DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site

General => New Political and Religious Forum => Topic started by: XJDenton on April 30, 2017, 12:06:50 PM

Title: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: XJDenton on April 30, 2017, 12:06:50 PM
Old thread here:
http://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=49443.0
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Adami on April 30, 2017, 12:07:56 PM
Yuge.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on April 30, 2017, 12:24:10 PM
Believe me.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: SystematicThought on April 30, 2017, 07:14:00 PM
Sad!
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: hefdaddy42 on May 01, 2017, 07:55:58 AM
Bigly
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 01, 2017, 08:04:04 AM
This will be the greatest thread.  Trust me.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: hefdaddy42 on May 01, 2017, 08:16:37 AM
At this point, I am becoming more amused by Congress and their activity with each other and dealing with Trump than by Trump himself.

Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Chino on May 01, 2017, 08:32:35 AM
We broke another record, folks. I'd like to thank the fire marshalls for keeping everyone safe. There are posters outside this thread who were not even able to get in the door. We set a new record for number of posts in a single thread. It's tremendous.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: axeman90210 on May 01, 2017, 09:38:36 AM
We're gonna have the best replies in this thread folks. We're gonna have all the topics covered, including pre-existing topics, and it's gonna be so easy.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: hefdaddy42 on May 01, 2017, 09:50:36 AM
"People don't realize, you know, the Civil War, you think about it, why? People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?" (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-latest-interviews-reveal-relationship-obama-views-civil/story?id=47128589)
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Cool Chris on May 01, 2017, 10:39:44 AM
That isn't a dumb question at all, much smarter people than him have been asking that question for 150 years. The dumbness comes in where he assumes there is an easy answer, because there isn't one.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 01, 2017, 11:02:40 AM
No one's a bigger supporter of the DTF P/R sub-forum than I am.  No one.  I have such respect for all the mods, they do a fantastic job.  I'm here for all the P/R posters, not the elite DT-Side community, or the fake news, aka - Polls/Survivors.  They treat me so unfair!
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: contest_sanity on May 01, 2017, 11:51:34 AM
This thread is more work than the previous one. I thought this one would be easier...
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Adami on May 01, 2017, 11:54:12 AM
this thread is more work than in the previous one. I thought this one would be easier...

Yet, somehow, it's the most successful thread in DTF history.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: contest_sanity on May 01, 2017, 11:57:47 AM
this thread is more work than in the previous one. I thought this one would be easier...
Yet, somehow, it's the most successful BIGLY thread in DTF history.
Fixed.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Cool Chris on May 01, 2017, 11:58:22 AM
Boy do I feel like a dumbass for posting something serious in this thread. Well done, boys. Carry on.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Adami on May 01, 2017, 11:59:23 AM
That isn't a dumb question at all, much smarter people than him have been asking that question for 150 years. The dumbness comes in where he assumes there is an easy answer, because there isn't one.

It shows a lack of understanding.

Similarly when he said there's no reason that there's not peace between Israel and Palestine.

Just a complete ignorance on the subject. Fine questions aside.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: hefdaddy42 on May 01, 2017, 12:03:48 PM
As Time magazine posted this morning, Abraham Lincoln's version of why we had the Civil War seems correct to me, and always has, more or less.

Quote
Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war.

From Lincoln's second inaugural address.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: RuRoRul on May 01, 2017, 12:10:21 PM
That isn't a dumb question at all, much smarter people than him have been asking that question for 150 years. The dumbness comes in where he assumes there is an easy answer, because there isn't one.
Also then the "People don't ask that question..." part of the statement is pretty dumb.

"Nobody knew healthcare / presidenting / the Civil War was so complicated..."
As Time magazine posted this morning, Abraham Lincoln's version of why we had the Civil War seems correct to me, and always has, more or less.

Quote
Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war.

From Lincoln's second inaugural address.
Tremendous. Did you know that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican? It's true, nobody knows this, but Honest Abe, a Republican, believe me. Though it's being recognised more and more, and I think I started - nobody was talking about it, then I said it, suddenly people started looking into it. So I got that done.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 01, 2017, 12:42:07 PM
Boy do I feel like a dumbass for posting something serious in this thread. Well done, boys. Carry on.

Enhance your calm, John Spartan.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: chknptpie on May 01, 2017, 01:36:37 PM
...since Reagan.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 01, 2017, 02:06:51 PM
Some research from Democrats about why people in Michigan and Wisconsin swung from Obama to Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/05/01/why-did-trump-win-new-research-by-democrats-offers-a-worrisome-answer/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/05/01/why-did-trump-win-new-research-by-democrats-offers-a-worrisome-answer/)
Quote
The poll found that Obama-Trump voters, many of whom are working-class whites and were pivotal to Trump’s victory, are economically losing ground and are skeptical of Democratic solutions to their problems. Among the findings:

50 percent of Obama-Trump voters said their incomes are falling behind the cost of living, and another 31 percent said their incomes are merely keeping pace with the cost of living.
A sizable chunk of Obama-Trump voters — 30 percent — said their vote for Trump was more a vote against Clinton than a vote for Trump. Remember, these voters backed Obama four years earlier.
42 percent of Obama-Trump voters said congressional Democrats’ economic policies will favor the wealthy, vs. only 21 percent of them who said the same about Trump. (Forty percent say that about congressional Republicans.) A total of 77 percent of Obama-Trump voters said Trump’s policies will favor some mix of all other classes (middle class, poor, all equally), while a total of 58 percent said that about congressional Democrats.

I think the vote against Hillary was pretty obvious, but surprised so many viewed Republican economic policies more favorable than Democratic.  Seems that view made a huge difference.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: hefdaddy42 on May 01, 2017, 02:36:06 PM
Well, they are flat wrong about which economic groups will benefit from Trump's policies vs. Democratic policies.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 01, 2017, 02:41:18 PM
Well, they are flat wrong about which economic groups will benefit from Trump's policies vs. Democratic policies.

Continue please with information to back such a statement up since our economy is currently in a boom starting the day Trump won.  I have no idea who who is right or wrong and only posed information as to why people voted the way they did.  I personally prefer republican economics (generally), but I'm interested why all those people and myself are "flat wrong"
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: XeRocks81 on May 01, 2017, 02:49:32 PM
Some research from Democrats about why people in Michigan and Wisconsin swung from Obama to Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/05/01/why-did-trump-win-new-research-by-democrats-offers-a-worrisome-answer/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/05/01/why-did-trump-win-new-research-by-democrats-offers-a-worrisome-answer/)
Quote
The poll found that Obama-Trump voters, many of whom are working-class whites and were pivotal to Trump’s victory, are economically losing ground and are skeptical of Democratic solutions to their problems. Among the findings:

50 percent of Obama-Trump voters said their incomes are falling behind the cost of living, and another 31 percent said their incomes are merely keeping pace with the cost of living.
A sizable chunk of Obama-Trump voters — 30 percent — said their vote for Trump was more a vote against Clinton than a vote for Trump. Remember, these voters backed Obama four years earlier.
42 percent of Obama-Trump voters said congressional Democrats’ economic policies will favor the wealthy, vs. only 21 percent of them who said the same about Trump. (Forty percent say that about congressional Republicans.) A total of 77 percent of Obama-Trump voters said Trump’s policies will favor some mix of all other classes (middle class, poor, all equally), while a total of 58 percent said that about congressional Democrats.

I think the vote against Hillary was pretty obvious, but surprised so many viewed Republican economic policies more favorable than Democratic.  Seems that view made a huge difference.

I still think it's kind messed up that those few specific voters in those few specific counties got to decide the whole election. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: hefdaddy42 on May 01, 2017, 03:00:55 PM
Well, they are flat wrong about which economic groups will benefit from Trump's policies vs. Democratic policies.

Continue please with information to back such a statement up since our economy is currently in a boom starting the day Trump won.  I have no idea who who is right or wrong and only posed information as to why people voted the way they did.  I personally prefer republican economics (generally), but I'm interested why all those people and myself are "flat wrong"
None of his policies are really in place yet.

His tax plan (and "plan" is a generous term) is definitely going to benefit the rich.  The healthcare fiasco is going to negatively affect the poor and sick, and will greatly benefit the rich.  Republican economic policies generally revolve around the myth of trickle-down economics.

Trump has shown no signs whatsoever of having an ounce of empathy for anyone who isn't named "Trump". 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 01, 2017, 03:22:26 PM
I agree with that last statement (although it has nothing to do with this) and I also think his healthcare plan was pretty poor (which also doesn't relate much to the poll), but just because his tax plan (which I haven't really looked at honestly) benefits the rich, which I whole heartedly believe it will, doesn't mean it also doesn't benefit the poor or middle class.

Regardless of his policies being in place, the economy is very strong at the moment and from my understanding it's due to confidence in Trump (stocks are still going up since the day he won, I just looked at NYE, Nasdaq and Dow 30 from November 8th till today).  Which may not relate to republican economics per say, but it's a far stretch from saying the people in Michigan and Wisconsing were flat wrong.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: TAC on May 01, 2017, 04:16:29 PM
That isn't a dumb question at all, much smarter people than him have been asking that question for 150 years. The dumbness comes in where he assumes there is an easy answer, because there isn't one.

The Civil War did not start as a war for or against Slavery. Again, the Democrats are playing The Race Card and I think that sucks.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: The King in Crimson on May 01, 2017, 07:46:26 PM
That isn't a dumb question at all, much smarter people than him have been asking that question for 150 years. The dumbness comes in where he assumes there is an easy answer, because there isn't one.

The Civil War did not start as a war for or against Slavery. Again, the Democrats are playing The Race Card and I think that sucks.
If by "playing the race card" you mean "accurately and factually reporting the reasons for the Civil War" then, yes I agree, it sucks that people have to constantly fight against the revisionism history endemic in the south.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 01, 2017, 09:31:59 PM
(https://pics.onsizzle.com/what-the-civil-war-r-was-fought-over-slavery-damn-4885131.png)
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: mikeyd23 on May 02, 2017, 07:17:10 AM
Well, they are flat wrong about which economic groups will benefit from Trump's policies vs. Democratic policies.

Continue please with information to back such a statement up since our economy is currently in a boom starting the day Trump won.  I have no idea who who is right or wrong and only posed information as to why people voted the way they did.  I personally prefer republican economics (generally), but I'm interested why all those people and myself are "flat wrong"
None of his policies are really in place yet.

His tax plan (and "plan" is a generous term) is definitely going to benefit the rich.  The healthcare fiasco is going to negatively affect the poor and sick, and will greatly benefit the rich.  Republican economic policies generally revolve around the myth of trickle-down economics.

Trump has shown no signs whatsoever of having an ounce of empathy for anyone who isn't named "Trump".

As cram said, the market seems to be reacting in confidence to his proposed plans, regardless of whether or not all those plans have been worked out or implemented, so the fact that they aren't in place yet doesn't mean those ideas and concepts aren't driving the market in a certain way.

His tax plan does seem to benefit the rich, is there something wrong with that? It also, as proposed now, would benefit me, a middle-class worker. Is that bad too? I agree that he and his administration haven't handled healthcare well, but in their defense, the sitting members of the GOP had years to develop a better plan and didn't or couldn't.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: hefdaddy42 on May 02, 2017, 08:05:23 AM
Yeah, it's bad, since he has no idea how to pay for the cuts, and they will therefore add TRILLIONS to the debt.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: hefdaddy42 on May 02, 2017, 08:11:09 AM
That isn't a dumb question at all, much smarter people than him have been asking that question for 150 years. The dumbness comes in where he assumes there is an easy answer, because there isn't one.

The Civil War did not start as a war for or against Slavery. Again, the Democrats are playing The Race Card and I think that sucks.
It was started as a war for slavery, for sure. 

