evidence to Trump's ties to Russia that potentially get him impreached and/or tried for treason? Because only someone who is blind can't see that that's coming next.

Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 11, 2017, 06:36:37 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4UmgUxUcAA0TzW.jpg:large)
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 11, 2017, 06:42:16 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4VowdlWQAAlvMk.jpg:large)

Nice work here.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Roy H. on February 11, 2017, 06:42:56 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4UmgUxUcAA0TzW.jpg:large)

I assume you were similarly upset about guarding Obama's family when they weren't at the White House? How many food stamp recipients could have been fed off of one of Michelle's European vacations?
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 11, 2017, 06:50:19 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4UmgUxUcAA0TzW.jpg:large)

I assume you were similarly upset about guarding Obama's family when they weren't at the White House? How many food stamp recipients could have been fed off of one of Michelle's European vacations?


Slightly different. I know the first family needs security, but the cost if doing it in their NY residence and in DC is insane.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 11, 2017, 06:52:54 PM
And i remember how much you were against "bought and paid for by wall street" hillary, so im assuming you are vocally criticizing the presence of so many goldman sachs bankers in trump's circle and the immediate plans to relax dodd-frank?
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: nickagneta on February 11, 2017, 07:10:26 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4UmgUxUcAA0TzW.jpg:large)

I assume you were similarly upset about guarding Obama's family when they weren't at the White House? How many food stamp recipients could have been fed off of one of Michelle's European vacations?


Slightly different. I know the first family needs security, but the cost if doing it in their NY residence and in DC is insane.
I think we can all agree that the cost of protecting members of the first family, whether Republican or Democrat, borders on the ridiculous. I do believe though that due to the extravagent lifestyle that the Trumps have always lived will cause the American taxpayers more money than most if not all Presidential families that preceded them.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 11, 2017, 07:28:15 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4VowdlWQAAlvMk.jpg:large)

Nice work here.

Yeah but not much will come of it.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Jon on February 11, 2017, 07:49:07 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4VowdlWQAAlvMk.jpg:large)

Nice work here.

Yeah but not much will come of it.

I'm just curious how anyone can keep defending a man who is clearly a pathological liar.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 11, 2017, 08:09:12 PM
It will be interesting (or scary) to see Trump's reaction to the No. Korean ballistic missile test -- which comes on the heel of Trump's taunt that North Korea would not launch an intercontinental missile (while this was not).   While the missile launch was not the type Trump asserted "will not happen", it seems possible this is a message to Trump.  It is true that these tests have occurred early in both of Obama's terms and during Bush's presidency, but the timing following Trump's sandbox dare can't be ignored -- whether or not it was in direct response.   Does Trump follow this with Trump bully bravado, with ignoring, or with strategic and measured response.  Kim Jong Un is precisely the type of irrational and dangerous leader who will be glad to get into a dangerous childish fight with Trump. 
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 12, 2017, 02:51:03 PM
Matthew Yglesias with the good point here:

Quote
The President's habit of staying every weekend at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Florida must be a windfall for whoever owns the club.

(Also ironic because trump tweeted criticisms if obama playing too much golf while president).


But, dont want to miss this super reassuring sentiment:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4euLPfWMAAJ8nK?format=jpg&name=large)


And this is great too:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4e0YwgXAAAWqGL.jpg:large)


(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4e0YwwWAAEwtNd.jpg:large)



 
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 12, 2017, 08:52:29 PM
Matthew Yglesias with the good point here:

Quote
The President's habit of staying every weekend at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Florida must be a windfall for whoever owns the club.

(Also ironic because trump tweeted criticisms if obama playing too much golf while president).


But, dont want to miss this super reassuring sentiment:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4euLPfWMAAJ8nK?format=jpg&name=large)


And this is great too:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4e0YwgXAAAWqGL.jpg:large)


(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4e0YwwWAAEwtNd.jpg:large)

Stephen Miller is continuing to gain traction as a highly influentual advisor to the POTUS- - on par with Bannon.   Just saw his Meet the Press performancefrom this morning.  Hard line for sure.

Miller is 31.   There are some amazing 31 year olds who build businesses, lead companies, lead movements.  But I am dubious of any 31 year old having the life experience and perspective-taking to be a wise, reliable "Hand" of the President.   

Stephen Miller is an extreme ideologue -- an apt description as his experience is primarily as a conservative operative for Michele Bachman and Jeff Sessions, frequent fiery conservative radio-talk guest, an avowed American nationalist, and anti-immigrationist who is likely the primary author and promoter of the travel ban exec order.   

Miller has been a loud, angry anti-leftist ideologue since high school.  I am not a fan of any extremists (including Liz Warren and Bernie), and I am even more fearful of extremists who constantly display knee-jerk aggression toward "the other side".   Miller does not appear to be a compromiser, a pragmatist or a voice of reason in the POTUS's ear, but a lock-step partner for Steve Bannon.  Together they are going to try their level best to squeeze every last minute out their extraordinary opportunity for power.  And they are both brilliant enough and apparently persuasive enough to change the world at the cost of our values.

Moderate and pragmatic Republicans, Independents and Democrates need to voice the concerns that I hope we all have.   Not by silly and unnecessary obstruction (for crying out loud, Gorsuch is qualified), but by making "red" district congressmen fear the mid-term elections.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 12, 2017, 09:18:34 PM
This is going to be an interesting week. We could see a new version of a travel ban. We could see the firing of Mike Flynn. We could see a response to N. Korea.....
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: greece666 on February 13, 2017, 09:47:03 AM
Everything you just said about Russia Today is what my current understanding is.

This isn't RT directly, but did you see this? Barely covered in US media.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/27/mystery-death-ex-kgb-chief-linked-mi6-spys-dossier-donald-trump/

A Russian official, whose profile is consistent with the description of a major source in the dossier was found dead in the back of his car. Officially died of a "heart attack" but was taken to an FSB facility for the autopsy, so no corroboration. Shady as hell.

Oleg Erovinkin was found dead on December 26. The news was originally reported on Russian media (https://www.znak.com/2016-12-26/glava_apparata_igorya_sechina_nayden_mertvym_v_mashine_v_centre_moskvy) in a matter of fact way.

In a press service, the Ministry of Internal Affairs stated that "according to the preliminary data, the man died of acute heart failure". Source (http://www.rbc.ru/business/26/12/2016/586120669a794772c121a7bb)

Then, Christo Grozev resurrected the story as a spy thriller movie through a blog. It is from there that  The Telegraph gathered the story and published it - a whole month after it happened. The only expert cited in the article (Marc Galleoti) dismisses this interpretation.

I can go on, but I hope it is clear by now we are not discussing Erovinkin but the omnipotent Putin who assassinates ex-associates in downtown Moscow never leaving a trace behind him.

 



Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 13, 2017, 01:15:10 PM
Everything you just said about Russia Today is what my current understanding is.

This isn't RT directly, but did you see this? Barely covered in US media.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/27/mystery-death-ex-kgb-chief-linked-mi6-spys-dossier-donald-trump/

A Russian official, whose profile is consistent with the description of a major source in the dossier was found dead in the back of his car. Officially died of a "heart attack" but was taken to an FSB facility for the autopsy, so no corroboration. Shady as hell.

Oleg Erovinkin was found dead on December 26.

Yes, that's in the 2nd paragraph.

Quote
The news was originally reported on Russian media in a matter of fact way.

6th paragraph.

Quote
In a press service, the Ministry of Internal Affairs stated that "according to the preliminary data, the man died of acute heart failure". Source (http://www.rbc.ru/business/26/12/2016/586120669a794772c121a7bb)

8th. And again, zero independent corroboration. Source is in Cyrillic so I can't see any additional info it might provide, though.

Quote
Then, Christo Grozev resurrected the story as a spy thriller movie through a blog. It is from there that  The Telegraph gathered the story and published it - a whole month after it happened.

The reason it was more widely reported a month later is because the dossier was not public knowledge at the time of Erovinkin's death. As the possible identity of sources in the documents were investigated, some were led to Erovinkin and the circumstances of his death.

Quote
The only expert cited in the article (Marc Galleoti) dismisses this interpretation.

This is very fair - all indications of foul play are purely circumstantial, though an independent autopsy could certainly help clear the air. Although being assassinated by having polonium dropped in your tea is also an "airport thriller murder", and yet... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko) (Steele also worked that case BTW).

Quote
I can go on, but I hope it is clear by now we are not discussing Erovinkin but the omnipotent Putin who assassinates ex-associates in downtown Moscow never leaving a trace behind him.

If one doesn't want people assuming troublesome ex-associates who abruptly turned up dead might've been murdered, then they shouldn't have accumulated a history of murdering troublesome ex-associates.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 13, 2017, 01:25:46 PM
More directly on topic, after a campaign whose primary attack line involved security of classified info, the President responded to a North Korean missile launch by holding an impromptu strategy session with the Japanese PM in the middle of a public dining room, with smartphone flashlights (!!) used for illumination of documents.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/13/trump-ran-a-campaign-based-on-intelligence-security-thats-not-how-hes-governing/? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/13/trump-ran-a-campaign-based-on-intelligence-security-thats-not-how-hes-governing/?)

The dining room was of course at a Trump-owned resort, which he has been promoting as the "Winter White House" and, in a total coincidence, just doubled its membership fees.

Regardless, I'm not going to pretend to be a national security expert, but this seems like an egregious security lapse - even if other diners couldn't hear what was discussed, directly or indirectly, the staff tending to dinner almost certainly got close enough, and unless those phones were all secure devices (we know Trump's personal Tweeting phone is not), they provide another vulnerable point of access. Flashlight apps in particular have been repeatedly exploited for surveillance in the past. I'd like to believe precautions were taken on that front, but with this bunch it seems a lot more dubious.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: indeedproceed on February 13, 2017, 01:26:54 PM
If one doesn't want people assuming troublesome ex-associates who abruptly turned up dead might've been murdered, then they shouldn't have accumulated a history of murdering troublesome ex-associates.

Words for everyone to live by, to be sure.

I mean, it's tough to contain the skepticism and cynicism regarding Putin's regime when their defense is, 'What, so now I'm to blame everytime one of my rivals mysteriously and suddenly winds up dead?'

I mean...yah. Ya are.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 13, 2017, 01:34:37 PM
If one doesn't want people assuming troublesome ex-associates who abruptly turned up dead might've been murdered, then they shouldn't have accumulated a history of murdering troublesome ex-associates.

Words for everyone to live by, to be sure.

I mean, it's tough to contain the skepticism and cynicism regarding Putin's regime when their defense is, 'What, so now I'm to blame everytime one of my rivals mysteriously and suddenly winds up dead?'

I mean...yah. Ya are.

I agree (obviously). It's certainly possible that this death wasn't related to Putin either in terms of the cause of death or the possible link to the dossier. It definitely wouldn't hold up in court. But Putin's done absolutely nothing to earn the benefit of the doubt on either count.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 13, 2017, 01:40:18 PM
Quote
In a press service, the Ministry of Internal Affairs stated that "according to the preliminary data, the man died of acute heart failure". Source (http://www.rbc.ru/business/26/12/2016/586120669a794772c121a7bb)

8th. And again, zero independent corroboration. Source is in Cyrillic so I can't see any additional info it might provide, though.
There is really no additional information. There is no other information on COD other than what comes to FSB, and the FSB had taken the body in for autopsy, so there's that. It is mentioned that there was an ambulance there which established he's dead, so perhaps the preliminary diagnosis comes from them.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: slamtheking on February 13, 2017, 01:47:29 PM
More directly on topic, after a campaign whose primary attack line involved security of classified info, the President responded to a North Korean missile launch by holding an impromptu strategy session with the Japanese PM in the middle of a public dining room, with smartphone flashlights (!!) used for illumination of documents.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/13/trump-ran-a-campaign-based-on-intelligence-security-thats-not-how-hes-governing/? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/13/trump-ran-a-campaign-based-on-intelligence-security-thats-not-how-hes-governing/?)

The dining room was of course at a Trump-owned resort, which he has been promoting as the "Winter White House" and, in a total coincidence, just doubled its membership fees.

Regardless, I'm not going to pretend to be a national security expert, but this seems like an egregious security lapse - even if other diners couldn't hear what was discussed, directly or indirectly, the staff tending to dinner almost certainly got close enough, and unless those phones were all secure devices (we know Trump's personal Tweeting phone is not), they provide another vulnerable point of access. Flashlight apps in particular have been repeatedly exploited for surveillance in the past. I'd like to believe precautions were taken on that front, but with this bunch it seems a lot more dubious.
well thank god he wasn't using a private email server or there'd have to be a grand inquisition!!   ::)
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: indeedproceed on February 13, 2017, 01:49:34 PM
Question for the masses: Did the SNL Kellyanne Conway as Fatal Attraction (named 'Jake Tapper' on youtube if you're looking for it) sketch go too far?

My thoughts: Almost. I think it was over-the-top enough to not portray Conway as lusting after anything but camera-time, and made that clear, but I already have a pretty poor opinion of Conway, so I'm kind of who the sketch was for.

They have to be careful though. Showing Conway as character who is pathetic and lu****l from an inherently sexist movie...just maybe flying too close to the sun. I still think their best KAC sketch was "Day Off".
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Donoghus on February 13, 2017, 01:53:08 PM
Question for the masses: Did the SNL Kellyanne Conway as Fatal Attraction (named 'Jake Tapper' on youtube if you're looking for it) sketch go too far?

My thoughts: Almost. I think it was over-the-top enough to not portray Conway as lusting after anything but camera-time, and made that clear, but I already have a pretty poor opinion of Conway, so I'm kind of who the sketch was for.

They have to be careful though. Showing Conway as character who is pathetic and lu****l from an inherently sexist movie...just maybe flying too close to the sun. I still think their best KAC sketch was "Day Off".

Dark.  Really dark for SNL.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: slamtheking on February 13, 2017, 02:04:50 PM
Question for the masses: Did the SNL Kellyanne Conway as Fatal Attraction (named 'Jake Tapper' on youtube if you're looking for it) sketch go too far?

My thoughts: Almost. I think it was over-the-top enough to not portray Conway as lusting after anything but camera-time, and made that clear, but I already have a pretty poor opinion of Conway, so I'm kind of who the sketch was for.

They have to be careful though. Showing Conway as character who is pathetic and lu****l from an inherently sexist movie...just maybe flying too close to the sun. I still think their best KAC sketch was "Day Off".

Dark.  Really dark for SNL.
it was eh.  didn't hit the mark on KAC as most of the skits have in the past. 
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Roy H. on February 13, 2017, 02:59:35 PM
More directly on topic, after a campaign whose primary attack line involved security of classified info, the President responded to a North Korean missile launch by holding an impromptu strategy session with the Japanese PM in the middle of a public dining room, with smartphone flashlights (!!) used for illumination of documents.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/13/trump-ran-a-campaign-based-on-intelligence-security-thats-not-how-hes-governing/? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/13/trump-ran-a-campaign-based-on-intelligence-security-thats-not-how-hes-governing/?)

The dining room was of course at a Trump-owned resort, which he has been promoting as the "Winter White House" and, in a total coincidence, just doubled its membership fees.

Regardless, I'm not going to pretend to be a national security expert, but this seems like an egregious security lapse - even if other diners couldn't hear what was discussed, directly or indirectly, the staff tending to dinner almost certainly got close enough, and unless those phones were all secure devices (we know Trump's personal Tweeting phone is not), they provide another vulnerable point of access. Flashlight apps in particular have been repeatedly exploited for surveillance in the past. I'd like to believe precautions were taken on that front, but with this bunch it seems a lot more dubious.

Yeah, having pictures of the nuclear football posted on Facebook by random diners is a little unsettling.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: slamtheking on February 13, 2017, 03:11:30 PM
More directly on topic, after a campaign whose primary attack line involved security of classified info, the President responded to a North Korean missile launch by holding an impromptu strategy session with the Japanese PM in the middle of a public dining room, with smartphone flashlights (!!) used for illumination of documents.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/13/trump-ran-a-campaign-based-on-intelligence-security-thats-not-how-hes-governing/? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/13/trump-ran-a-campaign-based-on-intelligence-security-thats-not-how-hes-governing/?)

The dining room was of course at a Trump-owned resort, which he has been promoting as the "Winter White House" and, in a total coincidence, just doubled its membership fees.

Regardless, I'm not going to pretend to be a national security expert, but this seems like an egregious security lapse - even if other diners couldn't hear what was discussed, directly or indirectly, the staff tending to dinner almost certainly got close enough, and unless those phones were all secure devices (we know Trump's personal Tweeting phone is not), they provide another vulnerable point of access. Flashlight apps in particular have been repeatedly exploited for surveillance in the past. I'd like to believe precautions were taken on that front, but with this bunch it seems a lot more dubious.

Yeah, having pictures of the nuclear football posted on Facebook by random diners is a little unsettling.
just a general question:
Was this a worse breach of security than using a private email server or better yet, was electing someone this reckless with national security worth getting that conservative on the supreme court?
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: wdleehi on February 13, 2017, 03:13:28 PM
One whole day!   


That's all I want.


One whole day without something new that makes me shake my head.  (and I don't care about spelling errors)
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Roy H. on February 13, 2017, 03:29:22 PM
More directly on topic, after a campaign whose primary attack line involved security of classified info, the President responded to a North Korean missile launch by holding an impromptu strategy session with the Japanese PM in the middle of a public dining room, with smartphone flashlights (!!) used for illumination of documents.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/13/trump-ran-a-campaign-based-on-intelligence-security-thats-not-how-hes-governing/? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/13/trump-ran-a-campaign-based-on-intelligence-security-thats-not-how-hes-governing/?)

The dining room was of course at a Trump-owned resort, which he has been promoting as the "Winter White House" and, in a total coincidence, just doubled its membership fees.

Regardless, I'm not going to pretend to be a national security expert, but this seems like an egregious security lapse - even if other diners couldn't hear what was discussed, directly or indirectly, the staff tending to dinner almost certainly got close enough, and unless those phones were all secure devices (we know Trump's personal Tweeting phone is not), they provide another vulnerable point of access. Flashlight apps in particular have been repeatedly exploited for surveillance in the past. I'd like to believe precautions were taken on that front, but with this bunch it seems a lot more dubious.

Yeah, having pictures of the nuclear football posted on Facebook by random diners is a little unsettling.
just a general question:
Was this a worse breach of security than using a private email server or better yet, was electing someone this reckless with national security worth getting that conservative on the supreme court?

I'll still take Gorsuch, yeah.

Trump's carelessness doesn't forgive Hillary's, either. I do enjoy that many liberals now have a newfound appreciation for keeping national security communications, however.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 13, 2017, 03:45:31 PM
If a waiter at Mar-a-Lago leaked exposed classified info and Trump was impeached for it, would this be remembered as the election both candidates were brought down by private servers?  ;D
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Redz on February 13, 2017, 03:51:47 PM
If a waiter at Mar-a-Lago leaked exposed classified info and Trump was impeached for it, would this be remembered as the election both candidates were brought down by private servers?  ;D

Hey ooooooo! 

I heard the waiter received an anonymous "tip"
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: indeedproceed on February 13, 2017, 03:57:31 PM
If a waiter at Mar-a-Lago leaked exposed classified info and Trump was impeached for it, would this be remembered as the election both candidates were brought down by private servers?  ;D

This deserves the tommy points it gets.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 13, 2017, 04:00:03 PM
More directly on topic, after a campaign whose primary attack line involved security of classified info, the President responded to a North Korean missile launch by holding an impromptu strategy session with the Japanese PM in the middle of a public dining room, with smartphone flashlights (!!) used for illumination of documents.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/13/trump-ran-a-campaign-based-on-intelligence-security-thats-not-how-hes-governing/? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/13/trump-ran-a-campaign-based-on-intelligence-security-thats-not-how-hes-governing/?)

The dining room was of course at a Trump-owned resort, which he has been promoting as the "Winter White House" and, in a total coincidence, just doubled its membership fees.

Regardless, I'm not going to pretend to be a national security expert, but this seems like an egregious security lapse - even if other diners couldn't hear what was discussed, directly or indirectly, the staff tending to dinner almost certainly got close enough, and unless those phones were all secure devices (we know Trump's personal Tweeting phone is not), they provide another vulnerable point of access. Flashlight apps in particular have been repeatedly exploited for surveillance in the past. I'd like to believe precautions were taken on that front, but with this bunch it seems a lot more dubious.

Yeah, having pictures of the nuclear football posted on Facebook by random diners is a little unsettling.
just a general question:
Was this a worse breach of security than using a private email server or better yet, was electing someone this reckless with national security worth getting that conservative on the supreme court?

I'll still take Gorsuch, yeah.

Trump's carelessness doesn't forgive Hillary's, either. I do enjoy that many liberals now have a newfound appreciation for keeping national security communications, however.

Some liberals didn't pay much attention to Hillary's foolish and potentially dangerous email mistake, but others have been quite distressed by her lack of common sense.  But no evidence that I am aware of that there was an actual security breach with regard to Hillary's emails.

 It will be enjoyable to watch conservatives rangle over potential hypocracies about national security communications concerns. I am expecting Trey Gowdy to schedule hearings re: Flynn's Russia communications any day now.... ?

Requisite snarkiness aside, I think Congress should absolutely, and swiftly, approve Gorsuch (unless there is a skeleton I don't know of).  I do not think obstructing qualified nominees or delaying reasonable legislation is helpful to America in the name of party pettiness.  Republican obstruction is over, I hope Dems do not follow their model.  Accept deregulation, tax cuts and qualified nominees -- this is what America voted for.. 

Where national security is concerned, this president has  not earned trust and his key advisors are extremists who need to be watched - congress needs to be cautious about following Trump's lead. Frankly, moderate repubs need to be loud voices of concern re: Miller/Bannon/Flynn. 

I think there is growing consensus that the ACA should not be repealed without a comprehensive replacement, and I think there WILL be consensus that a Mex-USA Wall at USA expense is untenable and not the most effective strategy for reducing undocumented immigration.   
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 13, 2017, 04:06:57 PM
I'll still take Gorsuch, yeah.
Roy, we all know a large swat of Republicans sold their souls for that SCOTUS seat. The only thing this means is that you will have to (a) live with yourselves, and (b) own up to everything that comes packaged up with it.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Roy H. on February 13, 2017, 04:15:37 PM
I'll still take Gorsuch, yeah.
Roy, we all know a large swat of Republicans sold their souls for that SCOTUS seat. The only thing this means is that you will have to (a) live with yourselves, and (b) own up to everything that comes packaged up with it.

True. At the same time, I think Hillary would have done her own brand of damage to the country, so I'll live with the consequences, while hoping that Trump resigns.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: slamtheking on February 13, 2017, 04:38:20 PM
If a waiter at Mar-a-Lago leaked exposed classified info and Trump was impeached for it, would this be remembered as the election both candidates were brought down by private servers?  ;D
ooooh  SNAP!  TP!
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: slamtheking on February 13, 2017, 04:43:10 PM
More directly on topic, after a campaign whose primary attack line involved security of classified info, the President responded to a North Korean missile launch by holding an impromptu strategy session with the Japanese PM in the middle of a public dining room, with smartphone flashlights (!!) used for illumination of documents.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/13/trump-ran-a-campaign-based-on-intelligence-security-thats-not-how-hes-governing/? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/13/trump-ran-a-campaign-based-on-intelligence-security-thats-not-how-hes-governing/?)

The dining room was of course at a Trump-owned resort, which he has been promoting as the "Winter White House" and, in a total coincidence, just doubled its membership fees.

Regardless, I'm not going to pretend to be a national security expert, but this seems like an egregious security lapse - even if other diners couldn't hear what was discussed, directly or indirectly, the staff tending to dinner almost certainly got close enough, and unless those phones were all secure devices (we know Trump's personal Tweeting phone is not), they provide another vulnerable point of access. Flashlight apps in particular have been repeatedly exploited for surveillance in the past. I'd like to believe precautions were taken on that front, but with this bunch it seems a lot more dubious.

Yeah, having pictures of the nuclear football posted on Facebook by random diners is a little unsettling.
just a general question:
Was this a worse breach of security than using a private email server or better yet, was electing someone this reckless with national security worth getting that conservative on the supreme court?

