President Donald Trump: The Thread

[caulfield12]

The "left wing" media has apologized twice now for "lies" or misleading pictures/articles. (Obviously, to say there was an "intention" to lie here about the Patriots' attendance at the WH is a bit much, as there CERTAINLY were fewer players, which are pretty much the MAIN thing that the majority of people care about, as opposed to political stances of equipment men and towel boys.)

 

One was the MLK Bust (supposedly being removed when it was just in a different location in the Oval) and now this.

 

When, if ever, has the right wing media ever apologized, clarified or retracted a story in the last 18-24 months?

 

 

 

And how, for example, can Jeff Sessions impartially serve as Attorney General when he clearly believes that Hawaiian islanders are somehow lesser Americans? It would probably shock him to learn that the average net worth of those living in Hawaii is probably double or triple that of the average Alabaman.

Edited April 21, 2017 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

I thought we were talking about the "media"? (Is Jeff Sessions media now?) But as far your Jeff Sessions tangent, I'd be more upset with Hillary Clinton "referring" to black people as super predators (and refusing to apologize for it (and forcing her people to remove the BLM person who posed the "question)") then I would be upset about Jeff Sessions inferring a strategic state (that's 3,000 miles away from the mainland) are less American. (Also, why is their "average net worth" relevant to your tangent?) Do you only judge people based off of their "money"? Are you implying that "Hawaiians" are more American than other American groups because they have a higher average net worth?

 

If we're going by the original interpretations of the US Constitution, that's exactly how the Founding Fathers viewed this argument (based on property rights/net worth wasn't even a real thing back then).

 

For a US senator to believe Alaskans and Hawaiians are lesser because they're not part of the contiguous US is pretty bizarre.

https://twitter.com/maziehirono/status/8552...n.d8c8a26f.html

Not to mention he voted yea for the judge (Watson) he's now criticizing.

 

 

As far as Hillary Clinton goes, I never supported her and won't defend her. That said, it was a different time, where Democrats had their backs against the wall because of the tactics that Republicans used consistently throughout the 80's and early 90's to argue they were "soft" on crime. You are too young to remember, but watch the ads the Bush campaign ran against Mike Dukakis featuring a felon named Willie Horton who was furloughed and killed again after being released. Clinton was simply being a typical politician of that time period, and picking on easy targets (the poor/minorities) who had no other choice but to vote for Democrats. (It can also be noted that comments like "super predator" coming back into the public eye are one of the many factors that suppressed the African-American vote numbers for Clinton in 2016, compared to Obama in 2008 and 2012). It's the same problem that starts happening when we judge Jackson, Jefferson, Lincoln, etc., by the current lens rather than the context of the times they were operating in. In the same way, Sessions' comments that disqualified him 30 years ago are no-longer a deal breaker in this current political climate.

 

 

NEVERTHELESS, Donald Trump and his defenders are going to learn that the electorate really doesn't care at all about what Obama or Hillary Clinton did or didn't do at this point in time.

 

So far, they're 0 for 100 days on crafting any legislation that has improved the lives of everyday middle class Americans. We won't know for another 10-20 years, but the regulations that Trump is wiping out are increasing negative externalities in the environment which we can't even begin to quantify in terms of the cost trade off with attempting to bring back obsolete jobs to the economy.

Edited April 21, 2017 by caulfield12

[StrangeSox]

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account

@realDonaldTrump

My contract with the American voter will restore honesty, accountability & CHANGE to Washington! #DrainTheSwamp

5:33 PM - 24 Oct 2016 from Tampa, FL

[caulfield12]

Mission Accomplished.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/21/politics/tru...days/index.html

Another major flip flop on first 100 days in office timeframe

 

http://theweek.com/speedreads/693812/heres...one-almost-none

 

 

President Donald Trump says businesses and individuals will receive a "massive tax cut" under a tax reform package he plans to unveil next week.

 

In an interview with The Associated Press, Trump says the plan will result in tax cuts for both individuals and businesses. He would not provide details of the plan, saying only that the tax cuts will be "bigger I believe than any tax cut ever."

 

The president says the package will be released on "Wednesday or shortly thereafter" — just before his 100 day mark in office.

 

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin initially set a goal of getting tax reform passed by August, but that deadline has slipped. Mnuchin now says the administration still hoped to get a bill passed well before the end of the year.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/trump-says-relea...-175555919.html

 

Good comment/reply at bottom

I wouldn't want a tax break if it meant a crumbling infrastructure, unaffordable private schools, inefficient and expensive healthcare, multi-trillion dollar wars, starving poor people, and polluted air, water, and land. Just use my taxes for stuff that makes life better for everyone, and I'll be happy. I make 80,000 a year, and I live OK. I want other people to live securely as well, but I know many are truly disadvantaged and need basic help. I believe what Jesus taught, and I'm willing to give up some of my material bounty so others might have a better life. I've helped people in my 61 years, and they did right by it, and helped others.

Edited April 21, 2017 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/21/politics/rus...rate/index.html

 

Russia tried to use Trump advisers to infiltrate the campaign.