The Confederacy started the war by attacking Fort Sumter.  The Confederacy only existed because the Southern states seceded because they wanted to keep slavery and thought Lincoln would try to take it away.

It was slavery.  Slavery is what the South's economy was built on.  Slavery is the reason the moron Southern states seceded.  Slavery is the reason the Confederacy was formed.  Slavery is the reason those morons started the war.

I am proud to be from the South, but I am in no way proud of the Confederate history or any of that "Old South" shit, because it was evil as fuck and built on the backs of slaves, and romanticizing it or coming up with revisionist history about it to make ourselves feel better about it is for the fucking birds.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: mikeyd23 on May 02, 2017, 08:32:27 AM
Yeah, it's bad, since he has no idea how to pay for the cuts, and they will therefore add TRILLIONS to the debt.

Cause we haven't been adding trillions to the debt in the last eight years?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: bosk1 on May 02, 2017, 08:42:51 AM
Well, wait a minute.  At post #25, the tax plan is bad because it benefits the rich.  Then that was questioned, and at post #31, it is bad because it adds trillions to the debt. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: mikeyd23 on May 02, 2017, 08:47:10 AM
Yeah, the arguement is a moving target... I guess I'm just wondering whether I'd rather have our friends in Washington continue to pass budgets that increase the deficit while I pay more in taxes, or have our buddies pass budgets that increase the deficit while I pay less in taxes. I think I know the answer. 

In an ideal world, I'd like my personal good to align with the common good, meaning I could get a tax cut, while D.C. figures out how to actually reduce the deficit, but I won't hold my breath for that.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: hefdaddy42 on May 02, 2017, 08:52:37 AM
Well, wait a minute.  At post #25, the tax plan is bad because it benefits the rich.  Then that was questioned, and at post #31, it is bad because it adds trillions to the debt.
At post # 25, I was commenting on why the people who voted for him that we were discussing were wrong (his "plan" would benefit the rich, not those voters).

In addition, on post # 31, it will add trillions to the debt, so it's bad for the nation as a whole.

It's just not good.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 02, 2017, 08:55:32 AM
Tax cuts don't necessarily mean more debt.  It means more money in peoples pockets (and more money within the US, not offshore) which could mean more spending/investing and you make that money back in other taxes.  I don't know if that actually works, but you can't just easily assume less taxes = more debt.  It's just not that simple. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: mikeyd23 on May 02, 2017, 08:58:04 AM
Tax cuts don't necessarily mean more debt.  It means more money in peoples pockets (and more money within the US, not offshore) which could mean more spending/investing and you make that money back in other taxes.  I don't know if that actually works, but you can't just easily assume less taxes = more debt.  It's just not that simple.

Absolutely, and cutting the corporate tax rate as aggressively as he wants to, in theory, could be a job creator. More jobs = more people paying taxes.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: hefdaddy42 on May 02, 2017, 08:58:25 AM
Tax cuts don't necessarily mean more debt.  It means more money in peoples pockets (and more money within the US, not offshore) which could mean more spending/investing and you make that money back in other taxes.  I don't know if that actually works, but you can't just easily assume less taxes = more debt.  It's just not that simple.
It is if the plan doesn't have a way to offset the loss of revenue, which most tax plans do have (even if they are bullshit), but this one does not, and in fact is not really a "plan" but more of a memo.

Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: bosk1 on May 02, 2017, 09:09:15 AM
Tax cuts don't necessarily mean more debt.  It means more money in peoples pockets (and more money within the US, not offshore) which could mean more spending/investing and you make that money back in other taxes.  I don't know if that actually works, but you can't just easily assume less taxes = more debt.  It's just not that simple.

Absolutely, and cutting the corporate tax rate as aggressively as he wants to, in theory, could be a job creator. More jobs = more people paying taxes.
You are correct in the abstract.  But notwithstanding the oft-irrational moving target criticism of anything having to do with Trump by Trump critics, I agree with Hef generally that large-scale tax cuts as a rule generate more deficit.  The only ways to generate budget surplus are to increase revenue or decrease spending.  Government spending is and has always (in recent history) out of control.  I don't see Trump's cuts changing that.  So the only option to reduce debt and generate surplus is to increase revenue (i.e. tax).  Cutting tax is the opposite of that.  Of course, as you point out, that is overly simplistic and doesn't take the long-term view of stimulating the economy and spending so that there is a net gain in tax revenue despite the cuts.  I get it.  But that hasn't really proven itself out in the past.  So I see the debt increasing.  Now whether or not that is "good" or "bad" is up for debate.  In isolation, of course it is bad.  But there are certainly arguments that, taken as a whole, it is but one piece of an overall economic plan that is "good" for the country overall.  That's fine.  It's also difficult to argue because it is such a big, complex, multifaceted thing to argue.  But as far as just the argument of increasing debt, I don't really see it working any other way.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 02, 2017, 09:13:14 AM
Tax cuts don't necessarily mean more debt.  It means more money in peoples pockets (and more money within the US, not offshore) which could mean more spending/investing and you make that money back in other taxes.  I don't know if that actually works, but you can't just easily assume less taxes = more debt.  It's just not that simple.

Absolutely, and cutting the corporate tax rate as aggressively as he wants to, in theory, could be a job creator. More jobs = more people paying taxes.
You are correct in the abstract.  But notwithstanding the oft-irrational moving target criticism of anything having to do with Trump by Trump critics, I agree with Hef generally that large-scale tax cuts as a rule generate more deficit.  The only ways to generate budget surplus are to increase revenue or decrease spending.  Government spending is and has always (in recent history) out of control.  I don't see Trump's cuts changing that.  So the only option to reduce debt and generate surplus is to increase revenue (i.e. tax).  Cutting tax is the opposite of that.  Of course, as you point out, that is overly simplistic and doesn't take the long-term view of stimulating the economy and spending so that there is a net gain in tax revenue despite the cuts.  I get it.  But that hasn't really proven itself out in the past.  So I see the debt increasing.  Now whether or not that is "good" or "bad" is up for debate.  In isolation, of course it is bad.  But there are certainly arguments that, taken as a whole, it is but one piece of an overall economic plan that is "good" for the country overall.  That's fine.  It's also difficult to argue because it is such a big, complex, multifaceted thing to argue.  But as far as just the argument of increasing debt, I don't really see it working any other way.

True, plus I don't think you can really predict what people will do with extra money.  It's easy to say people will pump that money back into the economy, but that's not always the case.  Also, this tax plan as it stands now (I still know little of it, but one part has hit the local news in NJ about removing the property tax deduction) would hurt me greatly.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Grappler on May 02, 2017, 09:26:26 AM
True, plus I don't think you can really predict what people will do with extra money.  It's easy to say people will pump that money back into the economy, but that's not always the case. 

When Bush included the $600 stimulus in tax refunds in 2008 due to the start of the recession, I chose to pay down debt rather than spend gloriously in retail products.  I didn't need a new TV or appliance, but I did want to pay off my car loan.  The economy didn't see one cent of that stimulus money from me.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: mikeyd23 on May 02, 2017, 09:27:04 AM
Tax cuts don't necessarily mean more debt.  It means more money in peoples pockets (and more money within the US, not offshore) which could mean more spending/investing and you make that money back in other taxes.  I don't know if that actually works, but you can't just easily assume less taxes = more debt.  It's just not that simple.

Absolutely, and cutting the corporate tax rate as aggressively as he wants to, in theory, could be a job creator. More jobs = more people paying taxes.
You are correct in the abstract.  But notwithstanding the oft-irrational moving target criticism of anything having to do with Trump by Trump critics, I agree with Hef generally that large-scale tax cuts as a rule generate more deficit.  The only ways to generate budget surplus are to increase revenue or decrease spending.  Government spending is and has always (in recent history) out of control.  I don't see Trump's cuts changing that.  So the only option to reduce debt and generate surplus is to increase revenue (i.e. tax).  Cutting tax is the opposite of that.  Of course, as you point out, that is overly simplistic and doesn't take the long-term view of stimulating the economy and spending so that there is a net gain in tax revenue despite the cuts.  I get it.  But that hasn't really proven itself out in the past.  So I see the debt increasing.  Now whether or not that is "good" or "bad" is up for debate.  In isolation, of course it is bad.  But there are certainly arguments that, taken as a whole, it is but one piece of an overall economic plan that is "good" for the country overall.  That's fine.  It's also difficult to argue because it is such a big, complex, multifaceted thing to argue.  But as far as just the argument of increasing debt, I don't really see it working any other way.

Good post, so if you think a budget surplus is achieved by (1) increasing revenue and (2) decreasing spending, do you think Trump should be barking up the other tree? Meaning should his team be focusing on decreasing spending and maybe not tax reform (i.e. revenue increasing and/or decreasing)?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: The King in Crimson on May 02, 2017, 09:29:10 AM
Tax cuts don't necessarily mean more debt.  It means more money in peoples pockets (and more money within the US, not offshore) which could mean more spending/investing and you make that money back in other taxes.  I don't know if that actually works, but you can't just easily assume less taxes = more debt.  It's just not that simple.
But every time it has been tried, it has not worked. Tax revenues go down and debt goes up. It happened with Reagan, with Bush, in Kansas and it will probably happen again.

Maybe if the resultant invigoration of the economy was to a massive and unprecedented degree, it might work out but generally they're too small to cover the loss of tax revenue AND most major economic gains go to the top earners and not to the middle class.

So it's entirely logical to criticize his tax plan as being both a hand out to the rich and bad for the debt at the same time.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Chino on May 02, 2017, 09:31:23 AM
True, plus I don't think you can really predict what people will do with extra money.  It's easy to say people will pump that money back into the economy, but that's not always the case. 

When Bush included the $600 stimulus in tax refunds in 2008 due to the start of the recession, I chose to pay down debt rather than spend gloriously in retail products.  I didn't need a new TV or appliance, but I did want to pay off my car loan.  The economy didn't see one cent of that stimulus money from me.

That's what I do with mine every year. This year I took my Fed and State money and paid off just shy of $3000 in credit card debt (used strictly for unexpected car servicing, vet bills, and hospital visits). I bought $1000 worth of new stocks like I do every year. And the rest went into the "future housework fund". I guess the last one I mentioned is considered stimulating the economy, but I haven't spent that money yet.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 02, 2017, 09:36:47 AM
Tax cuts don't necessarily mean more debt.  It means more money in peoples pockets (and more money within the US, not offshore) which could mean more spending/investing and you make that money back in other taxes.  I don't know if that actually works, but you can't just easily assume less taxes = more debt.  It's just not that simple.
But every time it has been tried, it has not worked. Tax revenues go down and debt goes up. It happened with Reagan, with Bush, in Kansas and it will probably happen again.

Maybe if the resultant invigoration of the economy was to a massive and unprecedented degree, it might work out but generally they're too small to cover the loss of tax revenue AND most major economic gains go to the top earners and not to the middle class.

So it's entirely logical to criticize his tax plan as being both a hand out to the rich and bad for the debt at the same time.

There's plenty of reason to criticize and debate.  Just using blanket statements is more so what I was arguing against (both today and yesterday)

True, plus I don't think you can really predict what people will do with extra money.  It's easy to say people will pump that money back into the economy, but that's not always the case. 

When Bush included the $600 stimulus in tax refunds in 2008 due to the start of the recession, I chose to pay down debt rather than spend gloriously in retail products.  I didn't need a new TV or appliance, but I did want to pay off my car loan.  The economy didn't see one cent of that stimulus money from me.

That's what I do with mine every year. This year I took my Fed and State money and paid off just shy of $3000 in credit card debt (used strictly for unexpected car servicing, vet bills, and hospital visits). I bought $1000 worth of new stocks like I do every year. And the rest went into the "future housework fund". I guess the last one I mentioned is considered stimulating the economy, but I haven't spent that money yet.