I'll still take Gorsuch, yeah.

Trump's carelessness doesn't forgive Hillary's, either. I do enjoy that many liberals now have a newfound appreciation for keeping national security communications, however.
not sure if you think I'm a liberal by making that comment but for the record, I'm not.

saw it for what it was  -- a careless mistake that didn't compromise national security.  the fact she could be that foolish about emails throughout the campaign just had me shaking my head.  that said, it pales in comparison to the comments and actions of the horse's ass that's in the white house now and really pales in comparison to the wholesale destruction of the country he's trying to impose as dictator.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: KGs Knee on February 13, 2017, 05:10:22 PM
This does have me a bit disturbed.

People are illegally crossing into Canada, in dangerous conditions no less, and Canadians are being denied entrance to the US.  It seems Trump's policies, or instructions to departments he is in charge of, are even going to strain relations with our friendly neighbor to the north.

Not good.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/increasing-numbers-of-muslim-migrants-trek-north-to-canada-sometimes-through-freezing-temperatures-and-snow/ar-AAmSMEd?OCID=ansmsnnews11
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Roy H. on February 13, 2017, 05:12:47 PM
This does have me a bit disturbed.

People are illegally crossing into Canada, in dangerous conditions no less, and Canadians are being denied entrance to the US.  It seems Trump's policies, or instructions to departments he is in charge of, are even going to strain relations with our friendly neighbor to the north.

Not good.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/increasing-numbers-of-muslim-migrants-trek-north-to-canada-sometimes-through-freezing-temperatures-and-snow/ar-AAmSMEd?OCID=ansmsnnews11

Honestly, I've got no problem with people leaving America for Canada, whatever their reason. If it's a Refugee from Ghana who was denied asylum by the Obama administration, I have a hard time feeling like America somehow wronged him.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Vermont Green on February 13, 2017, 05:24:30 PM
Quote
(CNN)President Donald Trump's approval rating reached a new low Saturday, according to a poll from Gallup, as the new administration has struggled to find its footing nearly a month into the term.

The daily tracking poll found that just 40% of Americans approve of President Trump's job as president so far, compared to 55% who say the disapprove. The negative 15-point spread is the highest recorded in the poll since Trump took office January 20.

Trump's approval rating has hovered in the mid-to-low 40s since the second week of his presidency, but the new poll suggests growing dissatisfaction with his performance amid the chaotic rollout of his controversial travel ban and a series of divisive Cabinet confirmation fights.  Trump's low approval rating is atypical for a new president. Former presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton all enjoyed approval ratings in the high 50s in Gallup tracking polls during the early months of their administrations.

Gallup's presidential approval is based on telephone interviews over a three-day time period, a rolling average of approximately 1,500 US adults daily, and has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.

I see some more "Fake News" tweets in our near future.  "So-Called" pollster Gallup is a horrible organization, not goodly at all.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 13, 2017, 05:38:19 PM
I do enjoy that many liberals now have a newfound appreciation for keeping national security communications, however.

Excellent point. Doesn't excuse Trump, of course, but we should all be more consistent.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 13, 2017, 05:43:15 PM
Trump ally Grassley takes to Twitter to try to get heard by Trump:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/13/key-senate-ally-grassley-takes-on-trump-white-house-in-twitter-rant.html
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: KGs Knee on February 13, 2017, 05:43:55 PM
This does have me a bit disturbed.

People are illegally crossing into Canada, in dangerous conditions no less, and Canadians are being denied entrance to the US.  It seems Trump's policies, or instructions to departments he is in charge of, are even going to strain relations with our friendly neighbor to the north.

Not good.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/increasing-numbers-of-muslim-migrants-trek-north-to-canada-sometimes-through-freezing-temperatures-and-snow/ar-AAmSMEd?OCID=ansmsnnews11

Honestly, I've got no problem with people leaving America for Canada, whatever their reason. If it's a Refugee from Ghana who was denied asylum by the Obama administration, I have a hard time feeling like America somehow wronged him.

Well, there were multiple thing going on in that article.

I don't feel terrible that the man was denied asylum, my guess is he didn't meet the requirements for such status, and I didn't see where there was any mention of how he got here in the first place.  I feel terrible for him that he felt compelled to risk his life to avoid being sent back somewhere he might very well be in danger, especially if Canada is (seemingly) so willing to accept such a person.  There had to be a better resolution.

I don't like that seemingly perfectly law-abiding Canadians citizens are being denied entrance for highly questionable reasons.  It's bad for relations, and questionable ethically.  I also don't like that we are making other people not want to come here (and spend their money) out of protest.

Neither of those are good "things".

I did agree with this statement in the article I posted, though, as re-iterated by a student denied entrance;  "I was told it’s a privilege for people from other countries to come to the United States and that privilege can be taken away at any time".  Of course it is a privilege, not a right, to come to this country.  But denying that privilege for shoddy reasons is not okay.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 13, 2017, 06:08:15 PM
I'll still take Gorsuch, yeah.
Roy, we all know a large swat of Republicans sold their souls for that SCOTUS seat. The only thing this means is that you will have to (a) live with yourselves, and (b) own up to everything that comes packaged up with it.

True. At the same time, I think Hillary would have done her own brand of damage to the country, so I'll live with the consequences, while hoping that Trump resigns.

We actually have something that many conservatives, moderates and liberals may be able to agree on that could turn our divisiveness into unity:  The hope that Trump resigns.

 I consider myself (if I had to generalize my variable views) a slightly left of center moderate.  Mike Pence is someone I disagree with on most issues -- vehemently on some.  Yet, the idea that Mike Pence could take over from Trump, and soon, is a calming thought.  A Trump resignation would be the best answer to everything.  I'll gladly take 3 years of Pence -- and I'd vow to encourage democrats to support the new POTUS, despite my disagreements with him.  That is how badly I think we have erred as a country by electing DJT and the extremist henchmen he has brought in with him.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: feckless on February 13, 2017, 06:22:50 PM
Why is there no discussion that when Flynn reached out to the Russians, concerning Russia sitting tight and not retaliating against the Obama sanctions, that he may have done so with Trumps direction or permission?  And if so, did he subsequently decide to lie about it on his own?

I have seen no indication that this happened but it seems as plausible as his doing it completely of his own volition.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Jon on February 13, 2017, 06:33:10 PM
I'll still take Gorsuch, yeah.
Roy, we all know a large swat of Republicans sold their souls for that SCOTUS seat. The only thing this means is that you will have to (a) live with yourselves, and (b) own up to everything that comes packaged up with it.

True. At the same time, I think Hillary would have done her own brand of damage to the country, so I'll live with the consequences, while hoping that Trump resigns.

We actually have something that many conservatives, moderates and liberals may be able to agree on that could turn our divisiveness into unity:  The hope that Trump resigns.

 I consider myself (if I had to generalize my variable views) a slightly left of center moderate.  Mike Pence is someone I disagree with on most issues -- vehemently on some.  Yet, the idea that Mike Pence could take over from Trump, and soon, is a calming thought.  A Trump resignation would be the best answer to everything.  I'll gladly take 3 years of Pence -- and I'd vow to encourage democrats to support the new POTUS, despite my disagreements with him.  That is how badly I think we have erred as a country by electing DJT and the extremist henchmen he has brought in with him.

But doesn't Pence deserve the country's disdain for agreeing to be part of this national travesty? At best, it shows him to be an opportunist who puts aside his own values and dignity for political gain. At worst it shows a man completely without integrity or principle that believes the nonsense coming out of Trump's mouth.

I think the Republicans who have supported Trump need to be punished politically. Most had the decency and patriotism to declare him unfit for office before the election. But most of that majority has completely fallen away and either support the lies and lunacy of Trump or passively allow him to get away with it.

Everyone should realize that the history books are going to look back on Trump as a stain on this nation. Anyone going along with him deserves to forever be linked to him.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: indeedproceed on February 13, 2017, 06:38:39 PM
Pence is complicit and deserves any spare contempt and disdain you can ship his way, but no way is he worse than Trump. Even a bigot like Pence doesn't have half the narcissism that Trump has. You need that narcissism to be the particular brand of disaster that Donald Trump has been and will continue to be.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Jon on February 13, 2017, 06:47:51 PM
Pence is complicit and deserves any spare contempt and disdain you can ship his way, but no way is he worse than Trump. Even a bigot like Pence doesn't have half the narcissism that Trump has. You need that narcissism to be the particular brand of disaster that Donald Trump has been and will continue to be.

I agree. I just think Pence shouldn't get a free pass if he becomes President. He was complicit in allowing this train wreck to happen.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: nickagneta on February 13, 2017, 07:12:53 PM
Pence is complicit and deserves any spare contempt and disdain you can ship his way, but no way is he worse than Trump. Even a bigot like Pence doesn't have half the narcissism that Trump has. You need that narcissism to be the particular brand of disaster that Donald Trump has been and will continue to be.

I agree. I just think Pence shouldn't get a free pass if he becomes President. He was complicit in allowing this train wreck to happen.
There's about 50 million Americans who are complicit in allowing this train wreck to happen.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: indeedproceed on February 13, 2017, 07:23:04 PM
Pence is complicit and deserves any spare contempt and disdain you can ship his way, but no way is he worse than Trump. Even a bigot like Pence doesn't have half the narcissism that Trump has. You need that narcissism to be the particular brand of disaster that Donald Trump has been and will continue to be.

I agree. I just think Pence shouldn't get a free pass if he becomes President. He was complicit in allowing this train wreck to happen.
There's about 50 million Americans who are complicit in allowing this train wreck to happen.

Fair. But probably not productive.

We're basically like one of those groups of people who are locked in a 'escape room' and not having any fun (so, people who decided to go to an escape room). Some of the people decided to go and the rest of the group wasn't able to convince them to see deadpool. If all the people who wanted to see deadpool do is sit and complain about how dumb the people who wanted to do the escape room are, you'll never get out of that room, let alone make it to deadpool.

No you need everyone to stop telling each other they're stupid and unite to get out of the puzzle room first. The autopsy of the decision making process can wait, along with the blame.

Destiny mall in Syracuse was my Waterloo. I never did get to see deadpool. That day anyways.

Edit: But this is also the same guy who argued that voting for Trump meant you were at least tolerant of some pretty terrible parts of his platform/tent so...
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: KGs Knee on February 13, 2017, 07:32:31 PM
Pence is complicit and deserves any spare contempt and disdain you can ship his way, but no way is he worse than Trump. Even a bigot like Pence doesn't have half the narcissism that Trump has. You need that narcissism to be the particular brand of disaster that Donald Trump has been and will continue to be.

I agree. I just think Pence shouldn't get a free pass if he becomes President. He was complicit in allowing this train wreck to happen.
There's about 50 million Americans who are complicit in allowing this train wreck to happen.

One could also say those that voted for Hillary in the primary are equally responsible for allowing Trump to happen.  The Dems had a chance to give the country someone other than non-democratic-lifers could live with as an alternative to Trump, and failed.

I think a lot of people just felt they had no other option than to vote for Trump.  That's sad, for a variety of reasons.

The blame train is large enough for everyone, in some capacity.  Some would say 3rd party votes are to blame, though I disagree.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 13, 2017, 07:42:30 PM
You can definitely fault Hillary's campaign for incompetence, hubris, etc., but I have a very hard time with any argument that suggests that everyday people who didn't vote for a candidate have as much or more responsibility for their win as people who did.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 13, 2017, 07:48:52 PM
Pence is complicit and deserves any spare contempt and disdain you can ship his way, but no way is he worse than Trump. Even a bigot like Pence doesn't have half the narcissism that Trump has. You need that narcissism to be the particular brand of disaster that Donald Trump has been and will continue to be.

I agree. I just think Pence shouldn't get a free pass if he becomes President. He was complicit in allowing this train wreck to happen.

The left and right have been in the mud fighting for a while now --getting very little done in a bipartisan, balanced way.  Spewing venom and divisiveness. As a result of all the childish squbbling, we've elected a 70 year old child as POTUS.  We've all made a big mistake -- including the Dems   who coronated the wildly unpopular Hillary with her only competition a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist.   We are all complicit.

Pence is one of my least favorite republicans and he is certainly complicit in promotung the administration's policies. But....

If I had a miracle to cash in, it would be that Trump would resign tomorrow and he'd  take his extremist brain-trust with him.  As much as I find some of Pence's views abhorrent, I trust him more than I trust DJT to get us safely to 2020.

Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: KGs Knee on February 13, 2017, 07:52:02 PM
You can definitely fault Hillary's campaign for incompetence, hubris, etc., but I have a very hard time with any argument that suggests that everyday people who didn't vote for a candidate have as much or more responsibility for their win as people who did.

I understand where you are coming from there.  But going forward, if the Democrats don't put forward a better candidate and put forward a more moderate platform don't be surprised if Trump somehow wins again.  Trump's win was as much about rejection of the Dems as it was support for the Reps.

I think the Democrats have been given an amazing opportunity to unite in the aftermath of Trump.  Question is, what will they do with this opportunity?  My money is on them squandering it, although I'd prefer to be wrong.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: 2short on February 13, 2017, 07:53:42 PM
Pence is complicit and deserves any spare contempt and disdain you can ship his way, but no way is he worse than Trump. Even a bigot like Pence doesn't have half the narcissism that Trump has. You need that narcissism to be the particular brand of disaster that Donald Trump has been and will continue to be.

I agree. I just think Pence shouldn't get a free pass if he becomes President. He was complicit in allowing this train wreck to happen.
There's about 50 million Americans who are complicit in allowing this train wreck to happen.

One could also say those that voted for Hillary in the primary are equally responsible for allowing Trump to happen.  The Dems had a chance to give the country someone other than non-democratic-lifers could live with as an alternative to Trump, and failed.

I think a lot of people just felt they had no other option than to vote for Trump.  That's sad, for a variety of reasons.

The blame train is large enough for everyone, in some capacity.  Some would say 3rd party votes are to blame, though I disagree.
You have to take into account the republican race, trump, bush, cruz, kasich etc.  Trump beat them out.  So when was it no other option than trump?  I'm an independant and would have gladly voted for kasich.  Yes cruz, trump rubio and carson are horrible choices.  But there were other people that could have been nominated by the republican party.  Can't blame hillary or 3rd party for that matter.  This wasn't Nader for a 3rd party nomination this was bad, worse, scary
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Jon on February 13, 2017, 09:00:58 PM
There's also a difference between relunctantly voting for Trump (which I still condemn) and agreeing to be that buffoon's Vice President. That fraud pretends to be a family man and aligns himself with the likes of Trump.  For that I think Mike Pence deserves the country's eternal scorn.

Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 13, 2017, 11:48:13 PM
Michael Flynn's just resigned, shortly after a story broke that the White House was told by the DoJ last month that he had been recorded talking sanctions and was potentially compromised. They continued to publicly deny it, and as recently as 2 days ago Trump claimed to have heard nothing about it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-warned-white-house-that-flynn-could-be-vulnerable-to-russian-blackmail-officials-say/2017/02/13/fc5dab88-f228-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-warned-white-house-that-flynn-could-be-vulnerable-to-russian-blackmail-officials-say/2017/02/13/fc5dab88-f228-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html?)

Flynn was a conspiracy nut who was leading "Lock her up" chants at the RNC. I'm glad he's gone, especially from such a sensitive spot. But now we need answers on how far this goes, and maybe finally the political spine to conduct a full-fledged, as nonpartisan as possible investigation of the administration's links to Russia.

At a minimum, we need to find out who was and wasn't aware Flynn was doing this. It's very unlikely he acted alone. And Flynn was talking to the same official during the campaign. If we recorded these calls, we may very well have those too.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: BDeCosta26 on February 14, 2017, 02:31:09 AM
You can definitely fault Hillary's campaign for incompetence, hubris, etc., but I have a very hard time with any argument that suggests that everyday people who didn't vote for a candidate have as much or more responsibility for their win as people who did.

I understand where you are coming from there.  But going forward, if the Democrats don't put forward a better candidate and put forward a more moderate platform don't be surprised if Trump somehow wins again.  Trump's win was as much about rejection of the Dems as it was support for the Reps.

I think the Democrats have been given an amazing opportunity to unite in the aftermath of Trump.  Question is, what will they do with this opportunity?  My money is on them squandering it, although I'd prefer to be wrong.

I'm not so sure Trump's election is a message to the D's that they need a more moderate platform. A self-described democratic socialist Jewish guy (who's been in DC forever) did extremely well with the "Brexit" states who gave Trump the election. His message resonated there, as it did with a large majority of young people.

Do democrats need to get away from "identity politics" and political correctness outrage? YES! 1000 times yes. But if anything, I think they need to make their appeal to the disparaged working class of Americans who feel like their standard of living has gotten worse and worse. Politically speaking (personal opinions aside), the best way for them to do that is for one, show that Trump has used his power to push policies that hurt them and two, use clear and simple messaging to champion working class friendly progressive policies (I.E. Support collective bargaining in new arenas, single payer or public option health care, paid parental and sick leave, closing tax loopholes for the rich, raising the minimum wage, truly affordable college/trade school programs, changing public assistance to help the working poor, etc.).

It may seem like we're more divided along party lines than ever before, and a lot of people surely are. But IMO, the lesson of this election was that the people who decide the elections (the "swing" voters who aren't strict D's or R's) are looking for someone who can help improve their quality of life. These people viewed Clinton (right or wrong) as one of the people responsible for lowering that quality of life in the 1st place. But a whole lot of them have major concerns about Trump as well. Articulating policies that are demonstrably good for that quality of life will win their votes. It doesn't matter much weather the person who's pushing them is a "moderate" or a "progressive", imo. Just as long as that person isn't Elizabeth Warren.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kraidstar on February 14, 2017, 03:11:34 AM
You can definitely fault Hillary's campaign for incompetence, hubris, etc., but I have a very hard time with any argument that suggests that everyday people who didn't vote for a candidate have as much or more responsibility for their win as people who did.

I understand where you are coming from there.  But going forward, if the Democrats don't put forward a better candidate and put forward a more moderate platform don't be surprised if Trump somehow wins again.  Trump's win was as much about rejection of the Dems as it was support for the Reps.

I think the Democrats have been given an amazing opportunity to unite in the aftermath of Trump.  Question is, what will they do with this opportunity?  My money is on them squandering it, although I'd prefer to be wrong.

I'm not so sure Trump's election is a message to the D's that they need a more moderate platform. A self-described democratic socialist Jewish guy (who's been in DC forever) did extremely well with the "Brexit" states who gave Trump the election. His message resonated there, as it did with a large majority of young people.

Do democrats need to get away from "identity politics" and political correctness outrage? YES! 1000 times yes. But if anything, I think they need to make their appeal to the disparaged working class of Americans who feel like their standard of living has gotten worse and worse. Politically speaking (personal opinions aside), the best way for them to do that is for one, show that Trump has used his power to push policies that hurt them and two, use clear and simple messaging to champion working class friendly progressive policies (I.E. Support collective bargaining in new arenas, single payer or public option health care, paid parental and sick leave, closing tax loopholes for the rich, raising the minimum wage, truly affordable college/trade school programs, changing public assistance to help the working poor, etc.).

It may seem like we're more divided along party lines than ever before, and a lot of people surely are. But IMO, the lesson of this election was that the people who decide the elections (the "swing" voters who aren't strict D's or R's) are looking for someone who can help improve their quality of life. These people viewed Clinton (right or wrong) as one of the people responsible for lowering that quality of life in the 1st place. But a whole lot of them have major concerns about Trump as well. Articulating policies that are demonstrably good for that quality of life will win their votes. It doesn't matter much weather the person who's pushing them is a "moderate" or a "progressive", imo. Just as long as that person isn't Elizabeth Warren.

TP, Agree wholeheartedly.

Rural white America is not doing well right now. They have seen their manufacturing jobs evaporate as companies move overseas, wages stagnate or drop as companies like Wal-Mart dominate employment.

Imagine a hard-working contractor who comes home after a long days' work. His joints ache. He is in general poor health because of the garbage food we've been brainwashed to eat, He can barely afford health care. He's making child support payments.

He turns on the TV to relax, then he sees some DB New York politician or Berkeley talking head on TV telling him that white men have it easy in this country.

Some certainly do - but for the majority of America right now it is not rosy.

As a Vermonter Bernie knows this, and this is why his message resonated. He was simply telling the truth.

But then Bernie gets undercut by the DNC in favor of Hillary, a true establishment figure who preaches constantly about feminism while staying with her philandering husband for political reasons - and suddenly Trump's rantings and hypocrisy seem a lot more palatable.

The outraged liberal city folk need to get with the program. Right or wrong, most people are not  captivated by the plight of transgender folks. Poor white people don't need to be reminded constantly of how blacks have it so much worse than them.

We need a more inclusive central message that focuses on how the wealthy are becoming ever more powerful as the rest of the country suffers, all the while trying to reduce their own tax burden and strip away social programs.

It was working for Bernie and it could work again.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 14, 2017, 07:05:47 AM
Michael Flynn's just resigned, shortly after a story broke that the White House was told by the DoJ last month that he had been recorded talking sanctions and was potentially compromised. They continued to publicly deny it, and as recently as 2 days ago Trump claimed to have heard nothing about it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-warned-white-house-that-flynn-could-be-vulnerable-to-russian-blackmail-officials-say/2017/02/13/fc5dab88-f228-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-warned-white-house-that-flynn-could-be-vulnerable-to-russian-blackmail-officials-say/2017/02/13/fc5dab88-f228-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html?)

Flynn was a conspiracy nut who was leading "Lock her up" chants at the RNC. I'm glad he's gone, especially from such a sensitive spot. But now we need answers on how far this goes, and maybe finally the political spine to conduct a full-fledged, as nonpartisan as possible investigation of the administration's links to Russia.

At a minimum, we need to find out who was and wasn't aware Flynn was doing this. It's very unlikely he acted alone. And Flynn was talking to the same official during the campaign. If we recorded these calls, we may very well have those too.

Good riddance to him and his son.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Big333223 on February 14, 2017, 07:26:47 AM
You can definitely fault Hillary's campaign for incompetence, hubris, etc., but I have a very hard time with any argument that suggests that everyday people who didn't vote for a candidate have as much or more responsibility for their win as people who did.

I understand where you are coming from there.  But going forward, if the Democrats don't put forward a better candidate and put forward a more moderate platform don't be surprised if Trump somehow wins again.  Trump's win was as much about rejection of the Dems as it was support for the Reps.

I think the Democrats have been given an amazing opportunity to unite in the aftermath of Trump.  Question is, what will they do with this opportunity?  My money is on them squandering it, although I'd prefer to be wrong.

I'm not so sure Trump's election is a message to the D's that they need a more moderate platform. A self-described democratic socialist Jewish guy (who's been in DC forever) did extremely well with the "Brexit" states who gave Trump the election. His message resonated there, as it did with a large majority of young people.

Do democrats need to get away from "identity politics" and political correctness outrage? YES! 1000 times yes. But if anything, I think they need to make their appeal to the disparaged working class of Americans who feel like their standard of living has gotten worse and worse. Politically speaking (personal opinions aside), the best way for them to do that is for one, show that Trump has used his power to push policies that hurt them and two, use clear and simple messaging to champion working class friendly progressive policies (I.E. Support collective bargaining in new arenas, single payer or public option health care, paid parental and sick leave, closing tax loopholes for the rich, raising the minimum wage, truly affordable college/trade school programs, changing public assistance to help the working poor, etc.).

It may seem like we're more divided along party lines than ever before, and a lot of people surely are. But IMO, the lesson of this election was that the people who decide the elections (the "swing" voters who aren't strict D's or R's) are looking for someone who can help improve their quality of life. These people viewed Clinton (right or wrong) as one of the people responsible for lowering that quality of life in the 1st place. But a whole lot of them have major concerns about Trump as well. Articulating policies that are demonstrably good for that quality of life will win their votes. It doesn't matter much weather the person who's pushing them is a "moderate" or a "progressive", imo. Just as long as that person isn't Elizabeth Warren.

