President Donald Trump: The Thread

[RockRaines]

Correct. We live in the social media age and people need to push content at any cost. That story made headlines for about 3 hours, and then it was onto the next thing.

TJ MIller leaving Silicon Valley has taken up WAY more media time.

[StrangeSox]

It was a minor story that was briefly commented on here. Depicting it as some world-consuming outrage is just dishonest.

[caulfield12]

My personal opinion, the President of the United States is in some ways a representation of all of the US. While we may disagree with Obama, Bush, Reagan, etc at the end of the day I feel that they generally upheld the standards of what represents America. To me (personally) loyalty is important, it shows what type of person you are. When a country/person/whatever is loyal to you, you repay them in kind.

 

It may not be the most pressing new story in the history of the world, it may not be the most important issue today, but sometimes its just flat out boring to say the same damn things about Healthcare, Environment etc over and over again. Over the last year I have simply become bored of those issues.

 

The Spicer incident, while not earth shattering, shows Trump (imo) for who he is. Nothing more than a bad boss, something that almost every American can relate to.

 

Which brings us to the real issue:

 

Is this who we want to represent America?

 

I apologize if its not a "big" enough issue, but most of life is the small stuff. Reasonable people can have reasonable differences on taxes, healthcare, even the environment, but how you hold yourself, especially as the highest representative of my country, means something to me.

 

Not saying that everyone has to agree.

 

Exactly. Like pushing his way to the front during that photo op. Obama didn't deserve the Nobel Prize award pre-emptively (yet another topic that never is raised by Republicans!), but at least he upheld the dignity of the office and seemed to be a good husband and father, like Jimmy Carter. Even restored some admiration for America , after Bush. Trust me, living outside the US for most of his eight years, foreigner's views towards the US became much more positive again...outside the Beltway Wars.

 

Trump's approval ratings in Europe range from 8-22%. That's somehow even worse than Ryan, Gianforte and the AHCA.

[caulfield12]

TJ MIller leaving Silicon Valley has taken up WAY more media time.

 

Even Big Head, Jinyang and Ed Chen got to meet the Pope.

[greg775]

Is this who we want to represent America?

Doesn't matter. We elected him and he stays until impeachment.

[NorthSideSox72]

My biggest concern is we actually have a crisis under Trump and he flexes his power/ignorance and the everyday Joe will have no idea we actually have a significant issue because the media has been sounding the alarms daily for over a half a year now.

 

This is already true. There are all manner of articles out there you can read where Trump voters are literally saying they are intentionally avoiding news because they are convinced it's all made up. They apparently don't have the will or energy to sift through and determine what is actually a Big Deal, even though some of those Big Deals are going to directly effect them. It's a little frightening that way.

 

But that's not just the fault of "the media", though their chase for every controversy means they are part of the problem (and by they, Imean some outlets far more than others). It's also the fault of people who are so mired in their own wishful thinking that they actively embrace ignorance.

 

[caulfield12]

And I am not moving the goalposts. I am giving my opinion. I know what SS, Badger and Reddy are going to militantly disagree with most of my stuff and if they do agree with me, they'll keep quiet. I'm not particularly concerned with their "arguments" just giving my piece.

 

 

Thank you. That's my point in a nutshell.

 

My biggest concern is we actually have a crisis under Trump and he flexes his power/ignorance and the everyday Joe will have no idea we actually have a significant issue because the media has been sounding the alarms daily for over a half a year now.

 

 

No, it has been almost two years since the Mexicans are rapists/criminals and some decent people (maybe?) introduction/press conference down the escalator at Trump Tower. Not just since Nov 8 or Jan 20th.

Edited May 25, 2017 by caulfield12

[Soxbadger]

This is already true. There are all manner of articles out there you can read where Trump voters are literally saying they are intentionally avoiding news because they are convinced it's all made up. They apparently don't have the will or energy to sift through and determine what is actually a Big Deal, even though some of those Big Deals are going to directly effect them. It's a little frightening that way.

 

But that's not just the fault of "the media", though their chase for every controversy means they are part of the problem (and by they, Imean some outlets far more than others). It's also the fault of people who are so mired in their own wishful thinking that they actively embrace ignorance.

 

NSS,

 

Today a Montana newspaper when covering the congressman attack had to actually combat the "myth of fake news":

 

http://missoulian.com/opinion/editorial/mi...ae9ef03c60.html

 

And in case critics say this is just fake news from the liberal media, let us repeat one fact again: The eyewitness account of Gianforte’s actions came from a Fox News reporter.

 

 

The irony of this whole argument is that the person who is yelling the most, is the person who has consistently supported and pushed stories that are less than reputable.