Also buying stocks is stimulating the economy and when you pull that money out (assuming you made money) you will be taxed accordingly (same with the house when you sell it for more money).  So both of those are examples of what I was trying to say even if it doesn't actually work out that way in the past or in the future, it's not so simple to say less taxes equal bigger budget.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: bosk1 on May 02, 2017, 09:48:48 AM
Also buying stocks is stimulating the economy and when you pull that money out...
Actually, I would argue that, even aside from pulling the money out, investing in the first place is stimulating the economy.  Not in the sense of directly generating other tax revenue on the money spent.  But you are putting money into that company, which allows them to use it, which, in theory, has the effect of stimulating the economy.  Same with Grappler's choice to pay down debt.  Stimulating the economy isn't just going to Best Buy to pick up a new TV.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 02, 2017, 09:50:32 AM
Well, they are flat wrong about which economic groups will benefit from Trump's policies vs. Democratic policies.

One, says you. NEITHER will really benefit.    "Taxing the 1% and giving free shit to the bottom 25%" didn't work for 8 years, why would you expect it to miraculously work under Bernie and/or Hillary?

Two, they're not that much different in many ways (the tariffs, the falsely claiming that they can "keep jobs in America" without radically changing the training requirements and the industrial focus we currently have).   

Three, probably the best economic growth - individually - that we've had since Reagan was under Clinton, and both Hillary and Trump were tripping on their dicks during the election to distance themselves from that - AND IT WAS HER OWN HUSBAND!   Hell, even Bill, in the spirit of maintaining the gravy train he is currently on, distanced himself wrongly from some of the things he did.   

WE SHOULD NOT BE MINING COAL.
WE SHOULD NOT BE MAKING TV SETS.
WE SHOULD NOT BE TAXING IMPORTS.

We SHOULD BE incentivizing technological innovation (particularly in the energy sectors)
We SHOULD BE focusing on breaking the "I should be able to do the same job, for the same company in the same town for my entire career, at ever increasing wages!" mentality.    Indians and Mexicans and Irish uproot their families to come to America to get jobs, and a miner from West Virginia won't move to TENNESSEE for a job?  That's INSANE.   
We SHOULD BE incentivizing training and education and improving the versatility of our workers.
We SHOULD BE separating the devil's bargain of "healthcare" tied to "employment".   
We SHOULD BE legalizing marijuana (and even some other scheduled drugs).  Yes, this will improve the economy and improve the lot of the individual.

I don't see any of that on either the Liberal OR the Conservative agenda.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Chino on May 02, 2017, 10:06:51 AM
Also buying stocks is stimulating the economy and when you pull that money out...
Actually, I would argue that, even aside from pulling the money out, investing in the first place is stimulating the economy.  Not in the sense of directly generating other tax revenue on the money spent.  But you are putting money into that company, which allows them to use it, which, in theory, has the effect of stimulating the economy.  Same with Grappler's choice to pay down debt.  Stimulating the economy isn't just going to Best Buy to pick up a new TV.

Fair enough.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 02, 2017, 10:09:42 AM
Also buying stocks is stimulating the economy and when you pull that money out...
Actually, I would argue that, even aside from pulling the money out, investing in the first place is stimulating the economy.  Not in the sense of directly generating other tax revenue on the money spent.  But you are putting money into that company, which allows them to use it, which, in theory, has the effect of stimulating the economy.  Same with Grappler's choice to pay down debt.  Stimulating the economy isn't just going to Best Buy to pick up a new TV.

I totally agree, I was just relating more to taxes since there is a tax with gains on that (and the relation of less money taxed means the governement can still get that money in other ways).  You definitely are stimulating the economy by investing in the first place.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 02, 2017, 12:09:16 PM
Some research from Democrats about why people in Michigan and Wisconsin swung from Obama to Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/05/01/why-did-trump-win-new-research-by-democrats-offers-a-worrisome-answer/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/05/01/why-did-trump-win-new-research-by-democrats-offers-a-worrisome-answer/)
Quote
The poll found that Obama-Trump voters, many of whom are working-class whites and were pivotal to Trump’s victory, are economically losing ground and are skeptical of Democratic solutions to their problems. Among the findings:

50 percent of Obama-Trump voters said their incomes are falling behind the cost of living, and another 31 percent said their incomes are merely keeping pace with the cost of living.
A sizable chunk of Obama-Trump voters — 30 percent — said their vote for Trump was more a vote against Clinton than a vote for Trump. Remember, these voters backed Obama four years earlier.
42 percent of Obama-Trump voters said congressional Democrats’ economic policies will favor the wealthy, vs. only 21 percent of them who said the same about Trump. (Forty percent say that about congressional Republicans.) A total of 77 percent of Obama-Trump voters said Trump’s policies will favor some mix of all other classes (middle class, poor, all equally), while a total of 58 percent said that about congressional Democrats.

I think the vote against Hillary was pretty obvious, but surprised so many viewed Republican economic policies more favorable than Democratic.  Seems that view made a huge difference.

I still think it's kind messed up that those few specific voters in those few specific counties got to decide the whole election.

But it's a misnomer that they "decided the election".   The way they counted the votes makes it look that way, but without Texas, North Carolina, Florida, or any of the other 26 states that voted for Trump, none of this matters.  The importance of those VOTERS - regardless of state - was highlighted by that, but if all the other states didn't fall into line, it wouldn't have mattered any more than that surplus of voters in California did. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: portnoy311 on May 02, 2017, 01:33:55 PM
I'd say net neutrality and single payer hit most of your should be's
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 02, 2017, 03:12:50 PM
WE SHOULD NOT BE MINING COAL.
WE SHOULD NOT BE MAKING TV SETS.
WE SHOULD NOT BE TAXING IMPORTS.

We SHOULD BE incentivizing technological innovation (particularly in the energy sectors)
We SHOULD BE focusing on breaking the "I should be able to do the same job, for the same company in the same town for my entire career, at ever increasing wages!" mentality.    Indians and Mexicans and Irish uproot their families to come to America to get jobs, and a miner from West Virginia won't move to TENNESSEE for a job?  That's INSANE.   
We SHOULD BE incentivizing training and education and improving the versatility of our workers.
We SHOULD BE separating the devil's bargain of "healthcare" tied to "employment".   
We SHOULD BE legalizing marijuana (and even some other scheduled drugs).  Yes, this will improve the economy and improve the lot of the individual.

I don't see any of that on either the Liberal OR the Conservative agenda.

I'm a little iffy on SHOULD BE #2 but overall I'd vote for this.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: chknptpie on May 02, 2017, 05:08:28 PM
WE SHOULD NOT BE MINING COAL.
WE SHOULD NOT BE MAKING TV SETS.
WE SHOULD NOT BE TAXING IMPORTS.

We SHOULD BE incentivizing technological innovation (particularly in the energy sectors)
We SHOULD BE focusing on breaking the "I should be able to do the same job, for the same company in the same town for my entire career, at ever increasing wages!" mentality.    Indians and Mexicans and Irish uproot their families to come to America to get jobs, and a miner from West Virginia won't move to TENNESSEE for a job?  That's INSANE.   
We SHOULD BE incentivizing training and education and improving the versatility of our workers.
We SHOULD BE separating the devil's bargain of "healthcare" tied to "employment".   
We SHOULD BE legalizing marijuana (and even some other scheduled drugs).  Yes, this will improve the economy and improve the lot of the individual.

I don't see any of that on either the Liberal OR the Conservative agenda.

Pretty sure these are on the liberal agenda through Bernie Sanders, just maybe not the solutions you agree with.
We SHOULD BE incentivizing technological innovation (particularly in the energy sectors)
We SHOULD BE separating the devil's bargain of "healthcare" tied to "employment".
We SHOULD BE legalizing marijuana (and even some other scheduled drugs).
We SHOULD BE incentivizing training and education and improving the versatility of our workers.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: TL on May 02, 2017, 07:14:52 PM
Well, they are flat wrong about which economic groups will benefit from Trump's policies vs. Democratic policies.

One, says you. NEITHER will really benefit.    "Taxing the 1% and giving free shit to the bottom 25%" didn't work for 8 years, why would you expect it to miraculously work under Bernie and/or Hillary?

Two, they're not that much different in many ways (the tariffs, the falsely claiming that they can "keep jobs in America" without radically changing the training requirements and the industrial focus we currently have).   

Three, probably the best economic growth - individually - that we've had since Reagan was under Clinton, and both Hillary and Trump were tripping on their dicks during the election to distance themselves from that - AND IT WAS HER OWN HUSBAND!   Hell, even Bill, in the spirit of maintaining the gravy train he is currently on, distanced himself wrongly from some of the things he did.   

WE SHOULD NOT BE MINING COAL.
WE SHOULD NOT BE MAKING TV SETS.
WE SHOULD NOT BE TAXING IMPORTS.

We SHOULD BE incentivizing technological innovation (particularly in the energy sectors)
We SHOULD BE focusing on breaking the "I should be able to do the same job, for the same company in the same town for my entire career, at ever increasing wages!" mentality.    Indians and Mexicans and Irish uproot their families to come to America to get jobs, and a miner from West Virginia won't move to TENNESSEE for a job?  That's INSANE.   
We SHOULD BE incentivizing training and education and improving the versatility of our workers.
We SHOULD BE separating the devil's bargain of "healthcare" tied to "employment".   
We SHOULD BE legalizing marijuana (and even some other scheduled drugs).  Yes, this will improve the economy and improve the lot of the individual.

I don't see any of that on either the Liberal OR the Conservative agenda.
This is a good post. I think it's a great example of why it's so needlessly counterproductive, the instance these days that everything needs to be labeled "liberal" or "conservative", when really, there's a lot of nuance that gets lost. When people drop the labels for a minute, there really is a lot of common ground.

For instance, while we may have different ideas about some of the details or nuances or some of those points, I agree with you on pretty much all of those points.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jammindude on May 02, 2017, 10:40:41 PM
I still don't understand anyone's talk around here that the economy has been in the tank.

My local news just reported that we had our first flatline....after 7 years of growth. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: bosk1 on May 02, 2017, 11:45:06 PM
My local news
There's your answer.  There will always be outliers in localities somewhere.  Your locality obviously isn't indicative of the national trends. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: 73109 on May 03, 2017, 01:10:10 AM
Well, wait a minute.  At post #25, the tax plan is bad because it benefits the rich.  Then that was questioned, and at post #31, it is bad because it adds trillions to the debt. 

So I haven't read the thread and am just posting because I'm avoiding doing work, but aren't the two mutually compatible if not mutually expected. Tax cuts benefit the rich insofar as the rich pay less taxes. Less taxes then means less income for the government, less income for the government without much change in spending habits adds to the debt.

Am I crazy?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: eric42434224 on May 03, 2017, 04:46:35 AM
Well, wait a minute.  At post #25, the tax plan is bad because it benefits the rich.  Then that was questioned, and at post #31, it is bad because it adds trillions to the debt. 

So I haven't read the thread and am just posting because I'm avoiding doing work, but aren't the two mutually compatible if not mutually expected. Tax cuts benefit the rich insofar as the rich pay less taxes. Less taxes then means less income for the government, less income for the government without much change in spending habits adds to the debt.

Am I crazy?

No, you are not crazy.....at least in respect to this topic you aren't.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Elite on May 03, 2017, 06:58:00 AM
WE SHOULD NOT BE MINING COAL.
WE SHOULD NOT BE MAKING TV SETS.
WE SHOULD NOT BE TAXING IMPORTS.