TP, Agree wholeheartedly.

Rural white America is not doing well right now. They have seen their manufacturing jobs evaporate as companies move overseas, wages stagnate or drop as companies like Wal-Mart dominate employment.

Imagine a hard-working contractor who comes home after a long days' work. His joints ache. He is in general poor health because of the garbage food we've been brainwashed to eat, He can barely afford health care. He's making child support payments.

He turns on the TV to relax, then he sees some DB New York politician or Berkeley talking head on TV telling him that white men have it easy in this country.

Some certainly do - but for the majority of America right now it is not rosy.

As a Vermonter Bernie knows this, and this is why his message resonated. He was simply telling the truth.

But then Bernie gets undercut by the DNC in favor of Hillary, a true establishment figure who preaches constantly about feminism while staying with her philandering husband for political reasons - and suddenly Trump's rantings and hypocrisy seem a lot more palatable.

The outraged liberal city folk need to get with the program. Right or wrong, most people are not  captivated by the plight of transgender folks. Poor white people don't need to be reminded constantly of how blacks have it so much worse than them.

We need a more inclusive central message that focuses on how the wealthy are becoming ever more powerful as the rest of the country suffers, all the while trying to reduce their own tax burden and strip away social programs.

It was working for Bernie and it could work again.
This.

To me, Trump's win was as much a rebuke to Republicans as it was Democrats.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Surferdad on February 14, 2017, 07:27:30 AM
You can definitely fault Hillary's campaign for incompetence, hubris, etc., but I have a very hard time with any argument that suggests that everyday people who didn't vote for a candidate have as much or more responsibility for their win as people who did.

I understand where you are coming from there.  But going forward, if the Democrats don't put forward a better candidate and put forward a more moderate platform don't be surprised if Trump somehow wins again.  Trump's win was as much about rejection of the Dems as it was support for the Reps.

I think the Democrats have been given an amazing opportunity to unite in the aftermath of Trump.  Question is, what will they do with this opportunity?  My money is on them squandering it, although I'd prefer to be wrong.

I'm not so sure Trump's election is a message to the D's that they need a more moderate platform. A self-described democratic socialist Jewish guy (who's been in DC forever) did extremely well with the "Brexit" states who gave Trump the election. His message resonated there, as it did with a large majority of young people.

Do democrats need to get away from "identity politics" and political correctness outrage? YES! 1000 times yes. But if anything, I think they need to make their appeal to the disparaged working class of Americans who feel like their standard of living has gotten worse and worse. Politically speaking (personal opinions aside), the best way for them to do that is for one, show that Trump has used his power to push policies that hurt them and two, use clear and simple messaging to champion working class friendly progressive policies (I.E. Support collective bargaining in new arenas, single payer or public option health care, paid parental and sick leave, closing tax loopholes for the rich, raising the minimum wage, truly affordable college/trade school programs, changing public assistance to help the working poor, etc.).

It may seem like we're more divided along party lines than ever before, and a lot of people surely are. But IMO, the lesson of this election was that the people who decide the elections (the "swing" voters who aren't strict D's or R's) are looking for someone who can help improve their quality of life. These people viewed Clinton (right or wrong) as one of the people responsible for lowering that quality of life in the 1st place. But a whole lot of them have major concerns about Trump as well. Articulating policies that are demonstrably good for that quality of life will win their votes. It doesn't matter much weather the person who's pushing them is a "moderate" or a "progressive", imo. Just as long as that person isn't Elizabeth Warren.

TP, Agree wholeheartedly.

Rural white America is not doing well right now. They have seen their manufacturing jobs evaporate as companies move overseas, wages stagnate or drop as companies like Wal-Mart dominate employment.

Imagine a hard-working contractor who comes home after a long days' work. His joints ache. He is in general poor health because of the garbage food we've been brainwashed to eat, He can barely afford health care. He's making child support payments.

He turns on the TV to relax, then he sees some DB New York politician or Berkeley talking head on TV telling him that white men have it easy in this country.

Some certainly do - but for the majority of America right now it is not rosy.

As a Vermonter Bernie knows this, and this is why his message resonated. He was simply telling the truth.

But then Bernie gets undercut by the DNC in favor of Hillary, a true establishment figure who preaches constantly about feminism while staying with her philandering husband for political reasons - and suddenly Trump's rantings and hypocrisy seem a lot more palatable.

The outraged liberal city folk need to get with the program. Right or wrong, most people are not  captivated by the plight of transgender folks. Poor white people don't need to be reminded constantly of how blacks have it so much worse than them.

We need a more inclusive central message that focuses on how the wealthy are becoming ever more powerful as the rest of the country suffers, all the while trying to reduce their own tax burden and strip away social programs.

It was working for Bernie and it could work again.
I don't disagree with your post, that's pretty much what happened to rural white male middle America.  However, I don't get the bolded part.  Lies and hypocrisy shouldn't depend on your mood or even overall perspective.  Trump voters have to own this administration and admit they created this mess.  I don't forgive them or feel sorry for them.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Roy H. on February 14, 2017, 07:34:51 AM
Michael Flynn's just resigned, shortly after a story broke that the White House was told by the DoJ last month that he had been recorded talking sanctions and was potentially compromised. They continued to publicly deny it, and as recently as 2 days ago Trump claimed to have heard nothing about it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-warned-white-house-that-flynn-could-be-vulnerable-to-russian-blackmail-officials-say/2017/02/13/fc5dab88-f228-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-warned-white-house-that-flynn-could-be-vulnerable-to-russian-blackmail-officials-say/2017/02/13/fc5dab88-f228-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html?)

Flynn was a conspiracy nut who was leading "Lock her up" chants at the RNC. I'm glad he's gone, especially from such a sensitive spot. But now we need answers on how far this goes, and maybe finally the political spine to conduct a full-fledged, as nonpartisan as possible investigation of the administration's links to Russia.

At a minimum, we need to find out who was and wasn't aware Flynn was doing this. It's very unlikely he acted alone. And Flynn was talking to the same official during the campaign. If we recorded these calls, we may very well have those too.

Good riddance to him and his son.

Yeah, he's one of the appointments I wasn't a fan of. He just seemed sleazy. I'm glad to see him go.

I'll be fine if Puzder, Bannon, Conway and Spicer soon follow.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Vermont Green on February 14, 2017, 08:27:31 AM
Michael Flynn's just resigned, shortly after a story broke that the White House was told by the DoJ last month that he had been recorded talking sanctions and was potentially compromised. They continued to publicly deny it, and as recently as 2 days ago Trump claimed to have heard nothing about it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-warned-white-house-that-flynn-could-be-vulnerable-to-russian-blackmail-officials-say/2017/02/13/fc5dab88-f228-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-warned-white-house-that-flynn-could-be-vulnerable-to-russian-blackmail-officials-say/2017/02/13/fc5dab88-f228-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html?)

Flynn was a conspiracy nut who was leading "Lock her up" chants at the RNC. I'm glad he's gone, especially from such a sensitive spot. But now we need answers on how far this goes, and maybe finally the political spine to conduct a full-fledged, as nonpartisan as possible investigation of the administration's links to Russia.

At a minimum, we need to find out who was and wasn't aware Flynn was doing this. It's very unlikely he acted alone. And Flynn was talking to the same official during the campaign. If we recorded these calls, we may very well have those too.

If Trump's only involvement in this is that he didn't admit be being brief on it, that won't cause much harm.  He shouldn't comment on an ongoing investigation.  But it is hard to believe that Flynn was discussing sanctions with Russia without having direction from Trump.  What would he say, "I will talk to the president and try to convince him to remove sanctions"?  Why on earth would he even need to discuss the topic at all if he wasn't specifically carrying out some direction from Trump?

My conspiracy theory is the Russians have something on Flynn.  Trump is either in on it too or really blind to it.  Let's see how transparent this "so called" (as Trump likes to say) investigation is.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 14, 2017, 09:05:29 AM
Michael Flynn's just resigned, shortly after a story broke that the White House was told by the DoJ last month that he had been recorded talking sanctions and was potentially compromised. They continued to publicly deny it, and as recently as 2 days ago Trump claimed to have heard nothing about it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-warned-white-house-that-flynn-could-be-vulnerable-to-russian-blackmail-officials-say/2017/02/13/fc5dab88-f228-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-warned-white-house-that-flynn-could-be-vulnerable-to-russian-blackmail-officials-say/2017/02/13/fc5dab88-f228-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html?)

Flynn was a conspiracy nut who was leading "Lock her up" chants at the RNC. I'm glad he's gone, especially from such a sensitive spot. But now we need answers on how far this goes, and maybe finally the political spine to conduct a full-fledged, as nonpartisan as possible investigation of the administration's links to Russia.

At a minimum, we need to find out who was and wasn't aware Flynn was doing this. It's very unlikely he acted alone. And Flynn was talking to the same official during the campaign. If we recorded these calls, we may very well have those too.

If Trump's only involvement in this is that he didn't admit be being brief on it, that won't cause much harm.  He shouldn't comment on an ongoing investigation.  But it is hard to believe that Flynn was discussing sanctions with Russia without having direction from Trump.  What would he say, "I will talk to the president and try to convince him to remove sanctions"?  Why on earth would he even need to discuss the topic at all if he wasn't specifically carrying out some direction from Trump?

My conspiracy theory is the Russians have something on Flynn.  Trump is either in on it too or really blind to it.  Let's see how transparent this "so called" (as Trump likes to say) investigation is.


I find it extremely hard to believe that Flynn acted on his own. Most likely, Flynn made the call to keep up the thin veneer of plausible deniability for Trump. But what we have is a non-inaugurated citizen directly negotiating/informing foreign governments of foreign policy undermining active presidential foreign policy, which is a crime. I doubt congressional repubs care though.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 14, 2017, 09:14:07 AM
You can definitely fault Hillary's campaign for incompetence, hubris, etc., but I have a very hard time with any argument that suggests that everyday people who didn't vote for a candidate have as much or more responsibility for their win as people who did.

I understand where you are coming from there.  But going forward, if the Democrats don't put forward a better candidate and put forward a more moderate platform don't be surprised if Trump somehow wins again.  Trump's win was as much about rejection of the Dems as it was support for the Reps.

I think the Democrats have been given an amazing opportunity to unite in the aftermath of Trump.  Question is, what will they do with this opportunity?  My money is on them squandering it, although I'd prefer to be wrong.

I'm not so sure Trump's election is a message to the D's that they need a more moderate platform. A self-described democratic socialist Jewish guy (who's been in DC forever) did extremely well with the "Brexit" states who gave Trump the election. His message resonated there, as it did with a large majority of young people.

Do democrats need to get away from "identity politics" and political correctness outrage? YES! 1000 times yes. But if anything, I think they need to make their appeal to the disparaged working class of Americans who feel like their standard of living has gotten worse and worse. Politically speaking (personal opinions aside), the best way for them to do that is for one, show that Trump has used his power to push policies that hurt them and two, use clear and simple messaging to champion working class friendly progressive policies (I.E. Support collective bargaining in new arenas, single payer or public option health care, paid parental and sick leave, closing tax loopholes for the rich, raising the minimum wage, truly affordable college/trade school programs, changing public assistance to help the working poor, etc.).

It may seem like we're more divided along party lines than ever before, and a lot of people surely are. But IMO, the lesson of this election was that the people who decide the elections (the "swing" voters who aren't strict D's or R's) are looking for someone who can help improve their quality of life. These people viewed Clinton (right or wrong) as one of the people responsible for lowering that quality of life in the 1st place. But a whole lot of them have major concerns about Trump as well. Articulating policies that are demonstrably good for that quality of life will win their votes. It doesn't matter much weather the person who's pushing them is a "moderate" or a "progressive", imo. Just as long as that person isn't Elizabeth Warren.

TP, Agree wholeheartedly.

Rural white America is not doing well right now. They have seen their manufacturing jobs evaporate as companies move overseas, wages stagnate or drop as companies like Wal-Mart dominate employment.

Imagine a hard-working contractor who comes home after a long days' work. His joints ache. He is in general poor health because of the garbage food we've been brainwashed to eat, He can barely afford health care. He's making child support payments.

He turns on the TV to relax, then he sees some DB New York politician or Berkeley talking head on TV telling him that white men have it easy in this country.

Some certainly do - but for the majority of America right now it is not rosy.

As a Vermonter Bernie knows this, and this is why his message resonated. He was simply telling the truth.

But then Bernie gets undercut by the DNC in favor of Hillary, a true establishment figure who preaches constantly about feminism while staying with her philandering husband for political reasons - and suddenly Trump's rantings and hypocrisy seem a lot more palatable.

The outraged liberal city folk need to get with the program. Right or wrong, most people are not  captivated by the plight of transgender folks. Poor white people don't need to be reminded constantly of how blacks have it so much worse than them.

We need a more inclusive central message that focuses on how the wealthy are becoming ever more powerful as the rest of the country suffers, all the while trying to reduce their own tax burden and strip away social programs.

It was working for Bernie and it could work again.
This.

To me, Trump's win was as much a rebuke to Republicans as it was Democrats.

While I agree that it is important for the democratic party to learn some lessons from this election, I am less confident as to what those lessons are. Hillary won the popular vote by ~3 million people. The biggest obstacle facing Dems is this:

(http://i443.photobucket.com/albums/qq159/fanfromvt/IMG_1373.png?t=1486995061)

It's an amazingly unfortunate thing for a consistent plurality party.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: indeedproceed on February 14, 2017, 09:23:16 AM
Was listening to a podcast today that detailed Jared Kushner's relationship with Isreal and in particular Bibi Netanyahu. Netanyahu and Kushner have known each other for 20 years. When Kushner was a kid, Netanyahu came and stayed with his parents in Jared's room. Jared slept in the basement. Jared went on a tour of Nazi holocaust camps led by Netanyahu as a speaker.

Very interesting stuff. Trump's relationship with Israel will absolutely be shaped by Kushner's input. You can already see it with the way Trump is approaching the settlements issue. That's something I just flat out dismissed during the campaign (Kushner having a real voice in Trump's decision making process in Israel).
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Surferdad on February 14, 2017, 09:55:55 AM
You can definitely fault Hillary's campaign for incompetence, hubris, etc., but I have a very hard time with any argument that suggests that everyday people who didn't vote for a candidate have as much or more responsibility for their win as people who did.

I understand where you are coming from there.  But going forward, if the Democrats don't put forward a better candidate and put forward a more moderate platform don't be surprised if Trump somehow wins again.  Trump's win was as much about rejection of the Dems as it was support for the Reps.

I think the Democrats have been given an amazing opportunity to unite in the aftermath of Trump.  Question is, what will they do with this opportunity?  My money is on them squandering it, although I'd prefer to be wrong.

I'm not so sure Trump's election is a message to the D's that they need a more moderate platform. A self-described democratic socialist Jewish guy (who's been in DC forever) did extremely well with the "Brexit" states who gave Trump the election. His message resonated there, as it did with a large majority of young people.

Do democrats need to get away from "identity politics" and political correctness outrage? YES! 1000 times yes. But if anything, I think they need to make their appeal to the disparaged working class of Americans who feel like their standard of living has gotten worse and worse. Politically speaking (personal opinions aside), the best way for them to do that is for one, show that Trump has used his power to push policies that hurt them and two, use clear and simple messaging to champion working class friendly progressive policies (I.E. Support collective bargaining in new arenas, single payer or public option health care, paid parental and sick leave, closing tax loopholes for the rich, raising the minimum wage, truly affordable college/trade school programs, changing public assistance to help the working poor, etc.).

It may seem like we're more divided along party lines than ever before, and a lot of people surely are. But IMO, the lesson of this election was that the people who decide the elections (the "swing" voters who aren't strict D's or R's) are looking for someone who can help improve their quality of life. These people viewed Clinton (right or wrong) as one of the people responsible for lowering that quality of life in the 1st place. But a whole lot of them have major concerns about Trump as well. Articulating policies that are demonstrably good for that quality of life will win their votes. It doesn't matter much weather the person who's pushing them is a "moderate" or a "progressive", imo. Just as long as that person isn't Elizabeth Warren.

TP, Agree wholeheartedly.

Rural white America is not doing well right now. They have seen their manufacturing jobs evaporate as companies move overseas, wages stagnate or drop as companies like Wal-Mart dominate employment.

Imagine a hard-working contractor who comes home after a long days' work. His joints ache. He is in general poor health because of the garbage food we've been brainwashed to eat, He can barely afford health care. He's making child support payments.

He turns on the TV to relax, then he sees some DB New York politician or Berkeley talking head on TV telling him that white men have it easy in this country.

Some certainly do - but for the majority of America right now it is not rosy.

As a Vermonter Bernie knows this, and this is why his message resonated. He was simply telling the truth.

But then Bernie gets undercut by the DNC in favor of Hillary, a true establishment figure who preaches constantly about feminism while staying with her philandering husband for political reasons - and suddenly Trump's rantings and hypocrisy seem a lot more palatable.

The outraged liberal city folk need to get with the program. Right or wrong, most people are not  captivated by the plight of transgender folks. Poor white people don't need to be reminded constantly of how blacks have it so much worse than them.

We need a more inclusive central message that focuses on how the wealthy are becoming ever more powerful as the rest of the country suffers, all the while trying to reduce their own tax burden and strip away social programs.

It was working for Bernie and it could work again.
This.

To me, Trump's win was as much a rebuke to Republicans as it was Democrats.

While I agree that it is important for the democratic party to learn some lessons from this election, I am less confident as to what those lessons are. Hillary won the popular vote by ~3 million people. The biggest obstacle facing Dems is this:

(http://i443.photobucket.com/albums/qq159/fanfromvt/IMG_1373.png?t=1486995061)

It's an amazingly unfortunate thing for a consistent plurality party.
How they got  away with gerrymandering on a national level is beyond me.  This is what it looks like to have the opposition party in control.  The result will be even less trust of the gov't.  Democracy is being destroyed and republican politicians don't care.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Roy H. on February 14, 2017, 10:09:12 AM
You can definitely fault Hillary's campaign for incompetence, hubris, etc., but I have a very hard time with any argument that suggests that everyday people who didn't vote for a candidate have as much or more responsibility for their win as people who did.

I understand where you are coming from there.  But going forward, if the Democrats don't put forward a better candidate and put forward a more moderate platform don't be surprised if Trump somehow wins again.  Trump's win was as much about rejection of the Dems as it was support for the Reps.

I think the Democrats have been given an amazing opportunity to unite in the aftermath of Trump.  Question is, what will they do with this opportunity?  My money is on them squandering it, although I'd prefer to be wrong.

I'm not so sure Trump's election is a message to the D's that they need a more moderate platform. A self-described democratic socialist Jewish guy (who's been in DC forever) did extremely well with the "Brexit" states who gave Trump the election. His message resonated there, as it did with a large majority of young people.

Do democrats need to get away from "identity politics" and political correctness outrage? YES! 1000 times yes. But if anything, I think they need to make their appeal to the disparaged working class of Americans who feel like their standard of living has gotten worse and worse. Politically speaking (personal opinions aside), the best way for them to do that is for one, show that Trump has used his power to push policies that hurt them and two, use clear and simple messaging to champion working class friendly progressive policies (I.E. Support collective bargaining in new arenas, single payer or public option health care, paid parental and sick leave, closing tax loopholes for the rich, raising the minimum wage, truly affordable college/trade school programs, changing public assistance to help the working poor, etc.).

It may seem like we're more divided along party lines than ever before, and a lot of people surely are. But IMO, the lesson of this election was that the people who decide the elections (the "swing" voters who aren't strict D's or R's) are looking for someone who can help improve their quality of life. These people viewed Clinton (right or wrong) as one of the people responsible for lowering that quality of life in the 1st place. But a whole lot of them have major concerns about Trump as well. Articulating policies that are demonstrably good for that quality of life will win their votes. It doesn't matter much weather the person who's pushing them is a "moderate" or a "progressive", imo. Just as long as that person isn't Elizabeth Warren.

TP, Agree wholeheartedly.

Rural white America is not doing well right now. They have seen their manufacturing jobs evaporate as companies move overseas, wages stagnate or drop as companies like Wal-Mart dominate employment.

Imagine a hard-working contractor who comes home after a long days' work. His joints ache. He is in general poor health because of the garbage food we've been brainwashed to eat, He can barely afford health care. He's making child support payments.

He turns on the TV to relax, then he sees some DB New York politician or Berkeley talking head on TV telling him that white men have it easy in this country.

Some certainly do - but for the majority of America right now it is not rosy.

As a Vermonter Bernie knows this, and this is why his message resonated. He was simply telling the truth.

But then Bernie gets undercut by the DNC in favor of Hillary, a true establishment figure who preaches constantly about feminism while staying with her philandering husband for political reasons - and suddenly Trump's rantings and hypocrisy seem a lot more palatable.

The outraged liberal city folk need to get with the program. Right or wrong, most people are not  captivated by the plight of transgender folks. Poor white people don't need to be reminded constantly of how blacks have it so much worse than them.

We need a more inclusive central message that focuses on how the wealthy are becoming ever more powerful as the rest of the country suffers, all the while trying to reduce their own tax burden and strip away social programs.

It was working for Bernie and it could work again.
This.

To me, Trump's win was as much a rebuke to Republicans as it was Democrats.

While I agree that it is important for the democratic party to learn some lessons from this election, I am less confident as to what those lessons are. Hillary won the popular vote by ~3 million people. The biggest obstacle facing Dems is this:

(http://i443.photobucket.com/albums/qq159/fanfromvt/IMG_1373.png?t=1486995061)

It's an amazingly unfortunate thing for a consistent plurality party.
How they got  away with gerrymandering on a national level is beyond me.  This is what it looks like to have the opposition party in control.  The result will be even less trust of the gov't.  Democracy is being destroyed and republican politicians don't care.

1. Democrats gerrymander, too.

2.  Republicans got 3 million more House votes in 2016 than Democrats. They got 6 million more votes in 2010, won the nationwide majority vote in 2014, as well, and have the majority of state legislatures and governors.

Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: tazzmaniac on February 14, 2017, 10:17:41 AM
You can definitely fault Hillary's campaign for incompetence, hubris, etc., but I have a very hard time with any argument that suggests that everyday people who didn't vote for a candidate have as much or more responsibility for their win as people who did.

I understand where you are coming from there.  But going forward, if the Democrats don't put forward a better candidate and put forward a more moderate platform don't be surprised if Trump somehow wins again.  Trump's win was as much about rejection of the Dems as it was support for the Reps.

I think the Democrats have been given an amazing opportunity to unite in the aftermath of Trump.  Question is, what will they do with this opportunity?  My money is on them squandering it, although I'd prefer to be wrong.

I'm not so sure Trump's election is a message to the D's that they need a more moderate platform. A self-described democratic socialist Jewish guy (who's been in DC forever) did extremely well with the "Brexit" states who gave Trump the election. His message resonated there, as it did with a large majority of young people.

Do democrats need to get away from "identity politics" and political correctness outrage? YES! 1000 times yes. But if anything, I think they need to make their appeal to the disparaged working class of Americans who feel like their standard of living has gotten worse and worse. Politically speaking (personal opinions aside), the best way for them to do that is for one, show that Trump has used his power to push policies that hurt them and two, use clear and simple messaging to champion working class friendly progressive policies (I.E. Support collective bargaining in new arenas, single payer or public option health care, paid parental and sick leave, closing tax loopholes for the rich, raising the minimum wage, truly affordable college/trade school programs, changing public assistance to help the working poor, etc.).

It may seem like we're more divided along party lines than ever before, and a lot of people surely are. But IMO, the lesson of this election was that the people who decide the elections (the "swing" voters who aren't strict D's or R's) are looking for someone who can help improve their quality of life. These people viewed Clinton (right or wrong) as one of the people responsible for lowering that quality of life in the 1st place. But a whole lot of them have major concerns about Trump as well. Articulating policies that are demonstrably good for that quality of life will win their votes. It doesn't matter much weather the person who's pushing them is a "moderate" or a "progressive", imo. Just as long as that person isn't Elizabeth Warren.

TP, Agree wholeheartedly.