 

I mean, I had never even heard of the Seth Rich conspiracy before he kept pushing the narrative this year. Yet in his world that is "newsworthy."

Edited May 25, 2017 by Soxbadger

[caulfield12]

This is already true. There are all manner of articles out there you can read where Trump voters are literally saying they are intentionally avoiding news because they are convinced it's all made up. They apparently don't have the will or energy to sift through and determine what is actually a Big Deal, even though some of those Big Deals are going to directly effect them. It's a little frightening that way.

 

But that's not just the fault of "the media", though their chase for every controversy means they are part of the problem (and by they, Imean some outlets far more than others). It's also the fault of people who are so mired in their own wishful thinking that they actively embrace ignorance.

 

How can you engage with Trump on substantive policy when he either doesn't know, doesn't care/disinterested...or just wants to "make a deal" regardless of the consequences to "real world" people???

 

Seemingly every article today has quotes from loyal Trump voters in the Rust Belt...is that doing anything to change the conversation?

Edited May 25, 2017 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

NSS,

 

Today a Montana newspaper when covering the congressman attack had to actually combat the "myth of fake news:

 

http://missoulian.com/opinion/editorial/mi...ae9ef03c60.html

 

 

 

 

The irony of this whole argument is that the person who is yelling the most, is the person who has consistently supported and pushed stories that are less than reputable.

 

I mean, I had never even heard of the Seth Rich conspiracy before he kept pushing the narrative this year. Yet in his world that is "newsworthy."

 

If there was only the BuzzFeed reporter corroborating and no audio...we wouldn't have heard much at all about this story and Gianforte would have won with little fanfare...with Dems retrenching and praying for a GA-6 victory to show a real/substantive victory.

 

[Soxbadger]

And I am not moving the goalposts. I am giving my opinion. I know what SS, Badger and Reddy are going to militantly disagree with most of my stuff and if they do agree with me, they'll keep quiet. I'm not particularly concerned with their "arguments" just giving my piece.

 

 

Thank you. That's my point in a nutshell.

 

My biggest concern is we actually have a crisis under Trump and he flexes his power/ignorance and the everyday Joe will have no idea we actually have a significant issue because the media has been sounding the alarms daily for over a half a year now.

 

I disagree with you because of the content of your posts, not because of who you are. Your "faux" concern about the everyday Joe is noted, but those people stuck their heads in the sand along time ago about the "important" issues. I cant compete with Fox News, Info Wars, Breitbart, when it comes to peddling conspiracies.

 

I personally believe that your disingenuous posts are the exact type of behavior from "media" outlets that lead to the "problem" that you are concerned about.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Soxbadger

[Dick Allen]

Funny you ignore the fact that when I brought that up, I asked why it wasn't brought up the same week when others were talking about Trump's grandson's school taking complaints or whatever the BIG story was. Biden's perverted son and Tim Kaine's criminal of son aren't important but Trump's grandkid's school is a big deal.

 

As far as that violent member of the terrorist group you love to talk about, you can keep defending her and her violence but I won't continue to go at that with you. You can take your arguments from thread to thread and rehash them all you want like everyone knows and loves you for, but I won't dance with you there.

It's funny you cry about TMZ like things, yet post TMZ like things that apparently must mean something.

 

You're a hypocrite. Everything you complain about, you yourself are guilty of. If this was a Hillary, Obama bashing thread, you would have no problem. You wouldn't complain. For a guy you claim you don't like, you sure do go to bat for Trump a lot.

[NorthSideSox72]

NSS,

 

Today a Montana newspaper when covering the congressman attack had to actually combat the "myth of fake news:

 

http://missoulian.com/opinion/editorial/mi...ae9ef03c60.html

 

 

 

 

The irony of this whole argument is that the person who is yelling the most, is the person who has consistently supported and pushed stories that are less than reputable.

 

I mean, I had never even heard of the Seth Rich conspiracy before he kept pushing the narrative this year. Yet in his world that is "newsworthy."

 

The Montana story is a perfect example. You've got a Fox news crew saying it happened, you have an audio recording confirming it to the extent that can... and yet the first reaction for some people is to believe that it didn't happen or is made up. Scary stuff. People are so, so stuck in the way they want the truth to be that they will act like toddlers.

 

And by fact, I don't mean anything subjective. I mean actual events or data. The obfuscation of the concept of fact and embracing of ignorance happens all over the political spectrum, and it's not that the Republican Party is somehow unique in it. But Trump and his arm of the party have certainly taken it to a much more dramatic level then I've ever seen.

 

It's one thing to look at, say, tax policy, and think that one party or the other is ignorant of how it works. That's a complicated subject with no objectively obvious best practice. But people are literally denying per se factual information and data. That's where it gets really, really scary to me.