We SHOULD BE incentivizing technological innovation (particularly in the energy sectors)
We SHOULD BE focusing on breaking the "I should be able to do the same job, for the same company in the same town for my entire career, at ever increasing wages!" mentality.    Indians and Mexicans and Irish uproot their families to come to America to get jobs, and a miner from West Virginia won't move to TENNESSEE for a job?  That's INSANE.   
We SHOULD BE incentivizing training and education and improving the versatility of our workers.
We SHOULD BE separating the devil's bargain of "healthcare" tied to "employment".   
We SHOULD BE legalizing marijuana (and even some other scheduled drugs).  Yes, this will improve the economy and improve the lot of the individual.

I've disagreed with you (or rather the other way round :lol) in P&R before, but even though I'm not American, this post make so much sense. Great stuff!
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Chino on May 03, 2017, 07:12:35 AM
WE SHOULD NOT BE MINING COAL.
WE SHOULD NOT BE MAKING TV SETS.
WE SHOULD NOT BE TAXING IMPORTS.

We SHOULD BE incentivizing technological innovation (particularly in the energy sectors)
We SHOULD BE focusing on breaking the "I should be able to do the same job, for the same company in the same town for my entire career, at ever increasing wages!" mentality.    Indians and Mexicans and Irish uproot their families to come to America to get jobs, and a miner from West Virginia won't move to TENNESSEE for a job?  That's INSANE.   
We SHOULD BE incentivizing training and education and improving the versatility of our workers.
We SHOULD BE separating the devil's bargain of "healthcare" tied to "employment".   
We SHOULD BE legalizing marijuana (and even some other scheduled drugs).  Yes, this will improve the economy and improve the lot of the individual.

I don't see any of that on either the Liberal OR the Conservative agenda.

Getting health care out of the hands of employers should be one of this country's highest priorities. People shouldn't have to avoid fields they'd excel in just because of what kind of health plan they can get, and people shouldn't be apprehensive to start business because they'll have that extra financial burden.


Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: hefdaddy42 on May 03, 2017, 07:57:10 AM
WE SHOULD NOT BE MINING COAL.
WE SHOULD NOT BE MAKING TV SETS.
WE SHOULD NOT BE TAXING IMPORTS.

We SHOULD BE incentivizing technological innovation (particularly in the energy sectors)
We SHOULD BE focusing on breaking the "I should be able to do the same job, for the same company in the same town for my entire career, at ever increasing wages!" mentality.    Indians and Mexicans and Irish uproot their families to come to America to get jobs, and a miner from West Virginia won't move to TENNESSEE for a job?  That's INSANE.   
We SHOULD BE incentivizing training and education and improving the versatility of our workers.
We SHOULD BE separating the devil's bargain of "healthcare" tied to "employment".   
We SHOULD BE legalizing marijuana (and even some other scheduled drugs).  Yes, this will improve the economy and improve the lot of the individual.
Hey, Pal, listen here:



I don't really disagree with any of that lol
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 03, 2017, 08:26:17 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH0YPXb49q0
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 03, 2017, 09:16:24 AM
Well, wait a minute.  At post #25, the tax plan is bad because it benefits the rich.  Then that was questioned, and at post #31, it is bad because it adds trillions to the debt. 

So I haven't read the thread and am just posting because I'm avoiding doing work, but aren't the two mutually compatible if not mutually expected. Tax cuts benefit the rich insofar as the rich pay less taxes. Less taxes then means less income for the government, less income for the government without much change in spending habits adds to the debt.

Am I crazy?

Yes!  Well, maybe not "crazy", but you're not accurate.   "Tax cuts' DON'T necessarily mean "less income for the government".  You can, as with all things, go too far and get to a point where too many tax cuts do, but it's not accurate to say point blank that "a tax rate of 30% gives you 5% more revenue across the board (from all sources) than a 25% rate".    The common fallacy is that we look at the government - a $20 TRILLION dollar multifaceted enterprise - and equate it with the economics of, say, our house.  Where you have generally one source of income, and you allocate that income - usually static - to your expenditures.  And if you don't go to that fancy restaurant on Friday, now you have an extra $100 to go to Home Depot with on Saturday.  That is not at ALL how the government works.   

When you take money - that would have been paid to taxes - and invest it in property, the government makes money (via taxes, fees, insurance, and property taxes).   When you put it in the bank, the government makes money (on those investments backed by Treasury bills).    When you put it into goods, the government makes money (on the sales taxes and/or other fees, like license and registration fees).   When you put it into services, the government makes money (on the wage taxes and SS/FICA taxes paid by those workers).   It's an incredibly complex mechanism that isn't anywhere near as easy as ANY of our candidates make it out to be.    And on that note, I am not at all talking about the simplistic "trickle down economics that was sold to us (and likely doesn't work as described).   "Trickle down" doesn't account for all the other income streams either, and doesn't have the multi-dimensionality that I am talking about. 

Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 03, 2017, 09:24:38 AM
^ essentially what I was trying to say yesterday
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 03, 2017, 09:28:45 AM
^ essentially what I was trying to say yesterday

You most certainly were (and I understood what you were saying).
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: bosk1 on May 03, 2017, 09:33:09 AM
Well, wait a minute.  At post #25, the tax plan is bad because it benefits the rich.  Then that was questioned, and at post #31, it is bad because it adds trillions to the debt. 

So I haven't read the thread and am just posting because I'm avoiding doing work, but aren't the two mutually compatible if not mutually expected. Tax cuts benefit the rich insofar as the rich pay less taxes. Less taxes then means less income for the government, less income for the government without much change in spending habits adds to the debt.

Am I crazy?

Yes!  Well, maybe not "crazy", but you're not accurate.   "Tax cuts' DON'T necessarily mean "less income for the government".  You can, as with all things, go too far and get to a point where too many tax cuts do, but it's not accurate to say point blank that "a tax rate of 30% gives you 5% more revenue across the board (from all sources) than a 25% rate".    The common fallacy is that we look at the government - a $20 TRILLION dollar multifaceted enterprise - and equate it with the economics of, say, our house.  Where you have generally one source of income, and you allocate that income - usually static - to your expenditures.  And if you don't go to that fancy restaurant on Friday, now you have an extra $100 to go to Home Depot with on Saturday.  That is not at ALL how the government works.   

When you take money - that would have been paid to taxes - and invest it in property, the government makes money (via taxes, fees, insurance, and property taxes).   When you put it in the bank, the government makes money (on those investments backed by Treasury bills).    When you put it into goods, the government makes money (on the sales taxes and/or other fees, like license and registration fees).   When you put it into services, the government makes money (on the wage taxes and SS/FICA taxes paid by those workers).   It's an incredibly complex mechanism that isn't anywhere near as easy as ANY of our candidates make it out to be.    And on that note, I am not at all talking about the simplistic "trickle down economics that was sold to us (and likely doesn't work as described).   "Trickle down" doesn't account for all the other income streams either, and doesn't have the multi-dimensionality that I am talking about. 
^That is all true.  However:

1.  The level of detail is excruciatingly complex to the point that the "experts" in our own government can't even come to an agreement over what will put us in the black.  So simplifications and generalizations for purposes of discussion on a music-related Internet forum are certainly appropriate (provided we acknowledge that they are imperfect and, depending on how deep you go, inaccurate in varying degrees). 

2.  Taxes in all their varying forms ARE the single largest source of revenue, are they not?  And a great many of the things you mention are taxes.  They simply aren't income tax.  But some of the things you mention do not go to the federal government at all, such as "sales taxes and/or other fees, like license and registration fees [mostly]," for example.  Those are for state and local governments. 

So going back to your main point, tax cuts don't necessarily mean less revenue for government.  But, by and large, the practical reality is that if you cut the government's biggest revenue stream, that will de facto result in less revenue.  But again, we're talking about something really complex with lots of moving parts.  I heard a commentator the other day talk about it in terms of a sliding scale, and his point was, if you tax the population at 0%, you get zero tax revenue because nobody is paying anything.  If you tax the population at 100%, you get zero tax revenue because people cannot live on nothing and will instantly revolt and destroy your government.  As you move away from either extreme and more toward the center, you theoretically find that sweet spot where revenue is maximized.  But finding that sweet spot is exceedingly difficult because of lots of moving parts, some of which are not quantifiable.  For instance, in any given economic climate, is the tax rate deemed to be so oppressive that the government inadvertently creates a higher likelihood that more people will dodge taxes and not pay their share?  Do tax breaks or incentives end up socially engineering people out of maximizing their taxable income because they end up with a better net income that way?  Who gets the most tax breaks in a given economic climate?  And on and on and on.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: TL on May 03, 2017, 12:14:16 PM
My local news
There's your answer.  There will always be outliers in localities somewhere.  Your locality obviously isn't indicative of the national trends.
According to the World Bank, the US overall has had positive economic growth every year from 2010 to 2015 (the most recent year they have data presented for), ranging from about 1.6% to 2.6% per year.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=US

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that there was a net increase in jobs steadily from October of 2010 to present.
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth

I have no doubt that some regions of the country didn't benefit from this as much as others, and that folks in some locations really have been experiencing rough times, and that absolutely does need to be addressed. The US economy as a whole though seems to have been doing well for the past six or seven years.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: bosk1 on May 03, 2017, 12:19:02 PM
Yeah, I know, TL.  I'm not one to jump on the "the economy was in the toilet during the Obama administration and immediately course-corrected the day Trump was elected" bandwagon because, while some elements of that argument may be true, there are a variety of factors and elements of the economy that can be looked at that will tell completely different stories simply depending on what factors you are looking at and what story you are trying to tell.  But I think my point to JD is still completely valid.  There always will be specific outlier localities that do not necessarily follow the national trend, for any number of reasons.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: TL on May 03, 2017, 12:33:46 PM
Yeah, I know, TL.  I'm not one to jump on the "the economy was in the toilet during the Obama administration and immediately course-corrected the day Trump was elected" bandwagon because, while some elements of that argument may be true, there are a variety of factors and elements of the economy that can be looked at that will tell completely different stories simply depending on what factors you are looking at and what story you are trying to tell.  But I think my point to JD is still completely valid.  There always will be specific outlier localities that do not necessarily follow the national trend, for any number of reasons.
No worries. Sorry if it felt like I was putting words in your mouth, that certainly wasn't my intent.

We do seem to agree on the point that "the economy" in a country as large as the US is a complicated thing, and a lot of nuance tends to be left out when it gets brought up (especially by news outlets when they just give the soundbite of "The economy is doing well/poorly".
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: bosk1 on May 03, 2017, 12:39:47 PM
No worries. Sorry if it felt like I was putting words in your mouth, that certainly wasn't my intent.

Oh, not at all.  I think we generally agree as to the complexity and nuance of it all.  I was just clarifying/fine-tuning in light of what you posted, that's all.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: hefdaddy42 on May 03, 2017, 01:08:03 PM
We do seem to agree on the point that "the economy" in a country as large as the US is a complicated thing, and a lot of nuance tends to be left out when it gets brought up (especially by news outlets when they just give the soundbite of "The economy is doing well/poorly".

Trump: Who knew the economy would be so hard?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: XJDenton on May 03, 2017, 03:12:31 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/jeff-sessions-woman-guilty-laughing-year-jail-sentence-code-pink-protester-a7716456.html

So, this seems fair.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 03, 2017, 03:18:00 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/jeff-sessions-woman-guilty-laughing-year-jail-sentence-code-pink-protester-a7716456.html

So, this seems fair.

Is there more to this story?  I'd hope so because just laughing even if it was purposeful for a negative reaction, is not really a crime IMO, nor is it even close to a year in jail sentancing IMO.