Rural white America is not doing well right now. They have seen their manufacturing jobs evaporate as companies move overseas, wages stagnate or drop as companies like Wal-Mart dominate employment.

Imagine a hard-working contractor who comes home after a long days' work. His joints ache. He is in general poor health because of the garbage food we've been brainwashed to eat, He can barely afford health care. He's making child support payments.

He turns on the TV to relax, then he sees some DB New York politician or Berkeley talking head on TV telling him that white men have it easy in this country.

Some certainly do - but for the majority of America right now it is not rosy.

As a Vermonter Bernie knows this, and this is why his message resonated. He was simply telling the truth.

But then Bernie gets undercut by the DNC in favor of Hillary, a true establishment figure who preaches constantly about feminism while staying with her philandering husband for political reasons - and suddenly Trump's rantings and hypocrisy seem a lot more palatable.

The outraged liberal city folk need to get with the program. Right or wrong, most people are not  captivated by the plight of transgender folks. Poor white people don't need to be reminded constantly of how blacks have it so much worse than them.

We need a more inclusive central message that focuses on how the wealthy are becoming ever more powerful as the rest of the country suffers, all the while trying to reduce their own tax burden and strip away social programs.

It was working for Bernie and it could work again.
This.

To me, Trump's win was as much a rebuke to Republicans as it was Democrats.

While I agree that it is important for the democratic party to learn some lessons from this election, I am less confident as to what those lessons are. Hillary won the popular vote by ~3 million people. The biggest obstacle facing Dems is this:

(http://i443.photobucket.com/albums/qq159/fanfromvt/IMG_1373.png?t=1486995061)

It's an amazingly unfortunate thing for a consistent plurality party.
How they got  away with gerrymandering on a national level is beyond me.  This is what it looks like to have the opposition party in control.  The result will be even less trust of the gov't.  Democracy is being destroyed and republican politicians don't care.
The states run the national elections.  The state legislatures draw the district boundaries.  Sometimes the courts step in to ensure minorities aren't being disenfranchised but that's about it.  The Democrats have done a lousy job at the state and local level. 

As far as the Presidential race goes, gerrymandering really doesn't play a part.  It is all about the electoral college.  Win a state; get all its electoral votes.  Hillary won the national popular vote by 2.9m but she won the California popular vote by 4.3m and New York by 1.7m.  So she lost the popular vote in the other 48 states by more than 3m.  While I hate the results of the election, I think the founding fathers were right to rein in the ability of big states to dominate national politics. 
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 14, 2017, 10:29:06 AM
The Big Dig part deux?

Fox News reports on the troubles involved with getting Trump's border wall built.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/14/trumps-border-wall-could-face-geology-problem.html

The issue is that much of the area is not suitable for building on.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: KGs Knee on February 14, 2017, 10:40:49 AM
Hillary won the national popular vote by 2.9m but she won the California popular vote by 4.3m and New York by 1.7m.  So she lost the popular vote in the other 48 states by more than 3m.  While I hate the results of the election, I think the founding fathers were right to rein in the ability of big states to dominate national politics. 

Thats a good point.

California and NY do not represent the entirety of the country, and in fact, are rather on one extreme end of the political spectrum.  Certainly there are other states also on that extreme end of the spectrum (Ma, Vt, Or, Wa, NJ, ect..), but there are many other states that are either in the middle or on the other extreme end of the spectrum.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 14, 2017, 10:45:30 AM
But then Bernie gets undercut by the DNC in favor of Hillary, a true establishment figure who preaches constantly about feminism while staying with her philandering husband for political reasons - and suddenly Trump's rantings and hypocrisy seem a lot more palatable.
I'm tired of this nonsense. Sanders lost the popular vote by 12 percentage points and more than 3.5 million votes. He didn't lose because the DNC "upstaged" him in some form or shape.

While it's probably accurate that Clinton lost because she didn't have a message for rural Rust Belt workers, this doesn't necessarily make Sanders a better candidate. He didn't have to be the target of a full-fledged presidential campaign, so hindsight is 20/20.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: D Dub on February 14, 2017, 10:46:37 AM

As far as the Presidential race goes, gerrymandering really doesn't play a part.  It is all about the electoral college.  Win a state; get all its electoral votes.  Hillary won the national popular vote by 2.9m but she won the California popular vote by 4.3m and New York by 1.7m.  So she lost the popular vote in the other 48 states by more than 3m.  While I hate the results of the election, I think the founding fathers were right to rein in the ability of big states to dominate national politics.

Isn't the electoral college the very first instance of gerrymandering?

I can't fault the founding fathers for wanting to limit the big states influence, but we've gone entirely the other direction now where only a few of the least populated states dominate national politics. 

In my view, the electoral college needs to be re-balanced.  I'm sick of Ohio calling all the shots for the rest of us.  Honestly, with how much more mobile & educated a society we are, you can make the argument for a pure popular vote decision.  Why is it "fair" that this Californian's voice carries half the weight of someone from Ohio? 

The dynamics that defined the need for the EC just seem to be something our nation has long since outgrown. 
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: D Dub on February 14, 2017, 10:49:03 AM
But then Bernie gets undercut by the DNC in favor of Hillary, a true establishment figure who preaches constantly about feminism while staying with her philandering husband for political reasons - and suddenly Trump's rantings and hypocrisy seem a lot more palatable.
I'm tired of this nonsense. Sanders lost the popular vote by 12 percentage points and more than 3.5 million votes. He didn't lose because the DNC "upstaged" him in some form or shape.

While it's probably accurate that Clinton lost because she didn't have a message for rural Rust Belt workers, this doesn't necessarily make Sanders a better candidate. He didn't have to be the target of a full-fledged presidential campaign, so hindsight is 20/20.

It's not nonsense.  He never had a chance to compete for ANY of the super-delegates. 
They all committed before he was even in the race. 

If that's not the DNC elite stacking the deck to favor one candidate, I don't know what is. 
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 14, 2017, 10:51:37 AM
In my view, the electoral college needs to be re-balanced.  I'm sick of Ohio calling all the shots for the rest of us.  Honestly, with how much more mobile & educated a society we are, you can make the argument for a pure popular vote decision.  Why is it "fair" that this Californian's voice carries half the weight of someone from Ohio?
The electoral college has been rebalanced seven times since 1960, most recently in 2012.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Roy H. on February 14, 2017, 10:57:05 AM
Quote
The dynamics that defined the need for the EC just seem to be something our nation has long since outgrown.

I don't think so. The divide isn't over big states versus small ones anymore, but the mainstream of America lives outside the largest population centers. There's more to America than California, NY, Texas and Florida.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 14, 2017, 11:01:16 AM
Quote
The dynamics that defined the need for the EC just seem to be something our nation has long since outgrown.

I don't think so. The divide isn't over big states versus small ones anymore, but the mainstream of America lives outside the largest population centers. There's more to America than California, NY, Texas and Florida.

While I agree that we don't need to rethink the EC, and agree that there's more to American than CA, NY, TX and FL, what does "the mainstream of America lives outside the largest population centers" mean? Do you mean a majority of Americans? Or something different?
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 14, 2017, 11:02:17 AM
Quote
The dynamics that defined the need for the EC just seem to be something our nation has long since outgrown.

I don't think so. The divide isn't over big states versus small ones anymore, but the mainstream of America lives outside the largest population centers. There's more to America than California, NY, Texas and Florida.
Who exactly has declared this "the mainstream of America"? I consider the "mainstream of America to live within the largest population centers.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 14, 2017, 11:02:17 AM

As far as the Presidential race goes, gerrymandering really doesn't play a part.  It is all about the electoral college.  Win a state; get all its electoral votes.  Hillary won the national popular vote by 2.9m but she won the California popular vote by 4.3m and New York by 1.7m.  So she lost the popular vote in the other 48 states by more than 3m.  While I hate the results of the election, I think the founding fathers were right to rein in the ability of big states to dominate national politics.


Yes, it is. To make sure slavery remained viable. How's that for a legacy?

Here is a map of relative voting power:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/11/presidential_election_a_map_showing_the_vote_power_of_all_50_states.html

Ohio is actually a bad example. It is really Wyoming, ND, SD, Idaho, montana, and those types of places. More that those states having power, a vote from NY counts the LEAST, then Florida, then California. Rather than "limit big states power", we've created a system where the minority of the population in little states get to exert undo power. 
Isn't the electoral college the very first instance of gerrymandering?

I can't fault the founding fathers for wanting to limit the big states influence, but we've gone entirely the other direction now where only a few of the least populated states dominate national politics. 

In my view, the electoral college needs to be re-balanced.  I'm sick of Ohio calling all the shots for the rest of us.  Honestly, with how much more mobile & educated a society we are, you can make the argument for a pure popular vote decision.  Why is it "fair" that this Californian's voice carries half the weight of someone from Ohio? 

The dynamics that defined the need for the EC just seem to be something our nation has long since outgrown.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 14, 2017, 11:05:41 AM

As far as the Presidential race goes, gerrymandering really doesn't play a part.  It is all about the electoral college.  Win a state; get all its electoral votes.  Hillary won the national popular vote by 2.9m but she won the California popular vote by 4.3m and New York by 1.7m.  So she lost the popular vote in the other 48 states by more than 3m.  While I hate the results of the election, I think the founding fathers were right to rein in the ability of big states to dominate national politics.


Yes, it is. To make sure slavery remained viable. How's that for a legacy?

Here is a map of relative voting power:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/11/presidential_election_a_map_showing_the_vote_power_of_all_50_states.html

Ohio is actually a bad example. It is really Wyoming, ND, SD, Idaho, montana, and those types of places. More that those states having power, a vote from NY counts the LEAST, then Florida, then California. Rather than "limit big states power", we've created a system where the minority of the population in little states get to exert undo power. 
Isn't the electoral college the very first instance of gerrymandering?

I can't fault the founding fathers for wanting to limit the big states influence, but we've gone entirely the other direction now where only a few of the least populated states dominate national politics. 

In my view, the electoral college needs to be re-balanced.  I'm sick of Ohio calling all the shots for the rest of us.  Honestly, with how much more mobile & educated a society we are, you can make the argument for a pure popular vote decision.  Why is it "fair" that this Californian's voice carries half the weight of someone from Ohio? 

The dynamics that defined the need for the EC just seem to be something our nation has long since outgrown.

Ohio is not the best example, they don't count for much either. A vote from NY counts the least, then Florida, then California. The most powerful is Wyoming then VT, then a lot of places like ND, SD, nebraska, idaho, montana.

Rather than "limit big states' power," we've really created a situation where a minority of small state residents get undo sway over a majority of coastal/urban citizens. All from a legacy of a system that was a compromise to entrench slavery as a viable political reality. Some legacy.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 14, 2017, 11:11:47 AM
But then Bernie gets undercut by the DNC in favor of Hillary, a true establishment figure who preaches constantly about feminism while staying with her philandering husband for political reasons - and suddenly Trump's rantings and hypocrisy seem a lot more palatable.
I'm tired of this nonsense. Sanders lost the popular vote by 12 percentage points and more than 3.5 million votes. He didn't lose because the DNC "upstaged" him in some form or shape.

While it's probably accurate that Clinton lost because she didn't have a message for rural Rust Belt workers, this doesn't necessarily make Sanders a better candidate. He didn't have to be the target of a full-fledged presidential campaign, so hindsight is 20/20.

It's not nonsense.  He never had a chance to compete for ANY of the super-delegates. 
They all committed before he was even in the race. 

If that's not the DNC elite stacking the deck to favor one candidate, I don't know what is.
Yes, and if you take the superdelegates out of the picture, he still lost 34 of the 57 primaries, and the popular vote by a landslide. The superdelegates were not the problem.

Not to mention that Sanders airdropped into the Democratic Party right before this cycle because it was painfully obvious he stands no chance running as an Independent. That's not exactly a good look.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: indeedproceed on February 14, 2017, 12:06:49 PM
Not to mention that Sanders airdropped into the Democratic Party right before this cycle because it was painfully obvious he stands no chance running as an Independent. That's not exactly a good look.

Again for those who didn't tune in during the election, Koz's disdain for Bernie has been one of the most consistent and entertaining sub plots of this forum. The contempt is real, and it is bright.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 14, 2017, 01:40:25 PM
Trump's cabinet continues to take shape:

Mnuchin (Treasury) confirmed 53-47
McMahan (SBA) confirmed 81-19
Schulkin (VA) 100-0

Notable names still up for confirmation: Ross (Commerce), Pudzer (Labor)
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: gift on February 14, 2017, 02:28:26 PM
The Electoral College isn't just about accounting for differing values or political ideology. It's about industry. Types of industry vary across different regions, and the electoral college encourages the president to care about those industries which are important to certain states, even though the number of people in those states is relatively small compared with the whole of the voters in the country.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: jambr380 on February 14, 2017, 02:30:18 PM
Those arguing for the current electoral college system are basically telling people from states like California and New York that they don't matter and, if they want their votes to count, they need to move to electrifying states like Montana and South Dakota.

I realize this idea is now taking over the Trump thread (also related), but the idea that the person who actually wins the presidency (by a significant margin) should not actually win the presidency is asinine.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: gift on February 14, 2017, 02:38:58 PM
You can definitely fault Hillary's campaign for incompetence, hubris, etc., but I have a very hard time with any argument that suggests that everyday people who didn't vote for a candidate have as much or more responsibility for their win as people who did.

I understand where you are coming from there.  But going forward, if the Democrats don't put forward a better candidate and put forward a more moderate platform don't be surprised if Trump somehow wins again.  Trump's win was as much about rejection of the Dems as it was support for the Reps.

I think the Democrats have been given an amazing opportunity to unite in the aftermath of Trump.  Question is, what will they do with this opportunity?  My money is on them squandering it, although I'd prefer to be wrong.

I'm not so sure Trump's election is a message to the D's that they need a more moderate platform. A self-described democratic socialist Jewish guy (who's been in DC forever) did extremely well with the "Brexit" states who gave Trump the election. His message resonated there, as it did with a large majority of young people.

Do democrats need to get away from "identity politics" and political correctness outrage? YES! 1000 times yes. But if anything, I think they need to make their appeal to the disparaged working class of Americans who feel like their standard of living has gotten worse and worse. Politically speaking (personal opinions aside), the best way for them to do that is for one, show that Trump has used his power to push policies that hurt them and two, use clear and simple messaging to champion working class friendly progressive policies (I.E. Support collective bargaining in new arenas, single payer or public option health care, paid parental and sick leave, closing tax loopholes for the rich, raising the minimum wage, truly affordable college/trade school programs, changing public assistance to help the working poor, etc.).

It may seem like we're more divided along party lines than ever before, and a lot of people surely are. But IMO, the lesson of this election was that the people who decide the elections (the "swing" voters who aren't strict D's or R's) are looking for someone who can help improve their quality of life. These people viewed Clinton (right or wrong) as one of the people responsible for lowering that quality of life in the 1st place. But a whole lot of them have major concerns about Trump as well. Articulating policies that are demonstrably good for that quality of life will win their votes. It doesn't matter much weather the person who's pushing them is a "moderate" or a "progressive", imo. Just as long as that person isn't Elizabeth Warren.

TP, Agree wholeheartedly.

Rural white America is not doing well right now. They have seen their manufacturing jobs evaporate as companies move overseas, wages stagnate or drop as companies like Wal-Mart dominate employment.

Imagine a hard-working contractor who comes home after a long days' work. His joints ache. He is in general poor health because of the garbage food we've been brainwashed to eat, He can barely afford health care. He's making child support payments.

He turns on the TV to relax, then he sees some DB New York politician or Berkeley talking head on TV telling him that white men have it easy in this country.

Some certainly do - but for the majority of America right now it is not rosy.

As a Vermonter Bernie knows this, and this is why his message resonated. He was simply telling the truth.

But then Bernie gets undercut by the DNC in favor of Hillary, a true establishment figure who preaches constantly about feminism while staying with her philandering husband for political reasons - and suddenly Trump's rantings and hypocrisy seem a lot more palatable.

The outraged liberal city folk need to get with the program. Right or wrong, most people are not  captivated by the plight of transgender folks. Poor white people don't need to be reminded constantly of how blacks have it so much worse than them.

We need a more inclusive central message that focuses on how the wealthy are becoming ever more powerful as the rest of the country suffers, all the while trying to reduce their own tax burden and strip away social programs.

It was working for Bernie and it could work again.
This.

To me, Trump's win was as much a rebuke to Republicans as it was Democrats.

While I agree that it is important for the democratic party to learn some lessons from this election, I am less confident as to what those lessons are. Hillary won the popular vote by ~3 million people. The biggest obstacle facing Dems is this:

(http://i443.photobucket.com/albums/qq159/fanfromvt/IMG_1373.png?t=1486995061)

It's an amazingly unfortunate thing for a consistent plurality party.
How they got  away with gerrymandering on a national level is beyond me.  This is what it looks like to have the opposition party in control.  The result will be even less trust of the gov't. Democracy is being destroyed and republican politicians don't care.

Just curious, do you think there should be more trust of the government? There are many who would point out that democracy alone does not guarantee a worthy government, nor does it necessarily legitimize authority. This provides an opening for the argument for limited government, which has been laughed at by many in recent years as an outdated, oversimplified, idealized excuse to oppose certain laws and spending.

Personally, I want people to trust the government a lot less, because it isn't something to trust. It is corrupt at its worst, self-interested and inefficient as a default, and only occasionally and against all odds, manages to be a net positive in certain areas. The problem is that people only want limits on their opponents. Limited government, when made a priority, eliminates this problem and it begins with a healthy distrust.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: mmmmm on February 14, 2017, 03:37:00 PM
[As far as the Presidential race goes, gerrymandering really doesn't play a part.  It is all about the electoral college.  Win a state; get all its electoral votes.  Hillary won the national popular vote by 2.9m but she won the California popular vote by 4.3m and New York by 1.7m.  So she lost the popular vote in the other 48 states by more than 3m.  While I hate the results of the election, I think the founding fathers were right to rein in the ability of big states to dominate national politics.

So ... do you think it's right for the small states to dominate national politics?

Because that is what we have now.

The current model gives more power per vote in both the Congress and the White House to a voter in a small state.

Is that consistent with equal representation and due process?
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: hpantazo on February 14, 2017, 03:40:30 PM
If the electoral college system is not scrapped or revamped and we get more absurd leaders in either political direction, I can see the US down the line splitting into smaller countries like in Europe, with the two coasts forming their own individual nations, Texas forming its own, and the middle part of the country remaining as the USA.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: mmmmm on February 14, 2017, 03:42:32 PM
Quote
The dynamics that defined the need for the EC just seem to be something our nation has long since outgrown.

I don't think so. The divide isn't over big states versus small ones anymore, but the mainstream of America lives outside the largest population centers. There's more to America than California, NY, Texas and Florida.

So, should electoral representation be based on how much land area is under foot per voter?

A person's vote should count for less because of how densely populated the area he lives in is?

Is it one person / one vote or not?

When a California resident votes for President of the United States, he is voting as a citizen of the United States, not a citizen of California.  The President is supposed to execute the laws of the US on behalf of all citizens of the US.  Not on behalf of voters from particular states.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: mmmmm on February 14, 2017, 03:44:29 PM

Isn't the electoral college the very first instance of gerrymandering?
Yep.
Quote
In my view, the electoral college needs to be re-balanced abolished.  I'm sick of Ohio calling all the shots for the rest of us.  Honestly, with how much more mobile & educated a society we are, you can make the argument for a pure popular vote decision.  Why is it "fair" that this Californian's voice carries half the weight of someone from Ohio? 

The dynamics that defined the need for the EC just seem to be something our nation has long since outgrown.
Fixed it for ya.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Roy H. on February 14, 2017, 04:06:24 PM
Quote
The dynamics that defined the need for the EC just seem to be something our nation has long since outgrown.

I don't think so. The divide isn't over big states versus small ones anymore, but the mainstream of America lives outside the largest population centers. There's more to America than California, NY, Texas and Florida.

So, should electoral representation be based on how much land area is under foot per voter?

A person's vote should count for less because of how densely populated the area he lives in is?

Is it one person / one vote or not?

When a California resident votes for President of the United States, he is voting as a citizen of the United States, not a citizen of California.  The President is supposed to execute the laws of the US on behalf of all citizens of the US.  Not on behalf of voters from particular states.

We're a Constitutional Republic based upon federalist principles. States matter, and the Electoral College helps preserve that.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kraidstar on February 14, 2017, 04:10:13 PM
You can definitely fault Hillary's campaign for incompetence, hubris, etc., but I have a very hard time with any argument that suggests that everyday people who didn't vote for a candidate have as much or more responsibility for their win as people who did.

I understand where you are coming from there.  But going forward, if the Democrats don't put forward a better candidate and put forward a more moderate platform don't be surprised if Trump somehow wins again.  Trump's win was as much about rejection of the Dems as it was support for the Reps.

I think the Democrats have been given an amazing opportunity to unite in the aftermath of Trump.  Question is, what will they do with this opportunity?  My money is on them squandering it, although I'd prefer to be wrong.

I'm not so sure Trump's election is a message to the D's that they need a more moderate platform. A self-described democratic socialist Jewish guy (who's been in DC forever) did extremely well with the "Brexit" states who gave Trump the election. His message resonated there, as it did with a large majority of young people.

Do democrats need to get away from "identity politics" and political correctness outrage? YES! 1000 times yes. But if anything, I think they need to make their appeal to the disparaged working class of Americans who feel like their standard of living has gotten worse and worse. Politically speaking (personal opinions aside), the best way for them to do that is for one, show that Trump has used his power to push policies that hurt them and two, use clear and simple messaging to champion working class friendly progressive policies (I.E. Support collective bargaining in new arenas, single payer or public option health care, paid parental and sick leave, closing tax loopholes for the rich, raising the minimum wage, truly affordable college/trade school programs, changing public assistance to help the working poor, etc.).

It may seem like we're more divided along party lines than ever before, and a lot of people surely are. But IMO, the lesson of this election was that the people who decide the elections (the "swing" voters who aren't strict D's or R's) are looking for someone who can help improve their quality of life. These people viewed Clinton (right or wrong) as one of the people responsible for lowering that quality of life in the 1st place. But a whole lot of them have major concerns about Trump as well. Articulating policies that are demonstrably good for that quality of life will win their votes. It doesn't matter much weather the person who's pushing them is a "moderate" or a "progressive", imo. Just as long as that person isn't Elizabeth Warren.

TP, Agree wholeheartedly.

Rural white America is not doing well right now. They have seen their manufacturing jobs evaporate as companies move overseas, wages stagnate or drop as companies like Wal-Mart dominate employment.

Imagine a hard-working contractor who comes home after a long days' work. His joints ache. He is in general poor health because of the garbage food we've been brainwashed to eat, He can barely afford health care. He's making child support payments.

He turns on the TV to relax, then he sees some DB New York politician or Berkeley talking head on TV telling him that white men have it easy in this country.

Some certainly do - but for the majority of America right now it is not rosy.

As a Vermonter Bernie knows this, and this is why his message resonated. He was simply telling the truth.

But then Bernie gets undercut by the DNC in favor of Hillary, a true establishment figure who preaches constantly about feminism while staying with her philandering husband for political reasons - and suddenly Trump's rantings and hypocrisy seem a lot more palatable.

The outraged liberal city folk need to get with the program. Right or wrong, most people are not  captivated by the plight of transgender folks. Poor white people don't need to be reminded constantly of how blacks have it so much worse than them.

We need a more inclusive central message that focuses on how the wealthy are becoming ever more powerful as the rest of the country suffers, all the while trying to reduce their own tax burden and strip away social programs.

It was working for Bernie and it could work again.
This.

To me, Trump's win was as much a rebuke to Republicans as it was Democrats.

While I agree that it is important for the democratic party to learn some lessons from this election, I am less confident as to what those lessons are. Hillary won the popular vote by ~3 million people. The biggest obstacle facing Dems is this:

(http://i443.photobucket.com/albums/qq159/fanfromvt/IMG_1373.png?t=1486995061)

It's an amazingly unfortunate thing for a consistent plurality party.