 

[Reddy]

It's funny you cry about TMZ like things, yet post TMZ like things that apparently must mean something.

 

You're a hypocrite. Everything you complain about, you yourself are guilty of. If this was a Hillary, Obama bashing thread, you would have no problem. You wouldn't complain. For a guy you claim you don't like, you sure do go to bat for Trump a lot.

 

This and badger's post both deserve a nice slow clap.

[StrangeSox]

The Montana story is a perfect example. You've got a Fox news crew saying it happened, you have an audio recording confirming it to the extent that can... and yet the first reaction for some people is to believe that it didn't happen or is made up. Scary stuff. People are so, so stuck in the way they want the truth to be that they will act like toddlers.

 

And by fact, I don't mean anything subjective. I mean actual events or data. The obfuscation of the concept of fact and embracing of ignorance happens all over the political spectrum, and it's not that the Republican Party is somehow unique in it. But Trump and his arm of the party have certainly taken it to a much more dramatic level then I've ever seen.

 

It's one thing to look at, say, tax policy, and think that one party or the other is ignorant of how it works. That's a complicated subject with no objectively obvious best practice. But people are literally denying per se factual information and data. That's where it gets really, really scary to me.

 

And, more scary, plenty of others are now cheering it on.

[Soxbadger]

The Montana story is a perfect example. You've got a Fox news crew saying it happened, you have an audio recording confirming it to the extent that can... and yet the first reaction for some people is to believe that it didn't happen or is made up. Scary stuff. People are so, so stuck in the way they want the truth to be that they will act like toddlers.

 

And by fact, I don't mean anything subjective. I mean actual events or data. The obfuscation of the concept of fact and embracing of ignorance happens all over the political spectrum, and it's not that the Republican Party is somehow unique in it. But Trump and his arm of the party have certainly taken it to a much more dramatic level then I've ever seen.

 

It's one thing to look at, say, tax policy, and think that one party or the other is ignorant of how it works. That's a complicated subject with no objectively obvious best practice. But people are literally denying per se factual information and data. That's where it gets really, really scary to me.

 

NSS,

 

And I agree. Which is why I always say things like taxes, health care, whatever, can be reasonably argued. The thing that infuriates me, is that people take facts, "Spicer wasnt allowed to see Trump" and then try and direct the narrative into speculation or even worse, falsehoods.

 

Case and point is today with Rabbit. I pretty much know that he is likely going to pop out of the wood work with some argument about how unfair the media is, how Obama was treated differently, whatever. Whether what happened with Spicer is newsworthy or not is opinion, and I feel that I could make a compelling argument (and most likely winning argument) as to why it was newsworthy enough to comment on. But instead of discussing the actual topic, it goes tangentially into "the media never covered Obama's trip." Which is false, a simple search online shows that there are pictures of Obama and his staff with the Pope. The reason why there was "no story" wasnt because the newspapers didnt cover it, it was because Obama didnt purposefully snub a Catholic on his staff.

 

Instead of owning up and admitting that maybe the news did cover Obama, we spend the rest of the afternoon going down Rabbit's hole of media coverage conspiracy theories about how if they didnt report this that somehow people would be more focused on other issues.

 

That isnt the problem. The problem is the purposeful and blatant disregard for facts that dont fit people like Rabbit's narrative. His narrative is that Trump is covered unfairly. I could be wrong (and im not willing to read every post hes made), but I dont remember one time Rabbit actually saying something like "Obama was treated unfairly too." And honestly, I think you could argue that Obama was treated worse than Trump, but again, that is an argument that is in the eye of the beholder.

 

I dont know what has happened that made people this way. I have a job where you win some arguments and you lose some arguments. Sometimes youre right, sometimes youre wrong. My life doesnt end because I concede a point, my world doesnt end because maybe someone else came up with a better idea than me.

 

Either way, I know I personally will never be able to combat fake news. That ship has sailed because there is a certain part of society who wants to be willfully ignorant, who doesnt want to believe the facts that dont fit into their narrative. The only thing that may change that is if someone like Trump really destroys things so bad that people have to take their heads out of the sand. But I deal with that everyday, their are certain people when bad things happen use the Ostrich approach, if they stick their head in the sand, the bad things just disappear.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Soxbadger

[RockRaines]

Personally I'm hoping the repeated debunking of fake news on the major outlets will lead to less of it actually existing. Wishful thinking at least.

[chw42]

You are all being deliberately obtuse. There was never any coverage of who Obama traveled with. There was never any coverage of whether or not his press team was with him. You'd think with how often Trump puts his foot in his mouth you guyswouldnt have to make stuff up too.