As for Sessions, who I don't like one bit, I am glad that he told Colorado's governor that he would not be going after legal marijuana.  We all know he opposes it, but I am glad he's letting it get a pass.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: XeRocks81 on May 03, 2017, 03:21:20 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/jeff-sessions-woman-guilty-laughing-year-jail-sentence-code-pink-protester-a7716456.html

So, this seems fair.

Is there more to this story?  I'd hope so because just laughing even if it was purposeful for a negative reaction, is not really a crime IMO, nor is it even close to a year in jail sentancing IMO.

As for Sessions, who I don't like one bit, I am glad that he told Colorado's governor that he would not be going after legal marijuana.  We all know he opposes it, but I am glad he's letting it get a pass.

Maybe it's one of those "comtempt of court" things?  A federal confirmation hearing is serious business and if you've managed to get yourself into that room at that moment, if you choose to act the fool, even as protest, you have to know  there might be consequences.  But a year in jail? Seems excessive
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: hefdaddy42 on May 03, 2017, 03:28:14 PM
As for Sessions, who I don't like one bit, I am glad that he told Colorado's governor that he would not be going after legal marijuana.  We all know he opposes it, but I am glad he's letting it get a pass.
Well, the Congress refused to fund him for prosecuting in states where it's legal.  So don't give him too much credit.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 03, 2017, 03:49:51 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/jeff-sessions-woman-guilty-laughing-year-jail-sentence-code-pink-protester-a7716456.html

So, this seems fair.

Is there more to this story?  I'd hope so because just laughing even if it was purposeful for a negative reaction, is not really a crime IMO, nor is it even close to a year in jail sentancing IMO.

As for Sessions, who I don't like one bit, I am glad that he told Colorado's governor that he would not be going after legal marijuana.  We all know he opposes it, but I am glad he's letting it get a pass.

Maybe it's one of those "comtempt of court" things?  A federal confirmation hearing is serious business and if you've managed to get yourself into that room at that moment, if you choose to act the fool, even as protest, you have to know  there might be consequences.  But a year in jail? Seems excessive
From what I've seen it's much like Dr. Numbnuts on the United Flight. The jury found her guilty, but only because of her behavior after she was told to leave the gallery. If she'd only laughed at him then they wouldn't have convicted her. Moreover, they thought the capitol cop that threw here out was wrong and acting like the rookie that she was. So, it shouldn't have happened but once it did she compounded the mistake by making a scene.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 03, 2017, 04:27:17 PM
Wasn't it also part and parcel of bringing a sign in during the confirmation hearing, and thus "protesting" in a government building where that is prohibited (or something along those lines)?  Also, crazy-lady has a history of tainted behaviours during protests.  I doubt it's as innocent as this media outlet is portraying, but it certainly doesn't sound like something worthy of a year in prison.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 03, 2017, 04:39:20 PM
Her past history that's not really a consideration here. Either she's guilty or she's not and what happened a day, week, month, year before doesn't factor into it.

I have no idea how sentencing works here, but if it's the same jury that determines it I don't see her doing much time at all. They were actually pretty sympathetic to her. Several said they were essentially forced to convict her because of the wording of the law.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 03, 2017, 04:46:15 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/jeff-sessions-woman-guilty-laughing-year-jail-sentence-code-pink-protester-a7716456.html

So, this seems fair.

Is there more to this story?  I'd hope so because just laughing even if it was purposeful for a negative reaction, is not really a crime IMO, nor is it even close to a year in jail sentancing IMO.

As for Sessions, who I don't like one bit, I am glad that he told Colorado's governor that he would not be going after legal marijuana.  We all know he opposes it, but I am glad he's letting it get a pass.

Maybe it's one of those "comtempt of court" things?  A federal confirmation hearing is serious business and if you've managed to get yourself into that room at that moment, if you choose to act the fool, even as protest, you have to know  there might be consequences.  But a year in jail? Seems excessive
From what I've seen it's much like Dr. Numbnuts on the United Flight. The jury found her guilty, but only because of her behavior after she was told to leave the gallery. If she'd only laughed at him then they wouldn't have convicted her. Moreover, they thought the capitol cop that threw here out was wrong and acting like the rookie that she was. So, it shouldn't have happened but once it did she compounded the mistake by making a scene.

That makes a lot more sense, but to be fair, Dr. Numbnuts on the United Flight did nothing of that sort and as a United FF, I am 100% on his side.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 03, 2017, 05:30:50 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/jeff-sessions-woman-guilty-laughing-year-jail-sentence-code-pink-protester-a7716456.html

So, this seems fair.

Is there more to this story?  I'd hope so because just laughing even if it was purposeful for a negative reaction, is not really a crime IMO, nor is it even close to a year in jail sentancing IMO.

As for Sessions, who I don't like one bit, I am glad that he told Colorado's governor that he would not be going after legal marijuana.  We all know he opposes it, but I am glad he's letting it get a pass.

Maybe it's one of those "comtempt of court" things?  A federal confirmation hearing is serious business and if you've managed to get yourself into that room at that moment, if you choose to act the fool, even as protest, you have to know  there might be consequences.  But a year in jail? Seems excessive
From what I've seen it's much like Dr. Numbnuts on the United Flight. The jury found her guilty, but only because of her behavior after she was told to leave the gallery. If she'd only laughed at him then they wouldn't have convicted her. Moreover, they thought the capitol cop that threw here out was wrong and acting like the rookie that she was. So, it shouldn't have happened but once it did she compounded the mistake by making a scene.

That makes a lot more sense, but to be fair, Dr. Numbnuts on the United Flight did nothing of that sort and as a United FF, I am 100% on his side.
I was on Numbnuts' side when he was being victimized by the airline. I was on the airline's side when he switched from victim to trespasser.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 03, 2017, 06:30:44 PM
Her past history that's not really a consideration here. Either she's guilty or she's not and what happened a day, week, month, year before doesn't factor into it.

I understand that... all I was insinuating is that she has a history, and it may not have been as simple as a little chuckle/snort at a comment that was made during his confirmation hearings.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 04, 2017, 08:05:03 AM
That makes a lot more sense, but to be fair, Dr. Numbnuts on the United Flight did nothing of that sort and as a United FF, I am 100% on his side.
I was on Numbnuts' side when he was being victimized by the airline. I was on the airline's side when he switched from victim to trespasser.

Probably not the place for this discussion, but how was he a trespasser?  I've had this debate with my friends who were on United's side, but no one has yet been able to tell me what he did wrong.  He didn't get violent, didn't yell obscenities, and there is no fine print about what happens when the airline wants to remove you AFTER boarding for reasons other than safety.  They had every right to deny him boarding, but once you are on that plane, they don't have any policy for force ably removing you, let alone injuring you.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 04, 2017, 08:14:23 AM
Wasn't it also part and parcel of bringing a sign in during the confirmation hearing, and thus "protesting" in a government building where that is prohibited (or something along those lines)?  Also, crazy-lady has a history of tainted behaviours during protests.  I doubt it's as innocent as this media outlet is portraying, but it certainly doesn't sound like something worthy of a year in prison.

[Butthead]You said "taint"[/Butthead]
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 04, 2017, 08:17:06 AM
My local news
There's your answer.  There will always be outliers in localities somewhere.  Your locality obviously isn't indicative of the national trends.
According to the World Bank, the US overall has had positive economic growth every year from 2010 to 2015 (the most recent year they have data presented for), ranging from about 1.6% to 2.6% per year.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=US

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that there was a net increase in jobs steadily from October of 2010 to present.
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth

I have no doubt that some regions of the country didn't benefit from this as much as others, and that folks in some locations really have been experiencing rough times, and that absolutely does need to be addressed. The US economy as a whole though seems to have been doing well for the past six or seven years.

This directly feeds my second "We SHOULD BE" comment.   We are a large, vast country.   We DO - often - go through regional ebbs and flows.  I do not at all think it is unreasonable to have relocation of workforce be a required part of that equation.   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 04, 2017, 08:20:39 AM
That makes a lot more sense, but to be fair, Dr. Numbnuts on the United Flight did nothing of that sort and as a United FF, I am 100% on his side.
I was on Numbnuts' side when he was being victimized by the airline. I was on the airline's side when he switched from victim to trespasser.

Probably not the place for this discussion, but how was he a trespasser?  I've had this debate with my friends who were on United's side, but no one has yet been able to tell me what he did wrong.  He didn't get violent, didn't yell obscenities, and there is no fine print about what happens when the airline wants to remove you AFTER boarding for reasons other than safety.  They had every right to deny him boarding, but once you are on that plane, they don't have any policy for force ably removing you, let alone injuring you.

It's not his plane, it's not a public place.   Better or worse, PR nightmare or no, United HAS A RIGHT to ask someone to leave their plane.  What they can't do is take your money and not give you a flight.  But if they refunded his ticket, he has NO RIGHT to that seat.  When he refused to leave that seat - again, a seat he has NO LEGAL RIGHT TO - he became a trespasser. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 04, 2017, 08:23:41 AM
That makes a lot more sense, but to be fair, Dr. Numbnuts on the United Flight did nothing of that sort and as a United FF, I am 100% on his side.
I was on Numbnuts' side when he was being victimized by the airline. I was on the airline's side when he switched from victim to trespasser.

Probably not the place for this discussion, but how was he a trespasser?  I've had this debate with my friends who were on United's side, but no one has yet been able to tell me what he did wrong.  He didn't get violent, didn't yell obscenities, and there is no fine print about what happens when the airline wants to remove you AFTER boarding for reasons other than safety.  They had every right to deny him boarding, but once you are on that plane, they don't have any policy for force ably removing you, let alone injuring you.

It's not his plane, it's not a public place.   Better or worse, PR nightmare or no, United HAS A RIGHT to ask someone to leave their plane.  What they can't do is take your money and not give you a flight.  But if they refunded his ticket, he has NO RIGHT to that seat.  When he refused to leave that seat - again, a seat he has NO LEGAL RIGHT TO - he became a trespasser.

He was not offered a refund, nor was he specifically told his rights as stated in the fine print for removing someone after boarding.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 04, 2017, 08:24:47 AM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/jeff-sessions-woman-guilty-laughing-year-jail-sentence-code-pink-protester-a7716456.html

So, this seems fair.

Is there more to this story?  I'd hope so because just laughing even if it was purposeful for a negative reaction, is not really a crime IMO, nor is it even close to a year in jail sentancing IMO.

As for Sessions, who I don't like one bit, I am glad that he told Colorado's governor that he would not be going after legal marijuana.  We all know he opposes it, but I am glad he's letting it get a pass.

Maybe it's one of those "comtempt of court" things?  A federal confirmation hearing is serious business and if you've managed to get yourself into that room at that moment, if you choose to act the fool, even as protest, you have to know  there might be consequences.  But a year in jail? Seems excessive
From what I've seen it's much like Dr. Numbnuts on the United Flight. The jury found her guilty, but only because of her behavior after she was told to leave the gallery. If she'd only laughed at him then they wouldn't have convicted her. Moreover, they thought the capitol cop that threw here out was wrong and acting like the rookie that she was. So, it shouldn't have happened but once it did she compounded the mistake by making a scene.

Yeah, I think el barto has it right, and that's a misleading headline.  "Jeff Sessions" has nothing to do with it.  If she did that same thing in any other session (no pun intended), she would have faced the same consequences.   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 04, 2017, 08:31:32 AM
That makes a lot more sense, but to be fair, Dr. Numbnuts on the United Flight did nothing of that sort and as a United FF, I am 100% on his side.
I was on Numbnuts' side when he was being victimized by the airline. I was on the airline's side when he switched from victim to trespasser.