You're right to some extend here, but so many of those popular votes came from liberal strongholds like the Northeast and Northwest. It is in the rural/poor areas where Hillary suffered.

You can see on this map how each town voted:

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-hampshire

Look at how the liberal urban areas like Dover, Portsmouth, Concord, Durham voted heavily for Clinton. Poorer Nashua and Manchester a little less so. Then downtrodden Rochester and Laconia going for Trump.

And the rural areas mostly went for Trump, too. It really is remarkable how wealth plays into voting practices around here.

Dems clearly are not reaching these poor white voters.

This can't all be gerrymandering, even in my own area in southern Maine/NH I see this.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: mmmmm on February 14, 2017, 05:55:49 PM
Quote
The dynamics that defined the need for the EC just seem to be something our nation has long since outgrown.

I don't think so. The divide isn't over big states versus small ones anymore, but the mainstream of America lives outside the largest population centers. There's more to America than California, NY, Texas and Florida.

So, should electoral representation be based on how much land area is under foot per voter?

A person's vote should count for less because of how densely populated the area he lives in is?

Is it one person / one vote or not?

When a California resident votes for President of the United States, he is voting as a citizen of the United States, not a citizen of California.  The President is supposed to execute the laws of the US on behalf of all citizens of the US.  Not on behalf of voters from particular states.

We're a Constitutional Republic based upon federalist principles. States matter, and the Electoral College helps preserve that.

Should I assume that means that your answers are:

a) Electoral representation should indeed depend on how densely populated the area is that you live in and

b) We should not expect one person == one vote.

Is that your belief?  Please clarify if that is not correct.

An assertions such as, "States matter, and the Electoral College helps preserve that." seems to beg a few questions.

How much should States matter, relative to the Union? 
Should some States matter more than individual rights as citizens of the Union?
How exactly does providing equal representation to all citizens in choosing their one common federal representative threaten the idea that States matter?
Why is it important to preserve that? Is government allowed to evolve?
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: 2short on February 14, 2017, 06:04:35 PM
You can definitely fault Hillary's campaign for incompetence, hubris, etc., but I have a very hard time with any argument that suggests that everyday people who didn't vote for a candidate have as much or more responsibility for their win as people who did.

I understand where you are coming from there.  But going forward, if the Democrats don't put forward a better candidate and put forward a more moderate platform don't be surprised if Trump somehow wins again.  Trump's win was as much about rejection of the Dems as it was support for the Reps.

I think the Democrats have been given an amazing opportunity to unite in the aftermath of Trump.  Question is, what will they do with this opportunity?  My money is on them squandering it, although I'd prefer to be wrong.

I'm not so sure Trump's election is a message to the D's that they need a more moderate platform. A self-described democratic socialist Jewish guy (who's been in DC forever) did extremely well with the "Brexit" states who gave Trump the election. His message resonated there, as it did with a large majority of young people.

Do democrats need to get away from "identity politics" and political correctness outrage? YES! 1000 times yes. But if anything, I think they need to make their appeal to the disparaged working class of Americans who feel like their standard of living has gotten worse and worse. Politically speaking (personal opinions aside), the best way for them to do that is for one, show that Trump has used his power to push policies that hurt them and two, use clear and simple messaging to champion working class friendly progressive policies (I.E. Support collective bargaining in new arenas, single payer or public option health care, paid parental and sick leave, closing tax loopholes for the rich, raising the minimum wage, truly affordable college/trade school programs, changing public assistance to help the working poor, etc.).

It may seem like we're more divided along party lines than ever before, and a lot of people surely are. But IMO, the lesson of this election was that the people who decide the elections (the "swing" voters who aren't strict D's or R's) are looking for someone who can help improve their quality of life. These people viewed Clinton (right or wrong) as one of the people responsible for lowering that quality of life in the 1st place. But a whole lot of them have major concerns about Trump as well. Articulating policies that are demonstrably good for that quality of life will win their votes. It doesn't matter much weather the person who's pushing them is a "moderate" or a "progressive", imo. Just as long as that person isn't Elizabeth Warren.

TP, Agree wholeheartedly.

Rural white America is not doing well right now. They have seen their manufacturing jobs evaporate as companies move overseas, wages stagnate or drop as companies like Wal-Mart dominate employment.

Imagine a hard-working contractor who comes home after a long days' work. His joints ache. He is in general poor health because of the garbage food we've been brainwashed to eat, He can barely afford health care. He's making child support payments.

He turns on the TV to relax, then he sees some DB New York politician or Berkeley talking head on TV telling him that white men have it easy in this country.

Some certainly do - but for the majority of America right now it is not rosy.

As a Vermonter Bernie knows this, and this is why his message resonated. He was simply telling the truth.

But then Bernie gets undercut by the DNC in favor of Hillary, a true establishment figure who preaches constantly about feminism while staying with her philandering husband for political reasons - and suddenly Trump's rantings and hypocrisy seem a lot more palatable.

The outraged liberal city folk need to get with the program. Right or wrong, most people are not  captivated by the plight of transgender folks. Poor white people don't need to be reminded constantly of how blacks have it so much worse than them.

We need a more inclusive central message that focuses on how the wealthy are becoming ever more powerful as the rest of the country suffers, all the while trying to reduce their own tax burden and strip away social programs.

It was working for Bernie and it could work again.
This.

To me, Trump's win was as much a rebuke to Republicans as it was Democrats.

While I agree that it is important for the democratic party to learn some lessons from this election, I am less confident as to what those lessons are. Hillary won the popular vote by ~3 million people. The biggest obstacle facing Dems is this:

(http://i443.photobucket.com/albums/qq159/fanfromvt/IMG_1373.png?t=1486995061)

It's an amazingly unfortunate thing for a consistent plurality party.

You're right to some extend here, but so many of those popular votes came from liberal strongholds like the Northeast and Northwest. It is in the rural/poor areas where Hillary suffered.

You can see on this map how each town voted:

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-hampshire

Look at how the liberal urban areas like Dover, Portsmouth, Concord, Durham voted heavily for Clinton. Poorer Nashua and Manchester a little less so. Then downtrodden Rochester and Laconia going for Trump.

And the rural areas mostly went for Trump, too. It really is remarkable how wealth plays into voting practices around here.

Dems clearly are not reaching these poor white voters.

This can't all be gerrymandering, even in my own area in southern Maine/NH I see this.
Is it wealth or education?
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Roy H. on February 14, 2017, 06:08:57 PM
Quote
The dynamics that defined the need for the EC just seem to be something our nation has long since outgrown.

I don't think so. The divide isn't over big states versus small ones anymore, but the mainstream of America lives outside the largest population centers. There's more to America than California, NY, Texas and Florida.

So, should electoral representation be based on how much land area is under foot per voter?

A person's vote should count for less because of how densely populated the area he lives in is?

Is it one person / one vote or not?

When a California resident votes for President of the United States, he is voting as a citizen of the United States, not a citizen of California.  The President is supposed to execute the laws of the US on behalf of all citizens of the US.  Not on behalf of voters from particular states.

We're a Constitutional Republic based upon federalist principles. States matter, and the Electoral College helps preserve that.

Should I assume that means that your answers are:

a) Electoral representation should indeed depend on how densely populated the area is that you live in and

b) We should not expect one person == one vote.

Is that your belief?  Please clarify if that is not correct.

An assertions such as, "States matter, and the Electoral College helps preserve that." seems to beg a few questions.

How much should States matter, relative to the Union? 
Should some States matter more than individual rights as citizens of the Union?
How exactly does providing equal representation to all citizens in choosing their one common federal representative threaten the idea that States matter?
Why is it important to preserve that? Is government allowed to evolve?

Nowhere is it guaranteed that each vote will count exactly equally.  Preserving each state's individuality and sovereignty is one of the core features of our Constitution. Indeed, when weighing Federalism versus voting rights, it's clear where the Founders came down.

But, hey, get 3/4 of the State Legislatures to approve a Constitutional Amendment and we'll have something to talk about.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: libermaniac on February 14, 2017, 06:10:35 PM
Is it wealth or education?
Well, there is a pretty strong correlation between the 2.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: 2short on February 14, 2017, 06:17:57 PM
Is it wealth or education?
Well, there is a pretty strong correlation between the 2.
Chicken or egg...... 8)
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: tazzmaniac on February 14, 2017, 06:47:57 PM
[As far as the Presidential race goes, gerrymandering really doesn't play a part.  It is all about the electoral college.  Win a state; get all its electoral votes.  Hillary won the national popular vote by 2.9m but she won the California popular vote by 4.3m and New York by 1.7m.  So she lost the popular vote in the other 48 states by more than 3m.  While I hate the results of the election, I think the founding fathers were right to rein in the ability of big states to dominate national politics.

So ... do you think it's right for the small states to dominate national politics?

Because that is what we have now.

The current model gives more power per vote in both the Congress and the White House to a voter in a small state.

Is that consistent with equal representation and due process?
Small states don't dominate national politics.  The needs of Montana, Wyoming , the Dakotas, etc aren't at the fore front of national politics.  They just aren't completely overwhelmed by California, New York, Texas, Florida, etc. 
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 14, 2017, 06:49:39 PM
You can definitely fault Hillary's campaign for incompetence, hubris, etc., but I have a very hard time with any argument that suggests that everyday people who didn't vote for a candidate have as much or more responsibility for their win as people who did.

I understand where you are coming from there.  But going forward, if the Democrats don't put forward a better candidate and put forward a more moderate platform don't be surprised if Trump somehow wins again.  Trump's win was as much about rejection of the Dems as it was support for the Reps.

I think the Democrats have been given an amazing opportunity to unite in the aftermath of Trump.  Question is, what will they do with this opportunity?  My money is on them squandering it, although I'd prefer to be wrong.

I'm not so sure Trump's election is a message to the D's that they need a more moderate platform. A self-described democratic socialist Jewish guy (who's been in DC forever) did extremely well with the "Brexit" states who gave Trump the election. His message resonated there, as it did with a large majority of young people.

Do democrats need to get away from "identity politics" and political correctness outrage? YES! 1000 times yes. But if anything, I think they need to make their appeal to the disparaged working class of Americans who feel like their standard of living has gotten worse and worse. Politically speaking (personal opinions aside), the best way for them to do that is for one, show that Trump has used his power to push policies that hurt them and two, use clear and simple messaging to champion working class friendly progressive policies (I.E. Support collective bargaining in new arenas, single payer or public option health care, paid parental and sick leave, closing tax loopholes for the rich, raising the minimum wage, truly affordable college/trade school programs, changing public assistance to help the working poor, etc.).

It may seem like we're more divided along party lines than ever before, and a lot of people surely are. But IMO, the lesson of this election was that the people who decide the elections (the "swing" voters who aren't strict D's or R's) are looking for someone who can help improve their quality of life. These people viewed Clinton (right or wrong) as one of the people responsible for lowering that quality of life in the 1st place. But a whole lot of them have major concerns about Trump as well. Articulating policies that are demonstrably good for that quality of life will win their votes. It doesn't matter much weather the person who's pushing them is a "moderate" or a "progressive", imo. Just as long as that person isn't Elizabeth Warren.

TP, Agree wholeheartedly.

Rural white America is not doing well right now. They have seen their manufacturing jobs evaporate as companies move overseas, wages stagnate or drop as companies like Wal-Mart dominate employment.

Imagine a hard-working contractor who comes home after a long days' work. His joints ache. He is in general poor health because of the garbage food we've been brainwashed to eat, He can barely afford health care. He's making child support payments.

He turns on the TV to relax, then he sees some DB New York politician or Berkeley talking head on TV telling him that white men have it easy in this country.

Some certainly do - but for the majority of America right now it is not rosy.

As a Vermonter Bernie knows this, and this is why his message resonated. He was simply telling the truth.

But then Bernie gets undercut by the DNC in favor of Hillary, a true establishment figure who preaches constantly about feminism while staying with her philandering husband for political reasons - and suddenly Trump's rantings and hypocrisy seem a lot more palatable.

The outraged liberal city folk need to get with the program. Right or wrong, most people are not  captivated by the plight of transgender folks. Poor white people don't need to be reminded constantly of how blacks have it so much worse than them.

We need a more inclusive central message that focuses on how the wealthy are becoming ever more powerful as the rest of the country suffers, all the while trying to reduce their own tax burden and strip away social programs.

It was working for Bernie and it could work again.
This.

To me, Trump's win was as much a rebuke to Republicans as it was Democrats.

While I agree that it is important for the democratic party to learn some lessons from this election, I am less confident as to what those lessons are. Hillary won the popular vote by ~3 million people. The biggest obstacle facing Dems is this:

(http://i443.photobucket.com/albums/qq159/fanfromvt/IMG_1373.png?t=1486995061)

It's an amazingly unfortunate thing for a consistent plurality party.
How they got  away with gerrymandering on a national level is beyond me.  This is what it looks like to have the opposition party in control.  The result will be even less trust of the gov't.  Democracy is being destroyed and republican politicians don't care.

1. Democrats gerrymander, too.

Unfortunately, the primary justification for misbehavior in today's White House, among today's political parties, and in 3rd grade classrooms has become "they did it too".   

When democrats point to republican obstruction during the Obama years and use it as justification for their own obstruction, this too should be rejected.   There certainly may/will be reasons to disagree and oppose but blind partisan obstruction is wrong.  Just as gerrymandering is wrong regardless of who does it.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Roy H. on February 14, 2017, 07:21:30 PM
You can definitely fault Hillary's campaign for incompetence, hubris, etc., but I have a very hard time with any argument that suggests that everyday people who didn't vote for a candidate have as much or more responsibility for their win as people who did.

I understand where you are coming from there.  But going forward, if the Democrats don't put forward a better candidate and put forward a more moderate platform don't be surprised if Trump somehow wins again.  Trump's win was as much about rejection of the Dems as it was support for the Reps.

I think the Democrats have been given an amazing opportunity to unite in the aftermath of Trump.  Question is, what will they do with this opportunity?  My money is on them squandering it, although I'd prefer to be wrong.

I'm not so sure Trump's election is a message to the D's that they need a more moderate platform. A self-described democratic socialist Jewish guy (who's been in DC forever) did extremely well with the "Brexit" states who gave Trump the election. His message resonated there, as it did with a large majority of young people.

Do democrats need to get away from "identity politics" and political correctness outrage? YES! 1000 times yes. But if anything, I think they need to make their appeal to the disparaged working class of Americans who feel like their standard of living has gotten worse and worse. Politically speaking (personal opinions aside), the best way for them to do that is for one, show that Trump has used his power to push policies that hurt them and two, use clear and simple messaging to champion working class friendly progressive policies (I.E. Support collective bargaining in new arenas, single payer or public option health care, paid parental and sick leave, closing tax loopholes for the rich, raising the minimum wage, truly affordable college/trade school programs, changing public assistance to help the working poor, etc.).

It may seem like we're more divided along party lines than ever before, and a lot of people surely are. But IMO, the lesson of this election was that the people who decide the elections (the "swing" voters who aren't strict D's or R's) are looking for someone who can help improve their quality of life. These people viewed Clinton (right or wrong) as one of the people responsible for lowering that quality of life in the 1st place. But a whole lot of them have major concerns about Trump as well. Articulating policies that are demonstrably good for that quality of life will win their votes. It doesn't matter much weather the person who's pushing them is a "moderate" or a "progressive", imo. Just as long as that person isn't Elizabeth Warren.

TP, Agree wholeheartedly.

Rural white America is not doing well right now. They have seen their manufacturing jobs evaporate as companies move overseas, wages stagnate or drop as companies like Wal-Mart dominate employment.

Imagine a hard-working contractor who comes home after a long days' work. His joints ache. He is in general poor health because of the garbage food we've been brainwashed to eat, He can barely afford health care. He's making child support payments.

He turns on the TV to relax, then he sees some DB New York politician or Berkeley talking head on TV telling him that white men have it easy in this country.

Some certainly do - but for the majority of America right now it is not rosy.

As a Vermonter Bernie knows this, and this is why his message resonated. He was simply telling the truth.

But then Bernie gets undercut by the DNC in favor of Hillary, a true establishment figure who preaches constantly about feminism while staying with her philandering husband for political reasons - and suddenly Trump's rantings and hypocrisy seem a lot more palatable.

The outraged liberal city folk need to get with the program. Right or wrong, most people are not  captivated by the plight of transgender folks. Poor white people don't need to be reminded constantly of how blacks have it so much worse than them.

We need a more inclusive central message that focuses on how the wealthy are becoming ever more powerful as the rest of the country suffers, all the while trying to reduce their own tax burden and strip away social programs.

It was working for Bernie and it could work again.
This.

To me, Trump's win was as much a rebuke to Republicans as it was Democrats.

While I agree that it is important for the democratic party to learn some lessons from this election, I am less confident as to what those lessons are. Hillary won the popular vote by ~3 million people. The biggest obstacle facing Dems is this:

(http://i443.photobucket.com/albums/qq159/fanfromvt/IMG_1373.png?t=1486995061)

It's an amazingly unfortunate thing for a consistent plurality party.
How they got  away with gerrymandering on a national level is beyond me.  This is what it looks like to have the opposition party in control.  The result will be even less trust of the gov't.  Democracy is being destroyed and republican politicians don't care.

1. Democrats gerrymander, too.

Unfortunately, the primary justification for misbehavior in today's White House, among today's political parties, and in 3rd grade classrooms has become "they did it too".   

When democrats point to republican obstruction during the Obama years and use it as justification for their own obstruction, this too should be rejected.   There certainly may/will be reasons to disagree and oppose but blind partisan obstruction is wrong.  Just as gerrymandering is wrong regardless of who does it.

Sure. Specifically, though, I was responding to:

Quote
Democracy is being destroyed and republican politicians don't care.

Voters blaming only one party for gerrymandering (or hypocrisy, or money in politics, or obstruction, or partisanship) is a huge part of the problem.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 14, 2017, 07:22:23 PM
^^^ that's why I've been encouraged by some of the recent bipartisan actions on Trump picks.

Trump's cabinet continues to take shape:

Mnuchin (Treasury) confirmed 53-47
McMahan (SBA) confirmed 81-19
Schulkin (VA) 100-0

Notable names still up for confirmation: Ross (Commerce), Pudzer (Labor)
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 14, 2017, 07:39:52 PM
Well, anyone looking for someone to put national interests over party loyalty should keep looking; no spine or moral standing here:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4qUsFfWEAALkJz?format=jpg&name=large)

I should clarify, this is beacon of character Rand Paul.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 14, 2017, 08:15:58 PM
Who's next after Flynn?
If I had to bet I'd go with Kellyanne Conway
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: nickagneta on February 14, 2017, 08:20:33 PM
Well, anyone looking for someone to put national interests over party loyalty should keep looking; no spine or moral standing here:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4qUsFfWEAALkJz?format=jpg&name=large)
The Republican heads of the House Oversight Committee and the House Intelligence Committee have both come out saying they won't investigate Flynn either, both getting heat from Democratic Representatives on those committees. The Republicans in the Senate don't look to be so quick to overlook what has been happening, however. Should be interesting as more and more info comes forth.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: indeedproceed on February 14, 2017, 08:49:37 PM
Who's next after Flynn?
If I had to bet I'd go with Kellyanne Conway

Spicy is on the hot seat.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: slamtheking on February 14, 2017, 09:07:45 PM
Who's next after Flynn?
If I had to bet I'd go with Kellyanne Conway

Spicy is on the hot seat.
NOOOOOO!! Not Spicey!!!

I can't go without my Melissa Mccarthy impressions!!!  He must survive the length of this administration
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 14, 2017, 09:24:15 PM
Ruh-roh - US intelligence officials say Trump campaign members and associates had "repeated contacts" with senior Russian intelligence officials and other government agents in the year before the election. Based on intercepted calls.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html)

The only one they'll name is the least surprising - Paul Manafort, who resigned as campaign chair due to his links to Russia in his previous job for a pro-Russia party in Ukraine. There are some caveats in the article, and the officials are giving few specifics, so nothing is definitive, but it's just another massive puff of very dark smoke around this issue.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 14, 2017, 09:49:47 PM
Ruh-roh - US intelligence officials say Trump campaign members and associates had "repeated contacts" with senior Russian intelligence officials and other government agents in the year before the election. Based on intercepted calls.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html)

The only one they'll name is the least surprising - Paul Manafort, who resigned as campaign chair due to his links to Russia in his previous job for a pro-Russia party in Ukraine. There are some caveats in the article, and the officials are giving few specifics, so nothing is definitive, but it's just another massive puff of very dark smoke around this issue.

From what I'm reading on right wing news, this is all the work of fake news spun by former Obama advisor Ben Rhoades and his "cabal" (yes that word gets used) of Obama loyalists.

Not that I believe it.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Evantime34 on February 14, 2017, 10:00:09 PM
Ruh-roh - US intelligence officials say Trump campaign members and associates had "repeated contacts" with senior Russian intelligence officials and other government agents in the year before the election. Based on intercepted calls.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html)

The only one they'll name is the least surprising - Paul Manafort, who resigned as campaign chair due to his links to Russia in his previous job for a pro-Russia party in Ukraine. There are some caveats in the article, and the officials are giving few specifics, so nothing is definitive, but it's just another massive puff of very dark smoke around this issue.

From what I'm reading on right wing news, this is all the work of fake news spun by former Obama advisor Ben Rhoades and his "cabal" (yes that word gets used) of Obama loyalists.

Not that I believe it.
It will be interesting to see if/when the right wing news turns on Trump. If by some miracle he is impeached would they continue to back him after he was out of office?
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: indeedproceed on February 14, 2017, 10:17:47 PM
Ruh-roh - US intelligence officials say Trump campaign members and associates had "repeated contacts" with senior Russian intelligence officials and other government agents in the year before the election. Based on intercepted calls.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html)

The only one they'll name is the least surprising - Paul Manafort, who resigned as campaign chair due to his links to Russia in his previous job for a pro-Russia party in Ukraine. There are some caveats in the article, and the officials are giving few specifics, so nothing is definitive, but it's just another massive puff of very dark smoke around this issue.

From what I'm reading on right wing news, this is all the work of fake news spun by former Obama advisor Ben Rhoades and his "cabal" (yes that word gets used) of Obama loyalists.

Not that I believe it.

Proudayou for reading stuff that is difficult to read.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Jon on February 14, 2017, 10:25:52 PM
Trump is going down in flames one way or another. I look forward to watching all those clinging to that abomination go down in flames with him.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Big333223 on February 15, 2017, 06:53:55 AM
Ruh-roh - US intelligence officials say Trump campaign members and associates had "repeated contacts" with senior Russian intelligence officials and other government agents in the year before the election. Based on intercepted calls.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html)

The only one they'll name is the least surprising - Paul Manafort, who resigned as campaign chair due to his links to Russia in his previous job for a pro-Russia party in Ukraine. There are some caveats in the article, and the officials are giving few specifics, so nothing is definitive, but it's just another massive puff of very dark smoke around this issue.

From what I'm reading on right wing news, this is all the work of fake news spun by former Obama advisor Ben Rhoades and his "cabal" (yes that word gets used) of Obama loyalists.

Not that I believe it.
This is the biggest problem, to me. If conservatives are intent on dismissing reality as "fake news" every time the facts don't support them and voters are fine with it, then we're never going to get anywhere.

And I do think it's fair to call out conservatives, specifically, in this area.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Big333223 on February 15, 2017, 06:56:28 AM
Front page on the USA Today this morning: White House posts wrong versions of Trump's orders on its own website.

Quote
The differences include minor grammatical changes, missing words and paragraph renumbering — but also two cases where the original text referred to inaccurate or non-existent provisions of law
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/14/white-house-posts-wrong-versions-trumps-orders-its-website/97845888/

So far, this administration can't do anything right, big or small.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: trickybilly on February 15, 2017, 06:57:58 AM
I keep wondering when conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones will feel they have enough "evidence" to justify turning on Trump as a shady businessman doing favors for his business associates worldwide, interested in ONLY that as a policy issue? Now that would be a great "conspiracy" to create!
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 15, 2017, 08:01:39 AM
I keep wondering when conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones will feel they have enough "evidence" to justify turning on Trump as a shady businessman doing favors for his business associates worldwide, interested in ONLY that as a policy issue? Now that would be a great "conspiracy" to create!