 

 

Meanwhile, Trump planning magic trick of health care, tax reform and preventing government shutdown in less than one week. If both fail and the Dems refuse to compromise over the Wall with Mexico, those 100 day articles will not be pretty.

 

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/201...ent-ever-215063

How Trump Succeeds Without Actually Succeeding

Edited April 23, 2017 by caulfield12

[Dick Allen]

Congratulations, tremendous-

 

Trump to a Purple Heart recipient.

 

 

[BigSqwert]

 

My goodness is this guy a complete idiot or what? I'm convinced that he would have turned out to be a gas station attendant if he wasn't born into money.

[StrangeSox]

https://twitter.com/JoshSchwerin/status/856569274529435648

[caulfield12]

I'm sure blowing $2.4 additional trillion into the deficit will go over well with the House Freedom Caucus.

 

Of course, they're releasing scant details and just broad outlines on WED, so that will only make things worse due to speculation. Then again, couldn't be much worse than the AHCA unveiling and universal condemnation.

 

The only ones who will favor Trump's plan are those who are heavily invested in the stock market. Everyone else will pretty much be screwed.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/24/news/econo...rate/index.html

[caulfield12]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/contrarians-didn...-090051867.html

 

The Contrarians, Didn't Vote For Trump But Would Now

Edited April 25, 2017 by caulfield12

[StrangeSox]

Transcript of AP interview with Trump

 

Needs to be read in its entirety to get the full impact imo

[caulfield12]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/201...st-coast-215048

 

The media bubble is worse than you think

 

Best article written so far on how the media got the election wrong...along with the investigative series by Nate Silver/538.com

[GoSox05]

Transcript of AP interview with Trump

 

Needs to be read in its entirety to get the full impact imo

 

 

Rantings of a madman.

 

 

 

[Iwritecode]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/contrarians-didn...-090051867.html

 

The Contrarians, Didn't Vote For Trump But Would Now

 

Notably, most of those who shifted did so not because they came to look more favorably upon Trump but because they now look less favorably upon his opposition.

 

“I hate what he’s doing bringing back coal jobs that we don’t need, I hate that Kushner is in charge of all those things, I hate his general demeanor and attitude. And the Twitter stuff, it’s annoying and childish,” Green says.

 

“I’m very much opposed to a wall,” says IsBell, who is married, he says, to “a legal immigrant from Peru.”

 

“I disapprove of his warlike actions in Syria,” IsBell continues. “I recognize that Donald Trump himself is a very arrogant, brash person. Should I go on?” Still, he says, the disapproval is “outweighed more and more by my disgust with his opposition.”

 

 

These are the people that are saying they would vote for him now.

 

Then there are the few that say they would vote for Trump just because they don't like the people that are against trump.

 

[StrangeSox]

Rantings of a madman.

 

Remember that this man has the unilateral power to destroy global human civilization in a matter of hours.

[Jenksismyhero]

These are the people that are saying they would vote for him now.

 

Then there are the few that say they would vote for Trump just because they don't like the people that are against trump.

 

Maybe, MAYBE Democrats should consider the notion that people don't totally agree with their platform/policies? Maybe?

[knightni]

https://twitter.com/JoshSchwerin/status/856569274529435648

When did Winter run into April?

[illinilaw08]

Maybe, MAYBE Democrats should consider the notion that people don't totally agree with their platform/policies? Maybe?

 

What policies have Democrats pushed in Trump's first 100 days that would cause people on the fence to move to Trump?

 

 

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

Maybe, MAYBE Democrats should consider the notion that people don't totally agree with their platform/policies? Maybe?

 

Of course there are people who don't agree with DNC policies. But that article was about people who are basically supporting Trump out of spite because they don't like the media/protestors/anyone pointing out Trump's racism.

[caulfield12]

What policies have Democrats pushed in Trump's first 100 days that would cause people on the fence to move to Trump?

 

Obstructionism.

 

Trying to stop Gorsuch in order to get revenge for Garland when it was clear he was more than qualified intellectually.

 

Obviously, the Republicans used the same strategy with Obama. Except they never paid a price politically for it.

Edited April 25, 2017 by caulfield12

[Jenksismyhero]

What policies have Democrats pushed in Trump's first 100 days that would cause people on the fence to move to Trump?

 

Doesn't have to be the first 100 days, it's the platform generally that Democrats offer/offered. SS2k5 posted somewhere else that Democrats and Independents don't believe the Democratic party represents their interests, more so than conservatives and the GOP.

 

So you have Repubs that like Trump despite not agreeing or liking his decisions because at least he's not a Democrat, and you have Dems and Independents that don't like the Democratic party because they don't feel like the party adequately represents their interests. At some point the logical conclusion is that for a lot of people, they aren't buying what the Democrats are selling.

 

edit: here was the quote from what SS2k5 was citing to:

"What the focus on Trump's numbers misses, however, is that Democrats aren't in a great place with voters either.