Probably not the place for this discussion, but how was he a trespasser?  I've had this debate with my friends who were on United's side, but no one has yet been able to tell me what he did wrong.  He didn't get violent, didn't yell obscenities, and there is no fine print about what happens when the airline wants to remove you AFTER boarding for reasons other than safety.  They had every right to deny him boarding, but once you are on that plane, they don't have any policy for force ably removing you, let alone injuring you.

It's not his plane, it's not a public place.   Better or worse, PR nightmare or no, United HAS A RIGHT to ask someone to leave their plane.  What they can't do is take your money and not give you a flight.  But if they refunded his ticket, he has NO RIGHT to that seat.  When he refused to leave that seat - again, a seat he has NO LEGAL RIGHT TO - he became a trespasser.

He was not offered a refund, nor was he specifically told his rights as stated in the fine print for removing someone after boarding.
He was offered compensation right out of the gate (figuratively speaking). The airline is obligated to that end. Moreover, the T&C are pretty explicit about this. Just like any restaurant or store, they can refuse service to anybody they damn well please. There's really not much question about United's right to have him leave their plane. The analogy I used elsewhere is that if you go into a Denny's and the manager asks you to leave because he doesn't like your haircut, he's being a dick, but if you refuse to leave you are trespassing and the cops will remove you from the restaurant one way or another.

BTW, I figured it out at the time, and the $800 they offered was just enough for a room at the Four Seasons, a four course steak dinner at Mortons and a comfortable AM flight home on a different airline, with enough to cover taxes and cabfare left over. Dude made the wrong call.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 04, 2017, 08:40:28 AM
He was offered compensation on United's terms, but thats not a refund.  Listen, the 800 is nice (but it's not money).  Im surprised people didn't bite, but they could and should have gone higher.  I think 1300 was the max, now after this, it is now a 10,000 max.  Either way, he boarded the plane.  Once you complete boarding the rules change for airlines and their procedures for removing you.  That's the problem.  United went against their own written rules by removing him forcibly.  He also just walked away with a huge settlement.  United knows they were wrong and paid up big time for it (I can only assume, no one is allowed to discuss the $). 

Edit, also the comapisons are incorrect because the airlines have to abide by more rules and regulations than a restaurant or typical store owner
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 04, 2017, 08:50:11 AM
He was offered compensation on United's terms, but thats not a refund.  Listen, the 800 is nice (but it's not money).  Im surprised people didn't bite, but they could and should have gone higher.  I think 1300 was the max, now after this, it is now a 10,000 max.  Either way, he boarded the plane.  Once you complete boarding the rules change for airlines and their procedures for removing you.  That's the problem.  United went against their own written rules by removing him forcibly.  He also just walked away with a huge settlement.  United knows they were wrong and paid up big time for it (I can only assume, no one is allowed to discuss the $). 

Edit, also the comapisons are incorrect because the airlines have to abide by more rules and regulations than a restaurant or typical store owner
Once it became involuntary he was eligible for cash rather than vouchers. He might not have known that but that's on him.

I believe you also run into a conflict between United's rules and FAA regulations which mandated that the crew board the flight. In any case, United owns the plane and United has the right to boot somebody off of it.

In my opinion the better move for United in that situation would have been to announce to the other passengers that "the plane will not be taking off until somebody leaves. And by the way, the person randomly selected is sitting in 27A." Take the Sgt. Hartman approach and let the rest of he passengers sort it out.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 04, 2017, 08:53:09 AM
He was offered compensation on United's terms, but thats not a refund.  Listen, the 800 is nice (but it's not money).  Im surprised people didn't bite, but they could and should have gone higher.  I think 1300 was the max, now after this, it is now a 10,000 max.  Either way, he boarded the plane.  Once you complete boarding the rules change for airlines and their procedures for removing you.  That's the problem.  United went against their own written rules by removing him forcibly.  He also just walked away with a huge settlement.  United knows they were wrong and paid up big time for it (I can only assume, no one is allowed to discuss the $). 

Edit, also the comapisons are incorrect because the airlines have to abide by more rules and regulations than a restaurant or typical store owner
Once it became involuntary he was eligible for cash rather than vouchers. He might not have known that but that's on him.

I believe you also run into a conflict between United's rules and FAA regulations which mandated that the crew board the flight. In any case, United owns the plane and United has the right to boot somebody off of it.

In my opinion the better move for United in that situation would have been to announce to the other passengers that "the plane will not be taking off until somebody leaves. And by the way, the person randomly selected is sitting in 27A." Take the Sgt. Hartman approach and let the rest of he passengers sort it out.

Bolded for where United broke their own written rules.  He is supposed to be told of all of this before they remove him from the plane, they did not. 

I think there were plenty of ways United could have handled it better, but they broke their own rules in this situation. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 04, 2017, 09:14:03 AM
He was offered compensation on United's terms, but thats not a refund.  Listen, the 800 is nice (but it's not money).  Im surprised people didn't bite, but they could and should have gone higher.  I think 1300 was the max, now after this, it is now a 10,000 max.  Either way, he boarded the plane.  Once you complete boarding the rules change for airlines and their procedures for removing you.  That's the problem.  United went against their own written rules by removing him forcibly.  He also just walked away with a huge settlement.  United knows they were wrong and paid up big time for it (I can only assume, no one is allowed to discuss the $). 

Edit, also the comapisons are incorrect because the airlines have to abide by more rules and regulations than a restaurant or typical store owner
Once it became involuntary he was eligible for cash rather than vouchers. He might not have known that but that's on him.

I believe you also run into a conflict between United's rules and FAA regulations which mandated that the crew board the flight. In any case, United owns the plane and United has the right to boot somebody off of it.

In my opinion the better move for United in that situation would have been to announce to the other passengers that "the plane will not be taking off until somebody leaves. And by the way, the person randomly selected is sitting in 27A." Take the Sgt. Hartman approach and let the rest of he passengers sort it out.

Bolded for where United broke their own written rules.  He is supposed to be told of all of this before they remove him from the plane, they did not. 

I think there were plenty of ways United could have handled it better, but they broke their own rules in this situation.
Are we sure he was not told? In any case, it doesn't change the fact that he was told to GTFO the plane and he refused.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 04, 2017, 09:52:58 AM
Are we sure he was not told? In any case, it doesn't change the fact that he was told to GTFO the plane and he refused.

The more recent videos of before the removal haven't shown that, but I guess there is always going to be questions since it's a fine line.  I guess we can bring it back to the relation of this thread in that there was actually a congressional hearing about this the other day http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/02/526530542/united-ceo-called-before-congress-to-explain-eviction-and-injury-of-passenger (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/02/526530542/united-ceo-called-before-congress-to-explain-eviction-and-injury-of-passenger)
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 04, 2017, 10:19:17 AM
Are we sure he was not told? In any case, it doesn't change the fact that he was told to GTFO the plane and he refused.

The more recent videos of before the removal haven't shown that, but I guess there is always going to be questions since it's a fine line.  I guess we can bring it back to the relation of this thread in that there was actually a congressional hearing about this the other day http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/02/526530542/united-ceo-called-before-congress-to-explain-eviction-and-injury-of-passenger (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/02/526530542/united-ceo-called-before-congress-to-explain-eviction-and-injury-of-passenger)

Cram, not as argument, but just clarification, even if you are right on all those things, it STILL doesn't change the equation.  It might make them look worse in the eyes of the buying public, I'll give you that, but the bottom line remains:  he was technically a trespasser at that point.   As el Barto said, and I'm paraphrasing, it might have been a dick move, but it was THEIR move to make.   

It's a technicality, but any settlement they paid to him was not because he was not on the flight as it left.  It was for all the other nonsense that went along with it.   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 09, 2017, 04:19:08 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-fires-fbi-director-james-214644292.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-fires-fbi-director-james-214644292.html)
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: RuRoRul on May 09, 2017, 04:24:52 PM
So Donald has fired the man in charge of the investigation into him. I wonder if something big was coming.

Seems as though we are reaching the point where either the cover up will be essentially successful or the whole thing comes crashing down on these people. Let's hope it's the latter.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 09, 2017, 04:30:16 PM
The fact is that Comey's incompetence provides Grabby very good cover either way. Sacking the guy who's investigating you looks identical to firing the guy who keeps publicly blundering his investigations.

That said, including the "hey, thanks for clearing me 3 times!" part in the termination letter is fairly off-putting.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 09, 2017, 04:43:47 PM
hooooooooooooooo boy
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: lonestar on May 09, 2017, 05:47:56 PM
hooooooooooooooo boy

yup...
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Chino on May 09, 2017, 08:19:20 PM
Has shit hit the fan yet?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 10, 2017, 06:04:07 AM
Nothing to see here. Biased liberal media has it out for Trump.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 10, 2017, 06:09:58 AM
But her emails!!!
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 10, 2017, 06:30:08 AM
I know, right?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Cyclopssss on May 10, 2017, 06:54:42 AM
Nixon, anyone?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Chino on May 10, 2017, 07:10:36 AM
The similarities are undeniable.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: hefdaddy42 on May 10, 2017, 07:38:03 AM
*waits patiently for a defense of this from some of the conservative members here*
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: AngelBack on May 10, 2017, 07:49:24 AM
LOL, ok, here it is.  Comey reported to the Deputy AG, Rod Rosenstein.  He was an OBAMA appointed judge and served under Bush and Obama and was recently approved as DAG by a senate vote of 94 to 6.  He was Comey's boss.  Rosenstein sent a letter to Trump recommending his termination. 

So, if Trump does not fire him, as advised by an Obama appointee, all the libs would be screaming that a fix was in and Trump was protecting Comey for favors down the road.

Also this now leaves a CLINTONISTA, Andrew McCabe, as acting FBI Dir.  Would Trump turn over the reigns to a Clinton supporter if he were trying to stifle an investigation?

The investigation will not stop because of Comey's firing.  And I would bet a week's salary that in the end there will be more dirt on Obama's DOJ come out of it than dirt on the Trumpmiester.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: hefdaddy42 on May 10, 2017, 07:56:06 AM
His recommendation to fire him was bullshit, and everyone knows it.  It was done to give Trump a "reason".

Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 10, 2017, 08:09:46 AM
His recommendation to fire him was bullshit, and everyone knows it.  It was done to give Trump a "reason".

Trump already had plenty of reasons.  However, the look of cover up will get the spotlight above all the actual reasons and probably rightfully so.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 10, 2017, 08:10:52 AM
There are reports Rosenstein was tasked with finding reasons to sack him 2 weeks ago. I don't think this was Rosenstein's reason.

At the end of the day Grabby was right to sack him. We all agree that he sucked, based on whatever our agendas happen to be. At the same time the democrats are right to question his motives. The optics of this are highly troubling, which even republicans in congress recognize. The problem is that democrats are conditioned to bark like seals at every single thing Trump does, and republicans refuse to acknowledge any criticism, no matter how reasonable it might be, if it comes from the yapping left. It's a bunch of shitheads from both sides of the aisle all pointing at the other side for stinking the room up. This is why we can't have nice things.

*waits patiently for a defense of this from some of the conservative members here*
And the previous 10 posts are why most wouldn't find it worth their time or effort.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: TAC on May 10, 2017, 08:14:30 AM
There are reports Rosenstein was tasked with finding reasons to sack him 2 weeks ago. I don't think this was Rosenstein's reason.

At the end of the day Grabby was right to sack him. We all agree that he sucked, based on whatever our agendas happen to be. At the same time the democrats are right to question his motives. The optics of this are highly troubling, which even republicans in congress recognize. The problem is that democrats are conditioned to bark like seals at every single thing Trump does, and republicans refuse to acknowledge any criticism, no matter how reasonable it might be, if it comes from the yapping left. It's a bunch of shitheads from both sides of the aisle all pointing at the other side for stinking the room up. This is why we can't have nice things.