That would imply that conspiracy theorists base their theories on evidence. Mostly, they start with a conclusion that is adhered to with irrational conviction with cherry picked support.

Thats what makes this Trump stuff different. No one really knows, so the information as it leaks is being used to build conclusions from the ground up.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: greece666 on February 15, 2017, 08:24:36 AM
@foulweatherfan

Thanks for the detailed reply. Much appreciated.

I'll explain briefly where I disagree.

Imagine if RT published an article about a recently deceased FBI agent, linked his death to a political intrigue in Washington and then several fringe American publications reproduced the story.

Anyway, back to Trump. I think the safest course is to wait two more months to see what direction his foreign policy will take. To this day, it looks messy and undecided, but this is likely to change with time.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Roy H. on February 15, 2017, 08:45:25 AM
Front page on the USA Today this morning: White House posts wrong versions of Trump's orders on its own website.

Quote
The differences include minor grammatical changes, missing words and paragraph renumbering — but also two cases where the original text referred to inaccurate or non-existent provisions of law
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/14/white-house-posts-wrong-versions-trumps-orders-its-website/97845888/

So far, this administration can't do anything right, big or small.

It's pathetic, but at the same time, is that worthy of front page news? There are plenty of big stories of Administration screw-ups; media overemphasizing small stuff trivializes the important matters.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: chicagoceltic on February 15, 2017, 11:44:02 AM
Front page on the USA Today this morning: White House posts wrong versions of Trump's orders on its own website.

Quote
The differences include minor grammatical changes, missing words and paragraph renumbering — but also two cases where the original text referred to inaccurate or non-existent provisions of law
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/14/white-house-posts-wrong-versions-trumps-orders-its-website/97845888/

So far, this administration can't do anything right, big or small.

It's pathetic, but at the same time, is that worthy of front page news? There are plenty of big stories of Administration screw-ups; media overemphasizing small stuff trivializes the important matters.
On it's own, no it is not but it seems like every single day there is a story like this (or worse) about the Trump administration so that may be why even petty embarrassments like this remain front page news.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 15, 2017, 12:02:00 PM
Ruh-roh - US intelligence officials say Trump campaign members and associates had "repeated contacts" with senior Russian intelligence officials and other government agents in the year before the election. Based on intercepted calls.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html)

The only one they'll name is the least surprising - Paul Manafort, who resigned as campaign chair due to his links to Russia in his previous job for a pro-Russia party in Ukraine. There are some caveats in the article, and the officials are giving few specifics, so nothing is definitive, but it's just another massive puff of very dark smoke around this issue.

From what I'm reading on right wing news, this is all the work of fake news spun by former Obama advisor Ben Rhoades and his "cabal" (yes that word gets used) of Obama loyalists.

Not that I believe it.

It's being used as a RW deflection from the real issues around Trump and his campaign/admin, but a legit major secondary story is that large portions of the intelligence community are leaking like crazy about this. The IC are not elected, not exactly known for being bleeding-heart liberals, and of course put out a highly damaging Hillary story pre-election while mostly sitting on this, so the "partisan conspiracy" line holds very little weight with me. Instead, I think this stems from some combination of:

- A substantial portion of the IC has been deeply concerned for several months that Trump and/or people very close to him are compromised by Russia. By now they do not expect the executive branch or the R Congressional majority to do anything at all about it without serious public pressure, so they are turning to the media to apply that pressure.

- A substantial portion of the IC is extremely p---ed at Trump for comparing them to Nazis, making a sickeningly self-promoting speech in front of the "sacred ground" of the memorial wall at Langley, etc., and are leaking anything they think will embarrass or undermine him.

I hope it's more the former than the latter - it's worth noting the insulting stuff was all in response to earlier versions of this same story. But regardless, while people yelling for immediate impeachment are getting WAY ahead of themselves, there's absolutely enough to demand an independent, empowered special prosecutor to investigate this in as thorough and non-partisan a way as possible.

I'm not jumping to any definitive conclusions, but if - IF! - the President or other high-level people in the executive branch are compromised by a foreign adversary, we're in a constant state of national emergency until it's exposed and dealt with. It's that serious.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: incoherent on February 15, 2017, 12:11:18 PM
I think he should be impeached if any of this is true.  It's straight up treason.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Vermont Green on February 15, 2017, 12:16:08 PM
The solution to the Russia-Trump speculation is easy; if it is true that they have all the conversations on tape, they should be heard by FBI and an oversight committee from Congress and a conclusion made.  They should be made public to the extent possible.

At the same time, the implicated parties should be deposed under oath (publicly) and that testimony compared to the actual tapes.

This is not witch-hunting, this should not be partisan.  I can't believe there is any American that does not want to know the truth behind all of this (except maybe those implicated).  I will be immediately suspicious of anyone resisting this type of process or trying to deflect the issue away from this.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: liam on February 15, 2017, 12:16:41 PM
The leaks are coming from Trump's own unsecured phone. No security = leaks.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Redz on February 15, 2017, 12:29:22 PM
Ruh-roh - US intelligence officials say Trump campaign members and associates had "repeated contacts" with senior Russian intelligence officials and other government agents in the year before the election. Based on intercepted calls.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html)

The only one they'll name is the least surprising - Paul Manafort, who resigned as campaign chair due to his links to Russia in his previous job for a pro-Russia party in Ukraine. There are some caveats in the article, and the officials are giving few specifics, so nothing is definitive, but it's just another massive puff of very dark smoke around this issue.

From what I'm reading on right wing news, this is all the work of fake news spun by former Obama advisor Ben Rhoades and his "cabal" (yes that word gets used) of Obama loyalists.

Not that I believe it.

A cabal canard
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: hpantazo on February 15, 2017, 12:40:05 PM
Front page on the USA Today this morning: White House posts wrong versions of Trump's orders on its own website.

Quote
The differences include minor grammatical changes, missing words and paragraph renumbering — but also two cases where the original text referred to inaccurate or non-existent provisions of law
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/14/white-house-posts-wrong-versions-trumps-orders-its-website/97845888/

So far, this administration can't do anything right, big or small.

It's pathetic, but at the same time, is that worthy of front page news? There are plenty of big stories of Administration screw-ups; media overemphasizing small stuff trivializes the important matters.

No, but when your administration continuously insults the media publicly, then you should expect any screw up you make, big or small, to be front page news.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Roy H. on February 15, 2017, 12:40:16 PM
I think he should be impeached if any of this is true.  It's straight up treason.

If Trump is being blackmailed, yes. If he is undermining our security for personal / business reasons, yes.

What we have now, though, is a coverup but no crime. Flynn lied, and he discussed sanctions with Russia. There's nothing illegal about having that conversation, is there? Even if Trump authorized it?  Without more, it seems like the appropriate resolution was reached.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Roy H. on February 15, 2017, 12:44:43 PM
Front page on the USA Today this morning: White House posts wrong versions of Trump's orders on its own website.

Quote
The differences include minor grammatical changes, missing words and paragraph renumbering — but also two cases where the original text referred to inaccurate or non-existent provisions of law
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/14/white-house-posts-wrong-versions-trumps-orders-its-website/97845888/

So far, this administration can't do anything right, big or small.

It's pathetic, but at the same time, is that worthy of front page news? There are plenty of big stories of Administration screw-ups; media overemphasizing small stuff trivializes the important matters.

No, but when your administration continuously insults the media publicly, then you should expect any screw up you make, big or small, to be front page news.

With a petty media that prefers making news to reporting it, yes. The consequence is that making mountains out of mole hills - coupled with false reporting and partisan vitriol from reporters when "off the clock" - is that roughly half the country tunes out the media at any given time.  More people trust Trump than the media. It's because of the silly tit for tat and rooting interest.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: slamtheking on February 15, 2017, 12:47:20 PM
I think he should be impeached if any of this is true.  It's straight up treason.

If Trump is being blackmailed, yes. If he is undermining our security for personal / business reasons, yes.

What we have now, though, is a coverup but no crime. Flynn lied, and he discussed sanctions with Russia. There's nothing illegal about having that conversation, is there? Even if Trump authorized it?  Without more, it seems like the appropriate resolution was reached.
that's the question.  depending on who's being interviewed, the answer maybe yes.  At the time, he was a private citizen, as was Trump.  I'm not sure that as president-elect, he can have private citizens contacting foreign governments.  As the story has played out, he supposedly wasn't acting with Trump or Pence's knowledge beforehand so this not only seems to be illegal at best but a case for treason may not be unfounded.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: wiley on February 15, 2017, 12:48:19 PM
The solution to the Russia-Trump speculation is easy; if it is true that they have all the conversations on tape, they should be heard by FBI and an oversight committee from Congress and a conclusion made.  They should be made public to the extent possible.

At the same time, the implicated parties should be deposed under oath (publicly) and that testimony compared to the actual tapes.

This is not witch-hunting, this should not be partisan. I can't believe there is any American that does not want to know the truth behind all of this (except maybe those implicated).  I will be immediately suspicious of anyone resisting this type of process or trying to deflect the issue away from this.

As you probably know, there are millions of Americans who would be happy for this story to die.  They are the followers of Hannity, the minions of Breitbart, the fish of Fox News.  Anyone against Trump is a left wing enemy, even if they are Republican, or conservative, or non-partisan military/national security experts.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 15, 2017, 12:52:43 PM
I think he should be impeached if any of this is true.  It's straight up treason.

If Trump is being blackmailed, yes. If he is undermining our security for personal / business reasons, yes.

What we have now, though, is a coverup but no crime. Flynn lied, and he discussed sanctions with Russia. There's nothing illegal about having that conversation, is there? Even if Trump authorized it?  Without more, it seems like the appropriate resolution was reached.
that's the question.  depending on who's being interviewed, the answer maybe yes.  At the time, he was a private citizen, as was Trump.  I'm not sure that as president-elect, he can have private citizens contacting foreign governments.  As the story has played out, he supposedly wasn't acting with Trump or Pence's knowledge beforehand so this not only seems to be illegal at best but a case for treason may not be unfounded.

Violation of the Logan Act, no?
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Roy H. on February 15, 2017, 01:13:26 PM
I think he should be impeached if any of this is true.  It's straight up treason.

If Trump is being blackmailed, yes. If he is undermining our security for personal / business reasons, yes.

What we have now, though, is a coverup but no crime. Flynn lied, and he discussed sanctions with Russia. There's nothing illegal about having that conversation, is there? Even if Trump authorized it?  Without more, it seems like the appropriate resolution was reached.
that's the question.  depending on who's being interviewed, the answer maybe yes.  At the time, he was a private citizen, as was Trump.  I'm not sure that as president-elect, he can have private citizens contacting foreign governments.  As the story has played out, he supposedly wasn't acting with Trump or Pence's knowledge beforehand so this not only seems to be illegal at best but a case for treason may not be unfounded.

Violation of the Logan Act, no?

https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/explaining-logan-act-dems-mike-flynn-violated/story%3Fid%3D45481930
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Rondo9 on February 15, 2017, 01:20:59 PM
The solution to the Russia-Trump speculation is easy; if it is true that they have all the conversations on tape, they should be heard by FBI and an oversight committee from Congress and a conclusion made.  They should be made public to the extent possible.

At the same time, the implicated parties should be deposed under oath (publicly) and that testimony compared to the actual tapes.

This is not witch-hunting, this should not be partisan. I can't believe there is any American that does not want to know the truth behind all of this (except maybe those implicated).  I will be immediately suspicious of anyone resisting this type of process or trying to deflect the issue away from this.

As you probably know, there are millions of Americans who would be happy for this story to die.  They are the followers of Hannity, the minions of Breitbart, the fish of Fox News.  Anyone against Trump is a left wing enemy, even if they are Republican, or conservative, or non-partisan military/national security experts.

And the other way around for the left as well
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 15, 2017, 01:50:32 PM
I think he should be impeached if any of this is true.  It's straight up treason.

If Trump is being blackmailed, yes. If he is undermining our security for personal / business reasons, yes.

What we have now, though, is a coverup but no crime. Flynn lied, and he discussed sanctions with Russia. There's nothing illegal about having that conversation, is there? Even if Trump authorized it?  Without more, it seems like the appropriate resolution was reached.
that's the question.  depending on who's being interviewed, the answer maybe yes.  At the time, he was a private citizen, as was Trump.  I'm not sure that as president-elect, he can have private citizens contacting foreign governments.  As the story has played out, he supposedly wasn't acting with Trump or Pence's knowledge beforehand so this not only seems to be illegal at best but a case for treason may not be unfounded.

Violation of the Logan Act, no?

https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/explaining-logan-act-dems-mike-flynn-violated/story%3Fid%3D45481930

So, "maybe" but using the Logan Act is unprecedented and opens a whole can of worms.

However, we are in a new day and age. The age of Trump. "Unprecedented" seems par for the course with Trump, his campaign, and his Administration. I bet we keep hearing about the Logan Act, and not because Dems are grasping at straws, but because, with Trump, everything is on the table.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: saltlover on February 15, 2017, 02:10:29 PM
Meanwhile, Trump looks like he'll need to find a new Labor Secretary.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/13/politics/gop-senators-puzder/ (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/13/politics/gop-senators-puzder/)
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: wiley on February 15, 2017, 02:14:03 PM
The solution to the Russia-Trump speculation is easy; if it is true that they have all the conversations on tape, they should be heard by FBI and an oversight committee from Congress and a conclusion made.  They should be made public to the extent possible.

At the same time, the implicated parties should be deposed under oath (publicly) and that testimony compared to the actual tapes.

This is not witch-hunting, this should not be partisan. I can't believe there is any American that does not want to know the truth behind all of this (except maybe those implicated).  I will be immediately suspicious of anyone resisting this type of process or trying to deflect the issue away from this.

As you probably know, there are millions of Americans who would be happy for this story to die.  They are the followers of Hannity, the minions of Breitbart, the fish of Fox News.  Anyone against Trump is a left wing enemy, even if they are Republican, or conservative, or non-partisan military/national security experts.

And the other way around for the left as well

With this response are you defending:
A. Hannity
B. Breitbart
C. Trump

You can answer with a combo of the above if you want. 

If you're not defending any of these, then your response has nothing to do with what's happening in the United States in February 2017, which is grave bi-partisan concern over an authoritarian non-conservative president.

Side question on a single issue.  Are you happy with Trump's repeal of Dodd Frank, or would you have liked to see that stay in place.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: BDeCosta26 on February 15, 2017, 02:32:17 PM
There's something here with this Russia thing. We don't know what it is yet, but there's way too much smoke here for there to be no fire. I find it hard to believe that Flynn was talking about the status of the sanctions with Russian Intelligence without Trump's knowledge, or possibly his direct approval. Multiple top people on the Trump team have been found to have had numerous contacts with Russian Intelligence during and after the campaign. The way Trump has kowtowed for and praised Putin, makes the whole thing stink even more. The tax returns don't help.

Put in the context of the Russian hacking of the DNC and direct interference on behalf of Trump in the election, it's pretty clear there's something amiss about Trump and his staff's relationship with Russia. This administration, since day 1, has told outright lies about this issue (and countless other ones) to the American public and has earned the right for us to not believe a word they say.

There's something going on here, that's for sure. Depending on how deep it goes, it COULD (EMPHASIZE COULD) be the thing that makes congressional Republicans to say "enough is enough". Stay tuned.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 15, 2017, 03:29:04 PM
There's something here with this Russia thing. We don't know what it is yet, but there's way too much smoke here for there to be no fire. I find it hard to believe that Flynn was talking about the status of the sanctions with Russian Intelligence without Trump's knowledge, or possibly his direct approval. Multiple top people on the Trump team have been found to have had numerous contacts with Russian Intelligence during and after the campaign. The way Trump has kowtowed for and praised Putin, makes the whole thing stink even more. The tax returns don't help.

Put in the context of the Russian hacking of the DNC and direct interference on behalf of Trump in the election, it's pretty clear there's something amiss about Trump and his staff's relationship with Russia. This administration, since day 1, has told outright lies about this issue (and countless other ones) to the American public and has earned the right for us to not believe a word they say.

There's something going on here, that's for sure. Depending on how deep it goes, it COULD (EMPHASIZE COULD) be the thing that makes congressional Republicans to say "enough is enough". Stay tuned.

I don't think this is THE thing, but maybe a contributor.   I think they'll be able to spin this as Flynn as a loose cannon who ended up lasting only 24 days.  Trump will praise himself for swift action (even though facts will show they've known about Flynn for months).  Some congressional republicans are already spinning it favorably -- they got rid of him, so now let's move ahead with putting America first, or making us safe, or great again....

If it turns out definitively to be more than Flynn involved including other members of the current inner core -- or if "cover-up" starts to be heard with regard to hiding things they knew about Flynn -- then this could be THE thing.  But my bet is that this ends up as just another pieces of "straw" with the camel's back not yet broken for most republican senators and reps.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 15, 2017, 03:31:50 PM
You can definitely fault Hillary's campaign for incompetence, hubris, etc., but I have a very hard time with any argument that suggests that everyday people who didn't vote for a candidate have as much or more responsibility for their win as people who did.

I understand where you are coming from there.  But going forward, if the Democrats don't put forward a better candidate and put forward a more moderate platform don't be surprised if Trump somehow wins again.  Trump's win was as much about rejection of the Dems as it was support for the Reps.

I think the Democrats have been given an amazing opportunity to unite in the aftermath of Trump.  Question is, what will they do with this opportunity?  My money is on them squandering it, although I'd prefer to be wrong.

I'm not so sure Trump's election is a message to the D's that they need a more moderate platform. A self-described democratic socialist Jewish guy (who's been in DC forever) did extremely well with the "Brexit" states who gave Trump the election. His message resonated there, as it did with a large majority of young people.

Do democrats need to get away from "identity politics" and political correctness outrage? YES! 1000 times yes. But if anything, I think they need to make their appeal to the disparaged working class of Americans who feel like their standard of living has gotten worse and worse. Politically speaking (personal opinions aside), the best way for them to do that is for one, show that Trump has used his power to push policies that hurt them and two, use clear and simple messaging to champion working class friendly progressive policies (I.E. Support collective bargaining in new arenas, single payer or public option health care, paid parental and sick leave, closing tax loopholes for the rich, raising the minimum wage, truly affordable college/trade school programs, changing public assistance to help the working poor, etc.).

It may seem like we're more divided along party lines than ever before, and a lot of people surely are. But IMO, the lesson of this election was that the people who decide the elections (the "swing" voters who aren't strict D's or R's) are looking for someone who can help improve their quality of life. These people viewed Clinton (right or wrong) as one of the people responsible for lowering that quality of life in the 1st place. But a whole lot of them have major concerns about Trump as well. Articulating policies that are demonstrably good for that quality of life will win their votes. It doesn't matter much weather the person who's pushing them is a "moderate" or a "progressive", imo. Just as long as that person isn't Elizabeth Warren.

TP, Agree wholeheartedly.

Rural white America is not doing well right now. They have seen their manufacturing jobs evaporate as companies move overseas, wages stagnate or drop as companies like Wal-Mart dominate employment.

Imagine a hard-working contractor who comes home after a long days' work. His joints ache. He is in general poor health because of the garbage food we've been brainwashed to eat, He can barely afford health care. He's making child support payments.

He turns on the TV to relax, then he sees some DB New York politician or Berkeley talking head on TV telling him that white men have it easy in this country.

Some certainly do - but for the majority of America right now it is not rosy.

As a Vermonter Bernie knows this, and this is why his message resonated. He was simply telling the truth.

But then Bernie gets undercut by the DNC in favor of Hillary, a true establishment figure who preaches constantly about feminism while staying with her philandering husband for political reasons - and suddenly Trump's rantings and hypocrisy seem a lot more palatable.

The outraged liberal city folk need to get with the program. Right or wrong, most people are not  captivated by the plight of transgender folks. Poor white people don't need to be reminded constantly of how blacks have it so much worse than them.

We need a more inclusive central message that focuses on how the wealthy are becoming ever more powerful as the rest of the country suffers, all the while trying to reduce their own tax burden and strip away social programs.

It was working for Bernie and it could work again.
This.

To me, Trump's win was as much a rebuke to Republicans as it was Democrats.

While I agree that it is important for the democratic party to learn some lessons from this election, I am less confident as to what those lessons are. Hillary won the popular vote by ~3 million people. The biggest obstacle facing Dems is this:

(http://i443.photobucket.com/albums/qq159/fanfromvt/IMG_1373.png?t=1486995061)

It's an amazingly unfortunate thing for a consistent plurality party.
How they got  away with gerrymandering on a national level is beyond me.  This is what it looks like to have the opposition party in control.  The result will be even less trust of the gov't.  Democracy is being destroyed and republican politicians don't care.

1. Democrats gerrymander, too.

Unfortunately, the primary justification for misbehavior in today's White House, among today's political parties, and in 3rd grade classrooms has become "they did it too".   

When democrats point to republican obstruction during the Obama years and use it as justification for their own obstruction, this too should be rejected.   There certainly may/will be reasons to disagree and oppose but blind partisan obstruction is wrong.  Just as gerrymandering is wrong regardless of who does it.

Sure. Specifically, though, I was responding to:

Quote
Democracy is being destroyed and republican politicians don't care.

Voters blaming only one party for gerrymandering (or hypocrisy, or money in politics, or obstruction, or partisanship) is a huge part of the problem.

Got it -- agreed. 
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 15, 2017, 03:35:32 PM
I think he should be impeached if any of this is true.  It's straight up treason.

If Trump is being blackmailed, yes. If he is undermining our security for personal / business reasons, yes.

What we have now, though, is a coverup but no crime. Flynn lied, and he discussed sanctions with Russia. There's nothing illegal about having that conversation, is there? Even if Trump authorized it?  Without more, it seems like the appropriate resolution was reached.
that's the question.  depending on who's being interviewed, the answer maybe yes.  At the time, he was a private citizen, as was Trump.  I'm not sure that as president-elect, he can have private citizens contacting foreign governments.  As the story has played out, he supposedly wasn't acting with Trump or Pence's knowledge beforehand so this not only seems to be illegal at best but a case for treason may not be unfounded.

Violation of the Logan Act, no?

I believe there's never even been an attempt to prosecute under the Logan Act, despite being over 200 years old, and I'm positive no one's ever been convicted.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 15, 2017, 04:27:45 PM
Puzder withdraws from consideration for Labor. I never felt great about him, but shudder to think what the alternative may be.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: saltlover on February 15, 2017, 04:34:09 PM
Puzder withdraws from consideration for Labor. I never felt great about him, but shudder to think what the alternative may be.

It will be tougher to find someone more hostile to labor regulations than Puzder, in my opinion.  Not too difficult to find someone as hostile, but the alternative is unlikely to be any more frightening.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 15, 2017, 04:47:25 PM
Puzder withdraws from consideration for Labor. I never felt great about him, but shudder to think what the alternative may be.

It will be tougher to find someone more hostile to labor regulations than Puzder, in my opinion.  Not too difficult to find someone as hostile, but the alternative is unlikely to be any more frightening.
The NRA (National Restaurant Association and not what you thought :P) in general and Puzder in particular have been critical of almost every single regulation that has come out of DOL recently. However, he looked like he might be reasonable on some topics (min. wage and immigration, for example), and frankly my bar for Trump nominees is pretty low.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: saltlover on February 15, 2017, 04:52:13 PM
Puzder withdraws from consideration for Labor. I never felt great about him, but shudder to think what the alternative may be.

It will be tougher to find someone more hostile to labor regulations than Puzder, in my opinion.  Not too difficult to find someone as hostile, but the alternative is unlikely to be any more frightening.
The NRA (National Restaurant Association and not what you thought :P) in general and Puzder in particular have been critical of almost every single regulation that has come out of DOL recently. However, he looked like he might be reasonable on some topics (min. wage and immigration, for example), and frankly my bar for Trump nominees is pretty low.