 

When I questioned Michelle Obama's place in the admin and why she should be deciding whether our kids eat tofu I was racist. Now everyone has an issue with nepotism.

 

lmao she's the first lady. There's a precedent of first ladies being politically active. How many first daughters and first son-in-laws had as much influence as Ivanka and Jared Kushner?

[Soxbadger]

God you really think you know everything don't you. My point was who Pres Obama brought on his trips and who he didn't bring on his trips was never be reported. And it shouldn't have been. Posting a picture of him with the pope doesn't nullify that point. Obviously the media covers everything the president does. It's a matter of how they cover it.

 

s***, if I am Trump's administration and watching how everything is covered so differently. I'd be tempted to mimic the same Obama administration opacity in an attempt to stifle some of this stuff. Let's see if Trump's administration could use the Espionage Act more than every administration before him combined like Obama's admin did.

 

According to you, opposing opinions disregard facts. Badgers opinions are fact.

 

Im going to try this one more time.

 

My point was who Pres Obama brought on his trips and who he didn't bring on his trips was never be reported. And it shouldn't have been. Posting a picture of him with the pope doesn't nullify that point. Obviously the media covers everything the president does. It's a matter of how they cover it.

 

This sentence is contradictory. You say on one hand it was "never reported" and then in the next sentence "obviously the media covers everything." Those statements cannot coexist. The problem is that you are not using precise statements. The pictures of Obama's staff with the Pope are absolutely a report.

 

Now the second part of that sentence is the crux of your argument, that the media did not cover Obama the same way that they cover Trump. The problem is that in this specific example there is no way to compare. Obama did not have a Catholic press secretary who went with on the trip who was not allowed to meet the Pope. He did not have a Press Secretary who was allegedly upset about that treatment. I cannot speculate whether or not the media would have covered it the same, just like I cant predict the future. It is merely opinion. You could theoretically find an analogous situation, but to the best of my knowledge one does not exist.

 

As for the espionage act comment, this is exactly what I am talking about. It has no relevance whatsoever to the current topic. I have no way of knowing what Trump will do, nor whether he will use the espionage act more than Obama. I have no way of predicting how the media will react. What I do know is that a simple search of "Obama Espionage Act" comes up with a CNN article by Jake Tapper about how Obama has used it more times than anyone, a NYT article that states if Trump uses it to thank Obama, an article by the Guardian etc. I do not know how you quantify "so differently" to me that seems based in opinion not fact. It is your opinion Trump is covered so differently/unfairly. It was others opinions that Obama was.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Soxbadger

[RockRaines]

How many presidents have had kids pushing 40? Both are unelected family members. I don't see the difference. I didn't know tradition was that important to everyone.

 

Every other president was against gay marriage is Trump wrong simply for bucking that tradition.

I'm sure its rare as he's only the second divorced president ever and the first on his third marriage.

[Soxbadger]

Ill go on record saying Im not a fan of nepotism.

 

As to answer the question Presidents with older children most recently were Carter (Jack 30), Reagan (Maureen 41) and Bush (George 43). All of those ages are approximate because I didnt want to do the exact math.

 

Also any President prior to Kennedy doesnt count because the nepotism laws were changed after Robert Kennedy was appointed AG.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

NBC news reporting that it's kushner who is under FBI scrutiny.

 

https://t.co/lQsmKYFbu7

 

Earlier reports said that kushner was one of those pushing for Comey to be fired.

[RockRaines]

Wow, see that shows, I was not aware of such old children for sitting presidents. That does make things a bit unusual.

[Soxbadger]

Wow, see that shows, I was not aware of such old children for sitting presidents. That does make things a bit unusual.

 

I actually didnt know about Jack Carter or Maureen Reagan until I looked it up earlier. Was looking to see Ron Jr.'s age and found out about Maureen. I could have also added Michael Reagan (adopted) as well, but I wanted to keep the comparisons as close as possible.

[illinilaw08]

How many presidents have had kids pushing 40? Both are unelected family members. I don't see the difference. I didn't know tradition was that important to everyone.

 

Every other president was against gay marriage is Trump wrong simply for bucking that tradition.

 

Rabbit:

 

Every first lady picks a cause in office. For Nancy Reagan is what "Just Say No." For Michelle Obama it was healthy eating and let's move. For Laura Bush, it was education and women's health. I could go on.

 

What is unprecedented is the POTUS creating positions in his administration for his adult daughter and her husband. Kushner and Ivanka have not merely carved out a single issue they are passionate about. Rather, they advise the President on all issues, despite having no real qualifications to be their advisers.

 

If you cannot see why those two fact patterns are entirely and completely different, I don't know what to tell you...