*waits patiently for a defense of this from some of the conservative members here*
And the previous 10 posts are why most wouldn't find it worth their time or effort.


Bart, thank you.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Chino on May 10, 2017, 08:44:43 AM

"Today we'll no doubt hear calls for a new investigation, which could only serve to impede the current work being done," McConnell said on the Senate floor, referring to the Senate Intelligence Committee's probe of Russia's election meddling.

Kind of ironic coming from the guy who had no problem holding 53 hearings on Benghazi.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 10, 2017, 08:47:41 AM

"Today we'll no doubt hear calls for a new investigation, which could only serve to impede the current work being done," McConnell said on the Senate floor, referring to the Senate Intelligence Committee's probe of Russia's election meddling.

Kind of ironic coming from the guy who had no problem holding 53 hearings on Benghazi.

Agreed, pushing off the investigation while the talk of it is getting hotter due to actions of the white house makes me think the best way to get the current work done, is to get the investigation completed and over with so everyone can move forward, of course assuming there is nothing wrong.  Then again, if we were to compare it to Benghazi then this will likely never end so maybe just pushing forward regardless isn't the worse idea.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 10, 2017, 08:49:10 AM
His recommendation to fire him was bullshit, and everyone knows it.  It was done to give Trump a "reason".

I was going to type * Waits patiently for a dismissal of this from some of the liberal members here* but I don't see that I need to now.  :)   

But even if you're right - and who knows if you are - it's the least important piece of information there, and is irrelevant.  What about the fact that NO ONE trusts his (Comey's) output?  If he clears Trump, he's a shill, if he doesn't he's incompetent.  What about the fact that the man who IS now in charge is arguably more liable towards bias against Trump?     

After acknowledging that the timing is less than perfect (but not determinative) I find it hard not to see criticisms of this as more "well, I don't know what it is, but if Trump did it, it MUST be bad". 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 10, 2017, 08:53:19 AM

After acknowledging that the timing is less than perfect (but not determinative) I find it hard not to see criticisms of this as more "well, I don't know what it is, but if Trump did it, it MUST be bad".
Based on some of the assumptions here I'd agree with you. In a more general sense, if you don't trust Trump, and I think we all agree that nobody should, then it's impossible not to see the potential for badness here.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Elite on May 10, 2017, 09:01:54 AM
What about the fact that NO ONE trusts his (Comey's) output?  If he clears Trump, he's a shill, if he doesn't he's incompetent. . 

This is a good assessment.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: RuRoRul on May 10, 2017, 09:05:51 AM
Coney may have fucked up on various things, but obviously it is going to raise flags when a politician fires the person in charge of an investigation into themselves. If Obama had fired Comey during the Clinton email investigations, or even after they were completed, it would have looked bad and had the right screaming about corruption, politicians believing themselves above the law, etc. Yes, it sucks that someone might enjoy a degree of "protection" against being fired for legitimate reasons because it would look really bad, but that is the reality of the situation. And it means that one should probably have a very concrete reason for doing it and make sure the timing is appropriate - if not, then drawing the obvious conclusion that it was done due to the investigation is much more justified.

Trump's bullshit official reason is so bad it's hard to believe even the usual Trump apologists could believe it. Comey was fired because he made Clinton look worse than she should have? Yes, I am sure Donald cares a lot about that. As El Barto mentioned, its been reported that the DOJ was basically asked to come up with a reason to give to fire him.

Coincidentally, as well as ocurring two days before Comey waa scheduled to testify before a Senate Committee, it occurs the same day that reports made it to the media that a Grand Jury is starting to issue subpoenas on the Russia investigation:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-flynn-targeted-by-grand-jury-subpoenas-sources-confirm/

I believe this had been rumoured for a week or two - round about the same amount of time ago that Trump supposedly asked for a pretense to fire Comey. So although it has been in the works for a little while at least, I wouldn't be surprised if the exact timing was due to the story about the subpoenas, as it was clearly a rushed action (there was no replacement prepared, Donald's laughable letter was dated that day).

Comey apparently only found out when he was in LA addressing FBI employees when the news appeared on the TVs in the room. Shortly after the media already had the story, Donald's private bodyguard was dropping off his boss's letter to the FBI in Washington. Expected level of class from this guy.

If the administration wanted their pretense that this was a legitimate response to Comey's failings on various issues over the past year to be considered seriously, then maybe they should have worked harder to make it look less like Donald just firing the director of the agency investigating him, as that investigstion takes another step forward, in a manner that resembles the actions of a banana republic dictator.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: hefdaddy42 on May 10, 2017, 09:34:31 AM
Coney may have fucked up on various things, but obviously it is going to raise flags when a politician fires the person in charge of an investigation into themselves. If Obama had fired Comey during the Clinton email investigations, or even after they were completed, it would have looked bad and had the right screaming about corruption, politicians believing themselves above the law, etc. Yes, it sucks that someone might enjoy a degree of "protection" against being fired for legitimate reasons because it would look really bad, but that is the reality of the situation. And it means that one should probably have a very concrete reason for doing it and make sure the timing is appropriate - if not, then drawing the obvious conclusion that it was done due to the investigation is much more justified.

Trump's bullshit official reason is so bad it's hard to believe even the usual Trump apologists could believe it. Comey was fired because he made Clinton look worse than she should have? Yes, I am sure Donald cares a lot about that. As El Barto mentioned, its been reported that the DOJ was basically asked to come up with a reason to give to fire him.

Coincidentally, as well as ocurring two days before Comey waa scheduled to testify before a Senate Committee, it occurs the same day that reports made it to the media that a Grand Jury is starting to issue subpoenas on the Russia investigation:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-flynn-targeted-by-grand-jury-subpoenas-sources-confirm/

I believe this had been rumoured for a week or two - round about the same amount of time ago that Trump supposedly asked for a pretense to fire Comey. So although it has been in the works for a little while at least, I wouldn't be surprised if the exact timing was due to the story about the subpoenas, as it was clearly a rushed action (there was no replacement prepared, Donald's laughable letter was dated that day).

Comey apparently only found out when he was in LA addressing FBI employees when the news appeared on the TVs in the room. Shortly after the media already had the story, Donald's private bodyguard was dropping off his boss's letter to the FBI in Washington. Expected level of class from this guy.

If the administration wanted their pretense that this was a legitimate response to Comey's failings on various issues over the past year to be considered seriously, then maybe they should have worked harder to make it look less like Donald just firing the director of the agency investigating him, as that investigstion takes another step forward, in a manner that resembles the actions of a banana republic dictator.
Exactly.

But whatever.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 10, 2017, 09:37:49 AM
I mentioned to Mrs. C. last night about Comey being fired.  Jr. says "Where'd you read that?"  I say "CNN".  He says "So it's biased news".

I got a little ragey.  She and I both told him that MSNBC and FOX would most definitely fit that definition, but saying that about CNN is kinda BS.  When I press him on how he gets his information and what the support is for his viewpoints, he refuses to answer.  I suspect that he's likely just parroting BS that his hardcore Trump supporting, Hillary hate-boner friends are spewing and it's extremely aggravating.  I don't mind if he has an opinion that's contrary to ours.  I just want to know that he's made an attempt at understanding his own words enough to be able to support them with facts or figures.  When he refuses to support his own words, I am left to conclude that he has no support for them and that's frustrating.  I want him to be taken seriously when he goes out into the real world and has conversations with people about stuff like this.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 10, 2017, 09:46:45 AM
^^^^Somewhere in Connecticut Stadler is chuckling.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 10, 2017, 09:55:39 AM
Another interesting wrinkle in the timing of this

Quote
WASHINGTON — Days before he was fired, James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, asked the Justice Department for a significant increase in money and personnel for the bureau’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the presidential election, according to three officials with knowledge of his request.

Mr. Comey asked for the resources during a meeting last week with Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general who wrote the Justice Department’s memo that was used to justify the firing of the F.B.I. director this week.

Mr. Comey then briefed members of Congress on the meeting in recent days.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/us/politics/comey-russia-investigation-fbi.html
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: RuRoRul on May 10, 2017, 10:00:39 AM
The letter from the Deputy Attorney General giving his problems that are the justification for Trump and AG to fire Comey:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39866767

A very well written and reasonable argument imo.

Similar to as Stadler said above:

Quote
What about the fact that NO ONE trusts his (Comey's) output?  If he clears Trump, he's a shill, if he doesn't he's incompetent.

The best case I have seen here for getting rid of him. These publicised investigations against despised political candidates in an extremely polarised campaign have led to many people alternately praising then lambasting the director of the FBI depending on whether what he is saying fits their politics at the moment - which is not good for the FBI being able to be seen as a neutral party in the future.

...However - if the aim is to "restore the public confidence" in the FBI, then any good firing Comey might have done is pissed away ten times over when it seems like Trump is firing the FBI director in the midst of an investigation into himself. Perception matters - particularly if your goal is to boost public confidence. At best, confidence in the new director of the FBI, once Trump appoints one, will maybe be split down party lines. If Comey wouldn't be trusted either way on the results of the FBI investigation, then how much trust will the public have now if Trump and his people are cleared?

If Comey was to be fired to truly restore public trust rather than for other reasons, then it would need to be done in a way that went to great lengths to assure the public that every step was being taken to maintain neutrality in the Trump campaign investigation. Instead, the timing and manner of the dismissal mean that the portion of the public who do not trust Trump have every reason not to trust whoever he appoints as FBI director.

Unless handled with extreme care, replacing Comey at this stage was always going to erode trust in the FBI rather than restore it. And unsurprisingly, Donald is not able to handle it with care to mitigate the bad perception.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Chino on May 10, 2017, 10:07:01 AM
^^^^Somewhere in Connecticut Stadler is chuckling.

I just went and got lunch in the building next door and heard ominous laughter coming from an unknown location. This explains everything.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 10, 2017, 10:08:52 AM
Stadler makes the great point that this investigation is a no-win for Comey.  However, the fact that Trump doesn't let it play out is incredibly troubling.  Removing those that pose a threat to one's power is not even borderline authoritarian.  It's outright.  Yates - gone; Comey - gone; Flynn - tried to sweep it under the rug.  There is way too much smoke here.  If the Clinton investigation is the REAL reason why he's being fired, then what happened from the time that Grabby had the power to act on that (Jan 20), and now?  It's taken almost 4 months for him to come to the conclusion that Comey's actions last summer/fall were termination-worthy?

Sorry conservatives... but this is bull-shit.  Dress it up all you want, but - and I don't have a horse in the race - it's utter bull-shit to NOW say that he's being canned for incompetence over the Clinton investigation.

Those of you that aren't petrified that Trump is removing people that pose a potential threat to him must own the thickest set of rose colored glasses.

For those that have faith the acting director will continue this, and the investigation will continue ... I hope you're right.  Just wait for Christie to be hired as the full-time director.  Or worse yet, Giuliani.

Agreed with RuRo... if this was all on the up-and-up, then wouldn't it make sense to have a full-time director ready to go immediately?  What's the urgency in firing him yesterday?

I don't necessarily agree with all the CNN/MSNBC rhetoric... but something is horribly fishy here.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Chino on May 10, 2017, 10:24:20 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/us/politics/comey-russia-investigation-fbi.html?smid=tw-share&_r=3

Days before he was fired, James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, asked the Justice Department for a significant increase in money and personnel for the bureau’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the presidential election, according to three officials with knowledge of his request.
Mr. Comey asked for the resources during a meeting last week with Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general who wrote the Justice Department’s memo that was used to justify the firing of the F.B.I. director this week.