He looked pretty bad on minimum wage to me.  As for immigration, if the White House could roll out their first immigration plan without the input of DHS, State, and DOJ, I really don't think they'd be slightly interested in the Secretary of Labor's opinion on it.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 15, 2017, 04:58:26 PM
Puzder withdraws from consideration for Labor. I never felt great about him, but shudder to think what the alternative may be.

It will be tougher to find someone more hostile to labor regulations than Puzder, in my opinion.  Not too difficult to find someone as hostile, but the alternative is unlikely to be any more frightening.
The NRA (National Restaurant Association and not what you thought :P) in general and Puzder in particular have been critical of almost every single regulation that has come out of DOL recently. However, he looked like he might be reasonable on some topics (min. wage and immigration, for example), and frankly my bar for Trump nominees is pretty low.

He looked pretty bad on minimum wage to me.  As for immigration, if the White House could roll out their first immigration plan without the input of DHS, State, and DOJ, I really don't think they'd be slightly interested in the Secretary of Labor's opinion on it.
Puzder is on record saying that he doesn't oppose reasonable MW increase, although it's unclear what that means to him. He's spoken both about $15 for fast-food and $10.50 for federal contractors. Sill, I think this leaves some room for rational discussion.

I'm pretty sure DOL administers the caps and salary requirements for the skilled foreigner and temp agricultural worker visas (more commonly known as H-1B and H-2B). That's an issue on which the Labor Sec can have a tangible effect.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: BDeCosta26 on February 15, 2017, 07:48:01 PM
There's something here with this Russia thing. We don't know what it is yet, but there's way too much smoke here for there to be no fire. I find it hard to believe that Flynn was talking about the status of the sanctions with Russian Intelligence without Trump's knowledge, or possibly his direct approval. Multiple top people on the Trump team have been found to have had numerous contacts with Russian Intelligence during and after the campaign. The way Trump has kowtowed for and praised Putin, makes the whole thing stink even more. The tax returns don't help.

Put in the context of the Russian hacking of the DNC and direct interference on behalf of Trump in the election, it's pretty clear there's something amiss about Trump and his staff's relationship with Russia. This administration, since day 1, has told outright lies about this issue (and countless other ones) to the American public and has earned the right for us to not believe a word they say.

There's something going on here, that's for sure. Depending on how deep it goes, it COULD (EMPHASIZE COULD) be the thing that makes congressional Republicans to say "enough is enough". Stay tuned.

I don't think this is THE thing, but maybe a contributor.   I think they'll be able to spin this as Flynn as a loose cannon who ended up lasting only 24 days.  Trump will praise himself for swift action (even though facts will show they've known about Flynn for months).  Some congressional republicans are already spinning it favorably -- they got rid of him, so now let's move ahead with putting America first, or making us safe, or great again....

If it turns out definitively to be more than Flynn involved including other members of the current inner core -- or if "cover-up" starts to be heard with regard to hiding things they knew about Flynn -- then this could be THE thing.  But my bet is that this ends up as just another pieces of "straw" with the camel's back not yet broken for most republican senators and reps.

Sure, absolutely could be true. But I really don't think this Russia thing (not just Flynn, but all of it) is not going away any time soon. Newsweek reported today that our allies in NATO are running intel into Trump and his Russia connections. The Flynn thing just raises some heavy questions and brings it the forefront.

If im the Dems, this is where you put the eggs in the basket. Use that unprecedented activism on the left to demand a full, independent investigation of the Russian question. GOP lawmakers will obviously try to avoid it, but with the demand of constituents they'll fold. They need to ignore using that energy to fight every little battle and expend it on one that, if the Fire matches the smoke, could easily give them the upper hand for the next 4 years
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 16, 2017, 12:04:40 PM
In the meanwhile, this happened...

http://www.newsweek.com/allies-intercept-russia-trump-adviser-communications-557283
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: mmmmm on February 16, 2017, 02:00:14 PM
In the meanwhile, this happened...

http://www.newsweek.com/allies-intercept-russia-trump-adviser-communications-557283

Lovely.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Roy H. on February 16, 2017, 02:32:37 PM
As reality television, that press conference was wildly entertaining.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: 2short on February 16, 2017, 02:39:31 PM
As reality television, that press conference was wildly entertaining.
Reality tv yes
I was watching it rolling my eyes etc then afterwards i realized that man is the president of united states!
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: blink on February 16, 2017, 03:41:58 PM
Trump is a train-wreck that never comes to a full stop.  He literally can't stop lying when he gets in front of the mic.  In my experience, people that are this defensive are typically hiding something.  We don't all know what it is yet, but it is coming.

It would be really funny, if it weren't really scary.  At this rate I don't see how he serves a full term.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 16, 2017, 03:58:57 PM
On the lighter side of things, twitter is blowing up with "finely tuned machine" memes.... worth a good five min break :)
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 16, 2017, 04:04:43 PM
On the lighter side of things, twitter is blowing up with "finely tuned machine" memes.... worth a good five min break :)

Here's a good one:

"My White House is a finely tuned machine!"
(http://i.imgur.com/Gg6wa3S.gif)

Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 16, 2017, 04:30:44 PM
On the lighter side of things, twitter is blowing up with "finely tuned machine" memes.... worth a good five min break :)

Here's a good one:

"My White House is a finely tuned machine!"
(http://i.imgur.com/Gg6wa3S.gif)

Here's my impression of Trump entering the White House:

(http://www.gifbin.com/bin/082010/1280680128_brick-in-the-washing-machine.gif)
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: indeedproceed on February 16, 2017, 04:47:46 PM
I think Trump is radicalizing the democratic party.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: mmmmm on February 16, 2017, 06:42:26 PM
I think he should be impeached if any of this is true.  It's straight up treason.

If Trump is being blackmailed, yes. If he is undermining our security for personal / business reasons, yes.

What we have now, though, is a coverup but no crime. Flynn lied, and he discussed sanctions with Russia. There's nothing illegal about having that conversation, is there? Even if Trump authorized it?  Without more, it seems like the appropriate resolution was reached.

Well, except the act of lying to the FBI (and possibly to the Vice President and President if he repeated these lies after Pence and Trump were in office) is a violation of 18 USC 1001

Quote
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully - (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

If Flynn lied about this matter to the FBI in his interviews, or to Pence or Trump (after inauguration) then he is guilty of a felony.

And that would be true EVEN if the actual content of the conversation with Kislyak was within legal bounds.

If he remained silent per the 5th amendment, he would be off the hook.

And of course, to get his clearances (which have been suspended) he had to have agreed to certain terms that may come to bear on him due to this incident.  Those agreements make you vulnerable to prosecution for many things that would not apply to non-cleared persons.  He already had one significant classification incident in his past ('inadvertently' providing classified information to foreign officials in 2010) that he squeaked out of due to lack of provable intent.   At a bare minimum, he should get his clearances revoked permanently with this latest incident. 

This is a very serious matter.  The Russians almost certainly recorded any conversation that Flynn had with Kislyak (the Russian Ambassador that he spoke with).    Once Flynn subsequently lied to Pence about the nature of that conversation, they would have had blackmail leverage on him.

If not for the fact that the US IC also were able to monitor Kislyak and thus know about the disparity between the actual communication and the lie that was told about it, this might not have been detected.   That could have meant that the United States would have had a National Security Advisor who was compromised by the Russians!  This is the point of the warning that the Justice Dept. sent to the White House.

People who keep trying to trivialize this need to stop and really think about the stakes involved here.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: KGs Knee on February 16, 2017, 06:54:40 PM
I think Trump is radicalizing the democratic party.

Can the Democratic party get any more radical than it already is?

I mean, I guess it can, but considering who the power players in the party currently are, I'd say the party has already gone way too far to the left.

Is that a reaction to Republicans going way too far to the right, or vice versa? I imagine the answer depends on who you ask, and what their political leanings are.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Jon on February 16, 2017, 07:14:08 PM
I think Trump is radicalizing the democratic party.

Likely. And Trump could ultimately be looked at as the figure that ultimately brought them all to power.

Despite their current stranglehold on the government, Republicans power going forward will likely be diminished by changing demographics. And after Trump, they'll have a hell of time ever persuading many growing demographics to vote for them again anytime soon.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-rust-belt-elevated-trump-but-its-electoral-power-is-dwindling/
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 16, 2017, 07:14:26 PM
I think Trump is radicalizing the democratic party.

Can the Democratic party get any more radical than it already is?

I mean, I guess it can, but considering who the power players in the party currently are, I'd say the party has already gone way too far to the left.

Is that a reaction to Republicans going way too far to the right, or vice versa? I imagine the answer depends on who you ask, and what their political leanings are.

The Democrats elected Obama twice and nominated Hillary Linton in 2016.  So, YES the democratic party can get more radical than it already is.   Obama, and Hillary (especially Hillary) are absolutely not radical choices.  Bernie's run showed support for radical ideas - but he lost.   There is no doubt in my mind that what is happening with the current administration is giving stronger voice and more power to the more fringe elements of the party.  I hope cooler heads prevail down the road.  Unfortunately, moderates tend not to be people adept at riling up the masses.  Moderates tend to be less emotional and less ideological, making them less interesting than those who relish the soapbox.   But, the likes of  John Kasich's and Joe Biden's of the world need to bring this country to the middle rather than have us pulled to the extremes.   
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 16, 2017, 07:29:45 PM
Vice Admiral Harward refused Trump's offer to replace Flynn as NSA head.  Jake Tapper reports that according to a friend of Harward's he was concerned about the chaos in the White House and called the offer a "<insert poop emoji> sandwich".
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 16, 2017, 07:58:54 PM
Vice Admiral Harward refused Trump's offer to replace Flynn as NSA head.  Jake Tapper reports that according to a friend of Harward's he was concerned about the chaos in the White House and called the offer a "<insert poop emoji> sandwich".

I saw the same. Had been wondering how to post about it without violating CB rules... :)
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Roy H. on February 16, 2017, 08:00:27 PM
Vice Admiral Harward refused Trump's offer to replace Flynn as NSA head.  Jake Tapper reports that according to a friend of Harward's he was concerned about the chaos in the White House and called the offer a "<insert poop emoji> sandwich".

I wouldn't want to touch it, either. Why be a civil servant when you've got a lucrative gig at Lockheed Martin? Beyond the mess, it's "been there done that", with a heck of a lot less money.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 16, 2017, 08:06:40 PM
Vice Admiral Harward refused Trump's offer to replace Flynn as NSA head.  Jake Tapper reports that according to a friend of Harward's he was concerned about the chaos in the White House and called the offer a "<insert poop emoji> sandwich".

I wouldn't want to touch it, either. Why be a civil servant when you've got a lucrative gig at Lockheed Martin? Beyond the mess, it's "been there done that", with a heck of a lot less money.

This isn't about current salary. This is more than your typical civil servant job. Two years as head of NSC and Harward could go back into private sector and make way more than he is making now. This is about not wanting to work for a specific boss.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: indeedproceed on February 16, 2017, 09:51:59 PM
Vice Admiral Harward refused Trump's offer to replace Flynn as NSA head.  Jake Tapper reports that according to a friend of Harward's he was concerned about the chaos in the White House and called the offer a "<insert poop emoji> sandwich".

I wouldn't want to touch it, either. Why be a civil servant when you've got a lucrative gig at Lockheed Martin? Beyond the mess, it's "been there done that", with a heck of a lot less money.

This isn't about current salary. This is more than your typical civil servant job. Two years as head of NSC and Harward could go back into private sector and make way more than he is making now. This is about not wanting to work for a specific boss.

I think the '2 years' thing is the crux. The private sector would be even bigger for a guy who left the job with a good standing.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 16, 2017, 09:54:07 PM
So apparently Trump is already calling certain functions "campaign events." Now, some are humorously pointing out that we shouldnt appoint a supreme court justice during a campaign.

But, aoparently this also means he needs to fund his own travel and accomodations. Anyone know?
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Roy H. on February 16, 2017, 10:17:00 PM
Quote
But, aoparently this also means he needs to fund his own travel and accomodations. Anyone know?

If he uses Air Force One, he (or the RNC) has to reimburse the government for the cost of a charter flight (not the actual cost of Air Force One). If a flight is partially for official business, it becomes more complicated.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: fairweatherfan on February 16, 2017, 10:46:36 PM
So apparently Trump is already calling certain functions "campaign events." Now, some are humorously pointing out that we shouldnt appoint a supreme court justice during a campaign.

But, aoparently this also means he needs to fund his own travel and accomodations. Anyone know?

He filed as a 2020 candidate on Inauguration Day. Allows him to fundraise his entire term I believe.  It's cynical and opens up lots of conflict of interest opportunities but those have never been issues for Trump so it probably makes sense.

Having a campaign rally <1 month into a term is awfully bizarre, though.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: saltlover on February 16, 2017, 11:31:07 PM
So apparently Trump is already calling certain functions "campaign events." Now, some are humorously pointing out that we shouldnt appoint a supreme court justice during a campaign.

But, aoparently this also means he needs to fund his own travel and accomodations. Anyone know?

He filed as a 2020 candidate on Inauguration Day. Allows him to fundraise his entire term I believe.  It's cynical and opens up lots of conflict of interest opportunities but those have never been issues for Trump so it probably makes sense.

Having a campaign rally <1 month into a term is awfully bizarre, though.

In addition, it means that Federal Government employees now have been advised they have extra prohibitions on speaking out against Trump.  Because he is a political candidate, doing so would be seen as electioneering and violate the Hatch Act.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Roy H. on February 16, 2017, 11:37:34 PM
So apparently Trump is already calling certain functions "campaign events." Now, some are humorously pointing out that we shouldnt appoint a supreme court justice during a campaign.

But, aoparently this also means he needs to fund his own travel and accomodations. Anyone know?

He filed as a 2020 candidate on Inauguration Day. Allows him to fundraise his entire term I believe.  It's cynical and opens up lots of conflict of interest opportunities but those have never been issues for Trump so it probably makes sense.

Having a campaign rally <1 month into a term is awfully bizarre, though.
.

To be clear, all recent Presidents have done fundraisers from just about day one. The distinction is that Obama, Bush, etc did it in the name of their party.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Celtics18 on February 16, 2017, 11:40:00 PM
I think Trump is radicalizing the democratic party.

Can the Democratic party get any more radical than it already is?

I mean, I guess it can, but considering who the power players in the party currently are, I'd say the party has already gone way too far to the left.

Is that a reaction to Republicans going way too far to the right, or vice versa? I imagine the answer depends on who you ask, and what their political leanings are.

Nah, bruh.  Nobody who considers themselves "left" has any patience for Democrats anymore. 

We're talking serious re-distribution.  The Oligarchy of the Very Rich that is supported by both mainstream parties needs to be scrapped.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 17, 2017, 10:48:15 AM
I think Trump is radicalizing the democratic party.

Can the Democratic party get any more radical than it already is?

I mean, I guess it can, but considering who the power players in the party currently are, I'd say the party has already gone way too far to the left.

Is that a reaction to Republicans going way too far to the right, or vice versa? I imagine the answer depends on who you ask, and what their political leanings are.

Nah, bruh.  Nobody who considers themselves "left" has any patience for Democrats anymore. 

We're talking serious re-distribution.  The Oligarchy of the Very Rich that is supported by both mainstream parties needs to be scrapped.
I'm guessing it's good then that not many seem to "consider themselves left". The radicalism among Democrats is as repulsive as the Tea Party once was -- and I don't mean the one that threw bales in the harbor.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Fan from VT on February 17, 2017, 11:06:38 AM
I think Trump is radicalizing the democratic party.

Can the Democratic party get any more radical than it already is?

I mean, I guess it can, but considering who the power players in the party currently are, I'd say the party has already gone way too far to the left.

Is that a reaction to Republicans going way too far to the right, or vice versa? I imagine the answer depends on who you ask, and what their political leanings are.

Nah, bruh.  Nobody who considers themselves "left" has any patience for Democrats anymore. 

We're talking serious re-distribution.  The Oligarchy of the Very Rich that is supported by both mainstream parties needs to be scrapped.
I'm guessing it's good then that not many seem to "consider themselves left". The radicalism among Democrats is as repulsive as the Tea Party once was -- and I don't mean the one that threw bales in the harbor.

What do you see that is "radical" on the US left?
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 17, 2017, 11:35:02 AM
What do you see that is "radical" on the US left?
Between BLM, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, what isn't?

There are multiple radical ideas that the new brand of left is aggressively pushing right now:

* that we should pass and maintain untenably high federal minimum wage levels,
* that we should introduce a large amount of fully federally funded public services (healthcare, college education, you name it),
* that it's ok to attribute relatively trivial issues on race and some sort of "racial divide".

While I agree that a society should provide a basic level of fairness and justice to everyone, I can't get behind a left that chooses to preach a forced equality in an unapologetically socialist way.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 17, 2017, 12:00:50 PM
What do you see that is "radical" on the US left?
Between BLM, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, what isn't?

There are multiple radical ideas that the new brand of left is aggressively pushing right now:

* that we should pass and maintain untenably high federal minimum wage levels,
* that we should introduce a large amount of fully federally funded public services (healthcare, college education, you name it),
* that it's ok to attribute relatively trivial issues on race and some sort of "racial divide".

While I agree that a society should provide a basic level of fairness and justice to everyone, I can't get behind a left that chooses to preach a forced equality in an unapologetically socialist way.
I'm loosely with you - definitely on the public tuition and probably on universal healthcare.  I think Warren and Sanders are great voices but both too far left for my taste.  I think the racial issue is complex and I don't have a problem with the BLM movement - though I don't see the movement being part of the party's platform
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 17, 2017, 12:18:57 PM
What do you see that is "radical" on the US left?
Between BLM, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, what isn't?

There are multiple radical ideas that the new brand of left is aggressively pushing right now:

* that we should pass and maintain untenably high federal minimum wage levels,
* that we should introduce a large amount of fully federally funded public services (healthcare, college education, you name it),
* that it's ok to attribute relatively trivial issues on race and some sort of "racial divide".

While I agree that a society should provide a basic level of fairness and justice to everyone, I can't get behind a left that chooses to preach a forced equality in an unapologetically socialist way.
I'm loosely with you - definitely on the public tuition and probably on universal healthcare.  I think Warren and Sanders are great voices but both too far left for my taste.  I think the racial issue is complex and I don't have a problem with the BLM movement - though I don't see the movement being part of the party's platform
I find this a complex issue, but my general stance is that dealing with racial discrimination involves talking less about race and not more.

I feel that Obama and the rest of the Democrats repeatedly took an implicit side on this by not speaking forcefully enough against obviously extremist BLM actions. I'm sure trying not to alienate Sanders' voters was (and is) a thing, but it will never be a good look.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: mmmmm on February 17, 2017, 12:21:50 PM
Well, I wouldn't worry too much about spending fed $$ on broad public services at the moment.

Instead, we get to spend massive fed $$ on this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-familys-elaborate-lifestyle-a-logistical-nightmare--at-taxpayer-expense/2017/02/16/763cce8e-f2ce-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumptravel-530pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.d9e076a3431a

Oh joy.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Big333223 on February 17, 2017, 05:24:37 PM
What do you see that is "radical" on the US left?
Between BLM, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, what isn't?

There are multiple radical ideas that the new brand of left is aggressively pushing right now:

* that we should pass and maintain untenably high federal minimum wage levels,
* that we should introduce a large amount of fully federally funded public services (healthcare, college education, you name it),
* that it's ok to attribute relatively trivial issues on race and some sort of "racial divide".

While I agree that a society should provide a basic level of fairness and justice to everyone, I can't get behind a left that chooses to preach a forced equality in an unapologetically socialist way.
I understand not agreeing with these positions, but it is bizarre that you think they are "radical." In most developed countries, these things are just called "normal."

Also, I don't understand what your comment on racism is supposed to mean.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: slamtheking on February 17, 2017, 05:42:40 PM
What do you see that is "radical" on the US left?
Between BLM, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, what isn't?

There are multiple radical ideas that the new brand of left is aggressively pushing right now:

* that we should pass and maintain untenably high federal minimum wage levels,
* that we should introduce a large amount of fully federally funded public services (healthcare, college education, you name it),
* that it's ok to attribute relatively trivial issues on race and some sort of "racial divide".

While I agree that a society should provide a basic level of fairness and justice to everyone, I can't get behind a left that chooses to preach a forced equality in an unapologetically socialist way.
I understand not agreeing with these positions, but it is bizarre that you think they are "radical." In most developed countries, these things are just called "normal."

Also, I don't understand what your comment on racism is supposed to mean.
agreed, healthcare for everyone is hardly radical.  curious if anyone who would consider that radical is one of those people that had no healthcare before Obamacare.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kozlodoev on February 17, 2017, 05:57:18 PM
What do you see that is "radical" on the US left?
Between BLM, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, what isn't?

There are multiple radical ideas that the new brand of left is aggressively pushing right now:

* that we should pass and maintain untenably high federal minimum wage levels,
* that we should introduce a large amount of fully federally funded public services (healthcare, college education, you name it),
* that it's ok to attribute relatively trivial issues on race and some sort of "racial divide".

While I agree that a society should provide a basic level of fairness and justice to everyone, I can't get behind a left that chooses to preach a forced equality in an unapologetically socialist way.
I understand not agreeing with these positions, but it is bizarre that you think they are "radical." In most developed countries, these things are just called "normal."

Also, I don't understand what your comment on racism is supposed to mean.
It appears to me that most of the people who don't consider this radical seem to not understand the concept of scale. When you're trying to establish a fully public system for 300 million people, that's highly radical. Most other countries don't have to deal with any systems of that magnitude.

Even so, just because single-payer systems are common in other countries doesn't actually mean they work well.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Big333223 on February 17, 2017, 06:07:31 PM
What do you see that is "radical" on the US left?
Between BLM, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, what isn't?

There are multiple radical ideas that the new brand of left is aggressively pushing right now:

* that we should pass and maintain untenably high federal minimum wage levels,
* that we should introduce a large amount of fully federally funded public services (healthcare, college education, you name it),
* that it's ok to attribute relatively trivial issues on race and some sort of "racial divide".

While I agree that a society should provide a basic level of fairness and justice to everyone, I can't get behind a left that chooses to preach a forced equality in an unapologetically socialist way.
I understand not agreeing with these positions, but it is bizarre that you think they are "radical." In most developed countries, these things are just called "normal."

Also, I don't understand what your comment on racism is supposed to mean.
It appears to me that most of the people who don't consider this radical seem to not understand the concept of scale. When you're trying to establish a fully public system for 300 million people, that's highly radical. Most other countries don't have to deal with any systems of that magnitude.

Even so, just because single-payer systems are common in other countries doesn't actually mean they work well.
Those sound like logical reasons to disagree but, again, calling them radical seems like a total mischaracterization of positions that are more widely held in this country than maybe you realize and much more widely held globally.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: saltlover on February 17, 2017, 06:12:40 PM
What do you see that is "radical" on the US left?
Between BLM, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, what isn't?

There are multiple radical ideas that the new brand of left is aggressively pushing right now:

* that we should pass and maintain untenably high federal minimum wage levels,
* that we should introduce a large amount of fully federally funded public services (healthcare, college education, you name it),
* that it's ok to attribute relatively trivial issues on race and some sort of "racial divide".

While I agree that a society should provide a basic level of fairness and justice to everyone, I can't get behind a left that chooses to preach a forced equality in an unapologetically socialist way.
I understand not agreeing with these positions, but it is bizarre that you think they are "radical." In most developed countries, these things are just called "normal."

Also, I don't understand what your comment on racism is supposed to mean.
It appears to me that most of the people who don't consider this radical seem to not understand the concept of scale. When you're trying to establish a fully public system for 300 million people, that's highly radical. Most other countries don't have to deal with any systems of that magnitude.

Even so, just because single-payer systems are common in other countries doesn't actually mean they work well.

It's not like our current system is working all that well.  And pre-ACA it worked even less well.

Single-payer isn't perfect.  It has, however, tended to produce healthier populations at lower cost.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: KGs Knee on February 17, 2017, 06:14:34 PM
What do you see that is "radical" on the US left?
Between BLM, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, what isn't?