One number in the Post-ABC poll really stood out to me as something that should worry Democrats pondering the party's future: Asked whether the Democratic Party is in touch with the concerns of the average person, just 28% of respondents said it is -- as opposed to 67% who said Democrats are out of touch. Those numbers are worse than the "in touch/out of touch" numbers for either the Republican Party or Trump in that same poll.

 

More amazing to me is that only 52% of self-identified Democrats said their party was in touch with peoples' concerns, while 44% said it was out of touch. (Also of concern for Democrats: Fewer than 1 in 5 independents -- 18% -- said the Democratic Party was in touch with the average person."

Edited April 25, 2017 by JenksIsMyHero

[illinilaw08]

Doesn't have to be the first 100 days, it's the platform generally that Democrats offer/offered. SS2k5 posted somewhere else that Democrats and Independents don't believe the Democratic party represents their interests, more so than conservatives and the GOP.

 

So you have Repubs that like Trump despite not agreeing or liking his decisions because at least he's not a Democrat, and you have Dems and Independents that don't like the Democratic party because they don't feel like the party adequately represents their interests. At some point the logical conclusion is that for a lot of people, they aren't buying what the Democrats are selling.

 

But that is what the article said. Crimson's response was better written than mine. This article wasn't about people who didn't vote for Trump deciding to do so because they dislike Democratic policies. It was an article about people who didn't vote for Trump moving his way because they don't like the media or protesters.

 

Edit to address your edit. This past election showed that there is an ideological split in the Democratic Party between the establishment Democrats (Hillary Clinton) and the Progressive wing of American politics (Sanders). My guess is that is influencing what is referenced in that study.

Edited April 25, 2017 by illinilaw08

[caulfield12]

It's obvious that Dems are still adjusting to being out of power.

 

Obstructionism is not helping the middle class...it's placating the activists.

 

In the end, the GOP has a good chance to hold onto power, but every time they get too cocky, like 1994 and 2010, their hubris and inability to actually formulate policy that benefits the majority of Americans comes back to bite them.

 

It's also critical to point out that it was just one poll...a snapshot in time. It's like looking at 20-30 point spreads disappearing in KS and GA and assuming the Dems will take back the House in 2018. That still might be true, based on the looming disasters that are the AHCA and tax redistribution to corporations and the Top 1%.

 

Eventually, a leader will emerge to replace Obama, Clinton and Sanders...and the Dems will start promoting positions that bring back those Rust Belt voters into the fold. A lot depends, as always, on the economy and the eventual outcome of the health care debate.

 

And don't underestimate those supporting Trump for being the anti-Obama and bombing Syria and Afghanistan.

Edited April 25, 2017 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

https://www.yahoo.com/style/donald-trump-re...-154629655.html

 

Trump won't win feminist of the year for these comments regarding Melania's pregnancy

 

"She was 35-'checkout time' for women, as Trump once told Howard Stern-and no longer the dewy fox he'd met seven years earlier. A visitor to one of Trump's homes, late into Melania's pregnancy, recalls him remarking that he agreed to the baby on the condition that Melania would get her body back. 'She promised him that everything would go back to the way it was,' says this guest; it struck this person as a 'contract.'"

 

The source continues, explaining that Trump wasn't just dismissive, but notably inconsiderate. Apparently: "There was no 'How do you feel?' No opening of doors, making sure she didn't fall. Just 'You wanted to have a baby.'"

 

But wait, Ivanka's 35 now...

[StrangeSox]

Ethics Experts Baffled By Report Of Ivanka Trump’s New Fund For Women

White House adviser and first daughter Ivanka Trump is establishing a “massive fund” to “economically empower women” that will be funded by contributions from foreign countries and corporations, Axios reported in a vague, five-paragraph bombshell on Wednesday.

 

According to Axios founder Mike Allen, Trump told him directly that she has already started soliciting funds to support the fund, which will provide “working and growth capital to small- and medium-sized enterprises,” and that she has support from President Trump and World Bank Group president Jim Yong Kim to pursue the project.

 

But what exactly Ivanka Trump’s fund will look like and how it will operate remains a giant question mark. Ethics experts told TPM that Axios’ description leaves it unclear if the fund will be a private, for-profit endeavor or if it will be run through a federal government agency.

 

On the other hand, Clark said, “This would not be okay for her to do in a private capacity” because her White House role would give the impression she was doing it on behalf of the Trump administration and create a whole web of possible conflicts of interest.

 

“It absolutely cannot be a private fund,” Richard Painter, ethics czar in George W. Bush’s White House, told TPM. “She can’t be at the White House soliciting money for a private foundation. We went through this with Hillary Clinton, who resigned from her foundation when she took a job as secretary of state.”

 

Painter said he doesn’t believe the Trump administration would “even think” of setting up an outside private foundation, and suggested it could be run through a government agency that has statutory authority to accept gifts.

 

“That’s what would be required: an official U.S. government agency with the authority to solicit gifts and to administer the funds,” Painter said.

 

Clark noted that the Axios report made it sound like they were soliciting investments rather than gifts, and that the words “massive fund” make it sound like a private sector initiative.

 

This comes on the same day that Trump announced he was eliminating funding for the Office of Global Women’s Issues within the State Department