There are multiple radical ideas that the new brand of left is aggressively pushing right now:

* that we should pass and maintain untenably high federal minimum wage levels,
* that we should introduce a large amount of fully federally funded public services (healthcare, college education, you name it),
* that it's ok to attribute relatively trivial issues on race and some sort of "racial divide".

While I agree that a society should provide a basic level of fairness and justice to everyone, I can't get behind a left that chooses to preach a forced equality in an unapologetically socialist way.
I understand not agreeing with these positions, but it is bizarre that you think they are "radical." In most developed countries, these things are just called "normal."

Also, I don't understand what your comment on racism is supposed to mean.
agreed, healthcare for everyone is hardly radical.  curious if anyone who would consider that radical is one of those people that had no healthcare before Obamacare.

Healthcare is not a right. You do have the right to go out and earn money to pay for it yourself, however. And nobody is trying to deny anyone that right.

So, yes, saying health care should be provided to everyone, for free, is absolutely a radical idea. Just because there are a bunch of people on the far left that feel differently doesn't change the fact it is a position held by a minority of people, thus making it fringe/radical.

Also, I couldn't care less what they do in other countries. Someone else doing something is a lousy reason, on its own, to do the same thing yourself.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: nickagneta on February 17, 2017, 07:39:52 PM
What do you see that is "radical" on the US left?
Between BLM, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, what isn't?

There are multiple radical ideas that the new brand of left is aggressively pushing right now:

* that we should pass and maintain untenably high federal minimum wage levels,
* that we should introduce a large amount of fully federally funded public services (healthcare, college education, you name it),
* that it's ok to attribute relatively trivial issues on race and some sort of "racial divide".

While I agree that a society should provide a basic level of fairness and justice to everyone, I can't get behind a left that chooses to preach a forced equality in an unapologetically socialist way.
I understand not agreeing with these positions, but it is bizarre that you think they are "radical." In most developed countries, these things are just called "normal."

Also, I don't understand what your comment on racism is supposed to mean.
agreed, healthcare for everyone is hardly radical.  curious if anyone who would consider that radical is one of those people that had no healthcare before Obamacare.

Healthcare is not a right. You do have the right to go out and earn money to pay for it yourself, however. And nobody is trying to deny anyone that right.

So, yes, saying health care should be provided to everyone, for free, is absolutely a radical idea. Just because there are a bunch of people on the far left that feel differently doesn't change the fact it is a position held by a minority of people, thus making it fringe/radical.

Also, I couldn't care less what they do in other countries. Someone else doing something is a lousy reason, on its own, to do the same thing yourself.
1. The left doesn't feel that healthcare should be free for everyone, just available and affordable for all. If that means the poor gets their healthcare for free, so be it.

2. I don't think #1 is a position held by the minority of the country.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: kraidstar on February 17, 2017, 07:58:24 PM
What do you see that is "radical" on the US left?
Between BLM, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, what isn't?

There are multiple radical ideas that the new brand of left is aggressively pushing right now:

* that we should pass and maintain untenably high federal minimum wage levels,
* that we should introduce a large amount of fully federally funded public services (healthcare, college education, you name it),
* that it's ok to attribute relatively trivial issues on race and some sort of "racial divide".

While I agree that a society should provide a basic level of fairness and justice to everyone, I can't get behind a left that chooses to preach a forced equality in an unapologetically socialist way.
I understand not agreeing with these positions, but it is bizarre that you think they are "radical." In most developed countries, these things are just called "normal."

Also, I don't understand what your comment on racism is supposed to mean.
agreed, healthcare for everyone is hardly radical.  curious if anyone who would consider that radical is one of those people that had no healthcare before Obamacare.

Healthcare is not a right. You do have the right to go out and earn money to pay for it yourself, however. And nobody is trying to deny anyone that right.

So, yes, saying health care should be provided to everyone, for free, is absolutely a radical idea. Just because there are a bunch of people on the far left that feel differently doesn't change the fact it is a position held by a minority of people, thus making it fringe/radical.

Also, I couldn't care less what they do in other countries. Someone else doing something is a lousy reason, on its own, to do the same thing yourself.

Having the roads maintained and plowed isn't a "right" either, but it does make sense.

Universal health care also makes sense. In Europe they pay half what we do per capita on health care, and they have longer life spans to boot.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective

So they have more money, longer lives, and less fear and uncertainty.

But by all means don't let facts get in the way of the radical right-wing propaganda the billionaires have been force-feeding you through outlets like Limbaugh and Fox News. After all, their "right" to swindle the public is more important than the greater nation's health and well-being.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: saltlover on February 17, 2017, 08:00:14 PM
What do you see that is "radical" on the US left?
Between BLM, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, what isn't?

There are multiple radical ideas that the new brand of left is aggressively pushing right now:

* that we should pass and maintain untenably high federal minimum wage levels,
* that we should introduce a large amount of fully federally funded public services (healthcare, college education, you name it),
* that it's ok to attribute relatively trivial issues on race and some sort of "racial divide".

While I agree that a society should provide a basic level of fairness and justice to everyone, I can't get behind a left that chooses to preach a forced equality in an unapologetically socialist way.
I understand not agreeing with these positions, but it is bizarre that you think they are "radical." In most developed countries, these things are just called "normal."

Also, I don't understand what your comment on racism is supposed to mean.
agreed, healthcare for everyone is hardly radical.  curious if anyone who would consider that radical is one of those people that had no healthcare before Obamacare.

Healthcare is not a right. You do have the right to go out and earn money to pay for it yourself, however. And nobody is trying to deny anyone that right.

So, yes, saying health care should be provided to everyone, for free, is absolutely a radical idea. Just because there are a bunch of people on the far left that feel differently doesn't change the fact it is a position held by a minority of people, thus making it fringe/radical.

Also, I couldn't care less what they do in other countries. Someone else doing something is a lousy reason, on its own, to do the same thing yourself.

So here's how it works.  Doctors/hospitals in emergency rooms will treat people who can't pay.  Some may wind up in bankruptcy, but people get treated, because when someone is having a heart attack or stroke and being rushed to the hospital, they can't determine if the patient can afford care.  And they're also trained to save lives, and have taken an oath to do so.  So the patient is treated.

However, it still costs money to treat these people.  Hospitals aren't getting any money from these patients, but they need to get the money from somewhere.  And they wind up getting it from the patients (and their insurance companies) who can afford to pay by charging everyone more.  So you're paying for these people's care anyway, like it or not.  The question is whether you'd rather pay for their insurance up front, so they can go see a regular doctor, get preventative medicine, and not wind up in the expensive emergency room, or keep paying for it the other way.  Not to mention this makes ERs more crowded, so if you or a family member have an emergency, your wait time increases.

This is not the only reason single-payer works (overhead costs of redundant insurance companies also has an impact), but its a major reason why we pay more and get less quality care.  And that's everyone, not just the poorer people.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 17, 2017, 08:10:07 PM
The Russian spy ship that was 30 miles off the Virginia coast? It is now 17 miles off the Connecticut coast.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-spy-ship-gets-within-17-miles-of-us-coast/ar-AAn3xlp?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=SL5IDHP

Just straight up provocation. Did we expect anything less from Russia? Russia is testing our new president. Just like North Korea did last week.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: saltlover on February 17, 2017, 08:13:53 PM
The Russian spy ship that was 30 miles off the Virginia coast? It is now 17 miles off the Connecticut coast.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-spy-ship-gets-within-17-miles-of-us-coast/ar-AAn3xlp?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=SL5IDHP

Just straight up provocation. Did we expect anything less from Russia? Russia is testing our new president. Just like North Korea did last week.

I actually find it mildly comforting that Russia is testing Trump.  They do that with every new President, and it means they don't feel they have him completely in the bag at this point.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Roy H. on February 17, 2017, 08:21:28 PM
The Russian spy ship that was 30 miles off the Virginia coast? It is now 17 miles off the Connecticut coast.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-spy-ship-gets-within-17-miles-of-us-coast/ar-AAn3xlp?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=SL5IDHP

Just straight up provocation. Did we expect anything less from Russia? Russia is testing our new president. Just like North Korea did last week.

I actually find it mildly comforting that Russia is testing Trump.  They do that with every new President, and it means they don't feel they have him completely in the bag at this point.

Unless Russia is doing this just to provide cover for Trump.  ;)
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: nickagneta on February 17, 2017, 08:44:40 PM
The Russians should park that ship about 15 miles off of Mar-A-Largo island in Florida and then see what Trump's response is.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Celtics18 on February 17, 2017, 08:47:29 PM
I think Trump is radicalizing the democratic party.

Can the Democratic party get any more radical than it already is?

I mean, I guess it can, but considering who the power players in the party currently are, I'd say the party has already gone way too far to the left.

Is that a reaction to Republicans going way too far to the right, or vice versa? I imagine the answer depends on who you ask, and what their political leanings are.

Nah, bruh.  Nobody who considers themselves "left" has any patience for Democrats anymore. 

We're talking serious re-distribution.  The Oligarchy of the Very Rich that is supported by both mainstream parties needs to be scrapped.
I'm guessing it's good then that not many seem to "consider themselves left". The radicalism among Democrats is as repulsive as the Tea Party once was -- and I don't mean the one that threw bales in the harbor.

"Repulsive"?  That's almost as good as "deplorable."
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: KGs Knee on February 17, 2017, 08:52:06 PM
The Russians should park that ship about 15 miles off of Mar-A-Largo island in Florida and then see what Trump's response is.

Probably invite them over for drinks....on the US taxpayers tab.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 17, 2017, 08:55:45 PM
The Russians should park that ship about 15 miles off of Mar-A-Largo island in Florida and then see what Trump's response is.

Probably invite them over for drinks....on the US taxpayers tab.

Hahaha, better yet, send over some secret service with bags of Trump t-shirts, hats, etc (all made in China) for sale.

Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: SCeltic34 on February 17, 2017, 09:45:47 PM
What do you see that is "radical" on the US left?
Between BLM, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, what isn't?

There are multiple radical ideas that the new brand of left is aggressively pushing right now:

* that we should pass and maintain untenably high federal minimum wage levels,
* that we should introduce a large amount of fully federally funded public services (healthcare, college education, you name it),
* that it's ok to attribute relatively trivial issues on race and some sort of "racial divide".

While I agree that a society should provide a basic level of fairness and justice to everyone, I can't get behind a left that chooses to preach a forced equality in an unapologetically socialist way.
I understand not agreeing with these positions, but it is bizarre that you think they are "radical." In most developed countries, these things are just called "normal."

Also, I don't understand what your comment on racism is supposed to mean.
agreed, healthcare for everyone is hardly radical.  curious if anyone who would consider that radical is one of those people that had no healthcare before Obamacare.

Healthcare is not a right. You do have the right to go out and earn money to pay for it yourself, however. And nobody is trying to deny anyone that right.

So, yes, saying health care should be provided to everyone, for free, is absolutely a radical idea. Just because there are a bunch of people on the far left that feel differently doesn't change the fact it is a position held by a minority of people, thus making it fringe/radical.

Also, I couldn't care less what they do in other countries. Someone else doing something is a lousy reason, on its own, to do the same thing yourself.

So here's how it works.  Doctors/hospitals in emergency rooms will treat people who can't pay.  Some may wind up in bankruptcy, but people get treated, because when someone is having a heart attack or stroke and being rushed to the hospital, they can't determine if the patient can afford care.  And they're also trained to save lives, and have taken an oath to do so.  So the patient is treated.

However, it still costs money to treat these people.  Hospitals aren't getting any money from these patients, but they need to get the money from somewhere.  And they wind up getting it from the patients (and their insurance companies) who can afford to pay by charging everyone more.  So you're paying for these people's care anyway, like it or not.  The question is whether you'd rather pay for their insurance up front, so they can go see a regular doctor, get preventative medicine, and not wind up in the expensive emergency room, or keep paying for it the other way.  Not to mention this makes ERs more crowded, so if you or a family member have an emergency, your wait time increases.

This is not the only reason single-payer works (overhead costs of redundant insurance companies also has an impact), but its a major reason why we pay more and get less quality care.  And that's everyone, not just the poorer people.

Precisely.  I don't think anyone is asking for "free" healthcare, for no such thing exists.

Hospitals accepting Medicare (almost all) are required by law to provide care for anyone who walks through the emergency department, regardless of ability to pay.  Even if the patient is critically ill and ends up requiring a 3 month stay in the ICU (which amounts to exorbitant medical costs), the hospital must provide the appropriate care.  The hospital will collect what it can.  Some of the bill is footed by taxpayers.  In order to make up for these uncompensated costs, the bill is passed on to other consumers.  There's a reason that there's a lack of pricing transparency across the healthcare system.

The fact is that the sickest few patients account for the vast majority of healthcare costs.  Kicking people to the curb and willingly denying the poor/homeless, the uninsured, those with expensive chronic medical conditions, etc access to basic care is not only unethical - when these people end up in the hospital with an emergent medical problem, the costs are likely much higher (as opposed to quality preventative care, assuming patient compliance) and we all end up paying for it in the long run.  Further, many of these same people are "frequent flyers" - those who make repeated visits to the emergency department (which is extremely expensive and a major strain on the healthcare system) - because they lack stable housing/resources, can't afford their medications, and have limited or no access to outpatient care.  It's an unsustainable cycle.  And it's your problem.  Our problem.

Healthcare really deserves its own thread.  I'll say this - those who pin the blame primarily on Obamacare are vastly oversimplifying the problem.  I'm not a big proponent of the ACA either - and not because it put financial strain on me personally due to the individual mandate - but because it is flawed and needs revision.  It helped a lot of people, and it also hurt a lot of people.  But Obamacare is not the primary driver of skyrocketing healthcare costs, and insurance premiums were actually rising at faster rates before the ACA was passed.

And I agree that just because another country with socialized medicine has better controlled costs and better health outcomes isn't in itself a reason for the US to try replicate that model.  The US population is far more heterogeneous - and far, far more sick, in general - and thus we require an individualized approach.  With this said, socialized medicine focused on preventative care is the direction we should work toward.  Ideologically, anyway.  Actual execution of such a model is basically impossible in the current landscape.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 18, 2017, 12:56:52 AM
I know that some have benefitted and some have not from ACA.   I do think it's important to remember that this country has had a healthcare cost "crisis" for a very long time in America and nothing was being done to address it. 

I began paying my own (family) health insurance in 2001 when I first became self-employed.  It cost me about $1000 per month for an excellent, low-deductible PPO Blue Cross plan.  By 2009 (pre-ACA), I was paying about $1500 per month for a plan that was not as good. By the time my wife got back into the workforce in 2014 and her employer began covering our health insurance, our cost was more than $1800 per month.  My point is that our costs rose with the ACA, but was rising significantly prior to the ACA.   

This is just one anecdote, but I sometimes think people forget how healthcare costs were skyrocketing PRIOR to the ACA.  Something needed to be done and they knew it since back in the Clinton years.  Congress could never agree.  And if not for Obama, nothing would have changed and costs would still be rising. 
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: indeedproceed on February 18, 2017, 06:42:35 PM
I know that some have benefitted and some have not from ACA.   I do think it's important to remember that this country has had a healthcare cost "crisis" for a very long time in America and nothing was being done to address it. 

I began paying my own (family) health insurance in 2001 when I first became self-employed.  It cost me about $1000 per month for an excellent, low-deductible PPO Blue Cross plan.  By 2009 (pre-ACA), I was paying about $1500 per month for a plan that was not as good. By the time my wife got back into the workforce in 2014 and her employer began covering our health insurance, our cost was more than $1800 per month.  My point is that our costs rose with the ACA, but was rising significantly prior to the ACA.   

This is just one anecdote, but I sometimes think people forget how healthcare costs were skyrocketing PRIOR to the ACA.  Something needed to be done and they knew it since back in the Clinton years.  Congress could never agree.  And if not for Obama, nothing would have changed and costs would still be rising. 

Just before the ACA, I got quotes for myself and my wife and my son. $1200 per month for a decent plan, total out of pocket potential for $5k, but low enough deductibles per service. Not great, but what...that was well over 25% of my takehome pay. We pay substantially less now and for significantly better coverage. Thanks, Obama! Please don't gut our checkbook, President Trump!
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: slamtheking on February 18, 2017, 06:53:08 PM
I know that some have benefitted and some have not from ACA.   I do think it's important to remember that this country has had a healthcare cost "crisis" for a very long time in America and nothing was being done to address it. 

I began paying my own (family) health insurance in 2001 when I first became self-employed.  It cost me about $1000 per month for an excellent, low-deductible PPO Blue Cross plan.  By 2009 (pre-ACA), I was paying about $1500 per month for a plan that was not as good. By the time my wife got back into the workforce in 2014 and her employer began covering our health insurance, our cost was more than $1800 per month.  My point is that our costs rose with the ACA, but was rising significantly prior to the ACA.   

This is just one anecdote, but I sometimes think people forget how healthcare costs were skyrocketing PRIOR to the ACA.  Something needed to be done and they knew it since back in the Clinton years.  Congress could never agree.  And if not for Obama, nothing would have changed and costs would still be rising. 

Just before the ACA, I got quotes for myself and my wife and my son. $1200 per month for a decent plan, total out of pocket potential for $5k, but low enough deductibles per service. Not great, but what...that was well over 25% of my takehome pay. We pay substantially less now and for significantly better coverage. Thanks, Obama! Please don't gut our checkbook, President Trump!
No worries  -- Trump has mentioned a few times his grand plan is to dump Obamacare for HSA (Health Savings Accounts).  that's right, HSA's.  for those not familiar with the concept, is a pre-tax savings account you personally fund without assistance and use to pay medical bills without assistance from insurance or govt programs.  that's right, medicare and medicaid recipients will still get their supported health care but the average person that's been required to get healthcare (many with federal financial support towards the premiums) will now be expected to foot the entire bill themselves.  but hey, as least it's pre-tax dollars!!
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Cman on February 18, 2017, 07:27:38 PM
These stories about healthcare are great, but they really should be in a separate healthcare thread. I'm going to create one.

EDIT: Here's the link to the new healthcare thread: http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=89317.new#new
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Neurotic Guy on February 18, 2017, 08:35:19 PM
What do you see that is "radical" on the US left?
Between BLM, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, what isn't?

There are multiple radical ideas that the new brand of left is aggressively pushing right now:

* that we should pass and maintain untenably high federal minimum wage levels,
* that we should introduce a large amount of fully federally funded public services (healthcare, college education, you name it),
* that it's ok to attribute relatively trivial issues on race and some sort of "racial divide".

While I agree that a society should provide a basic level of fairness and justice to everyone, I can't get behind a left that chooses to preach a forced equality in an unapologetically socialist way.
I understand not agreeing with these positions, but it is bizarre that you think they are "radical." In most developed countries, these things are just called "normal."

Also, I don't understand what your comment on racism is supposed to mean.
agreed, healthcare for everyone is hardly radical.  curious if anyone who would consider that radical is one of those people that had no healthcare before Obamacare.

Healthcare is not a right. You do have the right to go out and earn money to pay for it yourself, however. And nobody is trying to deny anyone that right.

So, yes, saying health care should be provided to everyone, for free, is absolutely a radical idea. Just because there are a bunch of people on the far left that feel differently doesn't change the fact it is a position held by a minority of people, thus making it fringe/radical.

Also, I couldn't care less what they do in other countries. Someone else doing something is a lousy reason, on its own, to do the same thing yourself.

The individualism and personal responsibility that inspires today's libertarians is understandable and admirable, but I do sometimes wonder if American history is taken enough into account when promoting these ideals.  The idea of universal healthcare (not that I am advocating for it) really isn't that radical unless you believe that the early American sense of rugged individualism and personal responsibility reflected an America that was really "free" and one that abounded with liberty and justice for all.  This view of American history is an illusion.

Sadly, America's movement toward a more socialistic system (one that provides universal education for all; Medicare for all; social security; Medicaid) wasn't just formed on the whims of liberals.   It was an outgrowth of a conflicted culture -- one that on the one hand valued freedom, justice and equality -- and on the other hand supported legalized discrimination (against blacks, minority ethnicities, women, children, the poor, Native Americans...). 

It is not surprising that the wealthy white men of America's first 150 years favored a system that promoted individual freedom and personal responsibility because it was actually only wealthy white men who were making the rules -- and primarily wealthy white men who benefitted from the rules.  Both of my grandmothers were born in the 1880's -- neither EVER learned to drive, neither EVER considered going to college, and neither was legally allowed to vote until they were about 40.   It was a gradual and often ugly cultural evolution to go from slavery to Jim Crow  to legalized segregation to today's America.  And as America began to rectify the dichotomy of a discriminatory set of laws and social structure that contradicted a new and gradually emerging value system, it became clear and necessary after the near republic-ending catastrophes (e.g., Civil War and Great Depression) to align the law to the new values. Liberals didn't cause this -- all of America contributed to the dynamics that necessitated the change. 

The American individualism and personal freedoms that we think of when we consider pioneer spirit and personal responsibility, has been replaced (to some extent) with an ethic that prizes and attempts to promote (often to a fault) equality and "the common good" in a way that wasn't even considered by the founders -- who, by the way were mostly pretty happy to maintain a system in which people were owned literally (slaves) and figuratively (women and children) by rich white men.

So.... we went ahead and decided that separate was not equal, that everyone was entitled to a fair and equal opportunity for education, that disabled and elderly would be afforded a standard of care and living that would be free of humiliation and disdain, that women could vote and go to college, and this has now led some Americans to believe that universal  healthcare IS a "common good" that should extend to all who share citizenship of a union that is at least supposed to continually strive to be "more perfect".   

I don't know if I agree that we should have a Euro model of universal healthcare, and I certainly believe that every able-bodied person in America should be contributing positively to society (mostly by working and taking care of themselves!), but to say that within the context of the social and ethical evolution we've seen in this country that the notion of healthcare as a right is a 'radical' notion I think is missing a great deal of context that would suggest otherwise.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: Big333223 on February 19, 2017, 12:19:18 PM
"Trump family trips cost taxpayers $11.3m in one month – almost as much as Obama’s cost in a year"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-costs-trips-security-taxpayer-barack-obama-month-year-a7586261.html

And another article from the Washington post about the president's spending and conflicts:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-familys-elaborate-lifestyle-a-logistical-nightmare--at-taxpayer-expense/2017/02/16/763cce8e-f2ce-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html?postshare=3851487333451275&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.0527d9ad0b43

Supposedly he was elected because, as a businessman, he knew how to handle money and was going to make Washington work again. So far, the exact opposite. More waste and corruption than ever.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: nickagneta on February 19, 2017, 01:12:20 PM
"Trump family trips cost taxpayers $11.3m in one month – almost as much as Obama’s cost in a year"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-costs-trips-security-taxpayer-barack-obama-month-year-a7586261.html

And another article from the Washington post about the president's spending and conflicts:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-familys-elaborate-lifestyle-a-logistical-nightmare--at-taxpayer-expense/2017/02/16/763cce8e-f2ce-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html?postshare=3851487333451275&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.0527d9ad0b43

Supposedly he was elected because, as a businessman, he knew how to handle money and was going to make Washington work again. So far, the exact opposite. More waste and corruption than ever.
An estimated half billion dollars or more over 4 years to protect the first family simply because they have an extravagent lifestyle. This shouldn't be a partisan subject. Americans both red and blue should be enraged.
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: nickagneta on February 19, 2017, 01:44:16 PM
So Mr. President...care to explain what terror attack happened in Sweden last night? Liars accuse others of doing all the lying. Apparently those who create fake news are the ones that accuse everyone else of reporting fake news. Bowling Green Massacre...Atlanta terror attack...terrorism in Sweden...where does it all end?!?!?!
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: BlackCeltic on February 19, 2017, 01:47:02 PM
So Mr. President...care to explain what terror attack happened in Sweden last night? Liars accuse others of doing all the lying. Apparently those who create fake news are the ones that accuse everyone else of reporting fake news. Bowling Green Massacre...Atlanra terror attack...terrorism in Sweden...where does it all end?!?!?!

Whenever U.S. drops a bomb on itself?
Title: Re: The President Trump Thread
Post by: KGs Knee on February 19, 2017, 01:47:02 PM