This article is from the "failing New York Times", so make of it what you will.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 10, 2017, 10:29:04 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/us/politics/comey-russia-investigation-fbi.html?smid=tw-share&_r=3

Days before he was fired, James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, asked the Justice Department for a significant increase in money and personnel for the bureau’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the presidential election, according to three officials with knowledge of his request.
Mr. Comey asked for the resources during a meeting last week with Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general who wrote the Justice Department’s memo that was used to justify the firing of the F.B.I. director this week.


This article is from the "failing New York Times", so make of it what you will.

Also being reported from two other noted proprietors of fake news, the Associated Press and the Washington Post.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 10, 2017, 10:46:57 AM
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/1gjdAX7.gif)
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Adami on May 10, 2017, 11:07:49 AM
So apparently twitter is hoping Trump picks Burt Macklin as the new head of the FBI.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 10, 2017, 11:17:02 AM
Quote
    Michael Anderson, the special agent in charge of the FBI's Chicago division;
    Paul Abbate, the executive assistant director for the Criminal, Cyber, Response and Services Branch of the FBI;
    Adam Lee, the special agent in charge of the FBI's Richmond Division;
    William Evanina, the head of counterintelligence for the US government and the principal counterintelligence and security adviser to the    director of national intelligence
These are the four candidates. All bureau insiders and reasonable candidates. I'm personally rooting against Abbate, simply because privacy is one of my pet causes and I think we can safely assume what his pet projects would be.


edit: Oh, and I'd be amazed if Giuliani even  considered accepting the job if offered. I don't think it would have been hand-on or prestigious enough for his liking.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 10, 2017, 11:33:47 AM
She and I both told him that MSNBC and FOX would most definitely fit that definition, but saying that about CNN is kinda BS.

But you know that there are multiple studies on this, and most - if not all - have MSNBC as THE most biased mainstream television news outlet, and CNN as more biased than Fox.   The problem with Fox is two-fold:  one, they run more 'personality driven" op-ed spots - Hannity, O'Reilly, etc. - than CNN, and two, they are basically the lone station whose bias tips right more than left.  But when it comes to news - the actual news - Fox is CONSISTENTLY less biased than CNN.    So Jr. may not be that far off the mark.

Quote
When I press him on how he gets his information and what the support is for his viewpoints, he refuses to answer.  I suspect that he's likely just parroting BS that his hardcore Trump supporting, Hillary hate-boner friends are spewing and it's extremely aggravating.  I don't mind if he has an opinion that's contrary to ours.  I just want to know that he's made an attempt at understanding his own words enough to be able to support them with facts or figures.  When he refuses to support his own words, I am left to conclude that he has no support for them and that's frustrating.  I want him to be taken seriously when he goes out into the real world and has conversations with people about stuff like this.
All that is spot on.  Doesn't matter if Fox is more or less biased than CNN, if you don't know which is which, or where you got the information from, it doesn't really help you or anyone else.  "Because I said so" stops being effective after the age of about 9 or so.  :) 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 10, 2017, 11:41:26 AM
Stadler makes the great point that this investigation is a no-win for Comey.  However, the fact that Trump doesn't let it play out is incredibly troubling.  Removing those that pose a threat to one's power is not even borderline authoritarian.  It's outright.  Yates - gone; Comey - gone; Flynn - tried to sweep it under the rug.  There is way too much smoke here.  If the Clinton investigation is the REAL reason why he's being fired, then what happened from the time that Grabby had the power to act on that (Jan 20), and now?  It's taken almost 4 months for him to come to the conclusion that Comey's actions last summer/fall were termination-worthy?

Sorry conservatives... but this is bull-shit.  Dress it up all you want, but - and I don't have a horse in the race - it's utter bull-shit to NOW say that he's being canned for incompetence over the Clinton investigation.

Those of you that aren't petrified that Trump is removing people that pose a potential threat to him must own the thickest set of rose colored glasses.

C'mon.  No.  Just no.   It's "authoritarian" under certain circumstances, but EVERY administration since Adams has done something more or less like this.   If anything, Trump is giving some of these people - clearly affiliated with previous administrations - the benefit of the doubt, and when it doesn't pan out - Yates might as well have been that douche in the picture with Ryan - and he ends the experiment, he's an "authoritarian".  He ran on a platform that was "drain the swamp"
 - which many took to mean "not going to rely on business as usual", and when he actually DOES that, he's "authoritarian".  It doesn't take an apologist - which I am certainly not; I didn't vote for the guy, and I wouldn't now if given the opportunity - to be fair and weigh ALL the facts, not just the ones that support the pet conspiracy theory du jour.   

Quote
For those that have faith the acting director will continue this, and the investigation will continue ... I hope you're right.  Just wait for Christie to be hired as the full-time director.  Or worse yet, Giuliani.

For the record, wouldn't support either hiring.

Quote
Agreed with RuRo... if this was all on the up-and-up, then wouldn't it make sense to have a full-time director ready to go immediately?  What's the urgency in firing him yesterday?

I don't necessarily agree with all the CNN/MSNBC rhetoric... but something is horribly fishy here.

Because if he did, ESPECIALLY if the person was anywhere right of Hillary herself, the Trump haters would be APOPLECTIC at how "Trump put his own guy in there".  I know it's hard for many to accept, but given that there is no perfect answer (that ship sailed, and so long ago that Columbus was on it) he did this as right as he could.   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: TAC on May 10, 2017, 11:47:50 AM
Did Coz say that CNN was NOT biased?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 10, 2017, 12:00:27 PM
But you know that there are multiple studies on this, and most - if not all - have MSNBC as THE most biased mainstream television news outlet, and CNN as more biased than Fox.   The problem with Fox is two-fold:  one, they run more 'personality driven" op-ed spots - Hannity, O'Reilly, etc. - than CNN, and two, they are basically the lone station whose bias tips right more than left.  But when it comes to news - the actual news - Fox is CONSISTENTLY less biased than CNN.    So Jr. may not be that far off the mark.

And I have no doubt that I could find multiple studies that say the exact opposite.  The conversation went like this:

"Apparently Trump fired James Comey"
"Where'd you read that?"
"CNN"
"So it's biased news."

He had zero details on the story itself and zero desire to even inquire as to the details.  His kneejerk reaction was "biased".  He doesn't know news channels enough to even make that determination on his own, because he's too busy watching gamer videos on YouTube.  He knows what his pro-Trump gf says (that she likely hears from her own parents) and what his criminal justice friends say, most of whom I think are pro-Trump.  So no, he's so far off the mark that if he were the fabled "good guy with a gun", he'd have killed 3 innocent bystanders by accident.

Quote
All that is spot on.  Doesn't matter if Fox is more or less biased than CNN, if you don't know which is which, or where you got the information from, it doesn't really help you or anyone else.  "Because I said so" stops being effective after the age of about 9 or so.  :) 

Right, but good luck trying to sell that line of logic to a teenager.  :lol

Did Coz say that CNN was NOT biased?

In this instance, I was trying to point out to him that it had NOTHING to do with CNN.  All he heard was the headline, which was 100% factual, and his IMMEDIATE reaction was "ZOMGBIAS", because CNN.  We were saying "CNN isn't biased because the headline says (paraphrasing) Trump fires Comey".  Anybody prints that, it's fact, whether you like the source or not.  The better question is did Stadler just suggest that they were worse than Fox News?  That's the real head-scratcher for me.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Implode on May 10, 2017, 12:02:39 PM
Watching the press conference, and the woman saying she thinks it's sad how the Democrats are trying to politicize this and criticize the administration for doing it's job just has me like  ::)

Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 10, 2017, 12:22:46 PM
Where's Spicer????????
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Chino on May 10, 2017, 12:24:10 PM
Where's Spicer????????

According to reports this morning, he was literally hiding in bushes to avoid talking about Comey, and when he finally came out, he only agreed to talk if he wasn't recorded and the lights were turned nearly off.

I'm not kidding.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 10, 2017, 12:24:49 PM
Where's Spicer????????
Doing his service to the country (National Guard duty).

And "the woman" is clearly Mrs. Bernie Sanders.  :)
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 10, 2017, 12:25:55 PM
Where's Spicer????????

According to reports this morning, he was literally hiding in bushes to avoid talking about Comey, and when he finally came out, he only agreed to talk if he wasn't recorded and the lights were turned nearly off.

I'm not kidding.
Melissa McCarthy needed some new material I guess.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: TAC on May 10, 2017, 12:26:54 PM


Did Coz say that CNN was NOT biased?

In this instance, I was trying to point out to him that it had NOTHING to do with CNN.  All he heard was the headline, which was 100% factual, and his IMMEDIATE reaction was "ZOMGBIAS", because CNN.  We were saying "CNN isn't biased because the headline says (paraphrasing) Trump fires Comey".  Anybody prints that, it's fact, whether you like the source or not. 

OK. That makes perfect sense.


To me, you have CNN on one side and Fox on the other. When something major happens, I try and check on both.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 10, 2017, 12:27:00 PM
But you know that there are multiple studies on this, and most - if not all - have MSNBC as THE most biased mainstream television news outlet, and CNN as more biased than Fox.   The problem with Fox is two-fold:  one, they run more 'personality driven" op-ed spots - Hannity, O'Reilly, etc. - than CNN, and two, they are basically the lone station whose bias tips right more than left.  But when it comes to news - the actual news - Fox is CONSISTENTLY less biased than CNN.    So Jr. may not be that far off the mark.

And I have no doubt that I could find multiple studies that say the exact opposite.  The conversation went like this:

"Apparently Trump fired James Comey"
"Where'd you read that?"
"CNN"
"So it's biased news."

He had zero details on the story itself and zero desire to even inquire as to the details.  His kneejerk reaction was "biased".  He doesn't know news channels enough to even make that determination on his own, because he's too busy watching gamer videos on YouTube.  He knows what his pro-Trump gf says (that she likely hears from her own parents) and what his criminal justice friends say, most of whom I think are pro-Trump.  So no, he's so far off the mark that if he were the fabled "good guy with a gun", he'd have killed 3 innocent bystanders by accident.

Look, I have kids, I'm with you 100%.  I'm not criticizing you or getting in your (parenting) shit.  I'm just pointing out that most of the studies show that Fox is far less biased than their reputation suggests.    Either way, he has to be able to defend his opinions.   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 10, 2017, 12:30:42 PM
The better question is did Stadler just suggest that they were worse than Fox News?  That's the real head-scratcher for me.

I most certainly did.  It's a quick google.    There are literally tens of studies that show this.    MSNBC is almost always (I only say "almost" because I can't vouch for EVERY study) THE most biased.   CNN and Fox are usually close, but more often than not, Fox NEWS - read: NEWS, not the "op-ed" shows like Hannity's nonsense - comes out less biased than CNN.  it is STILL biased, no doubt (and el Barto will rightly point out that "bias is in the stories you pick as much as how you tell them"), but it's not as if it's  CNN>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>MSNBC>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Fox.

It's more like CNN/FOX>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>MSNBC. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 10, 2017, 12:34:26 PM
He ran on a platform that was "drain the swamp" - which many took to mean "not going to rely on business as usual", and when he actually DOES that, he's "authoritarian". 

First...  ::)  Second... "authoritarian" as in making quick/final decisions that are as much (if not more) self-serving than serving that of your country and citizens.  Third, where and how has he fulfilled on that 'drain-the-swamp' campaign promise?  From the outside, he appears to have done the exact opposite, filling up the swamp with even more questionable people in positions of authority (Devos, Perry, Mnuchin, Ross, Pruitt ... the list goes on).  Then again, maybe blowing up the swamp, and the entire marshland in the process is what he had in mind?  I dunno, but assuming that is what THIS situation is, why did it take him almost 4 months the drain the swamp of Comey?  I don't have a strong argument for keeping Comey on performance merits alone - but the the appearance of impropriety is huge here, given the timing and lack of clear/reasonable justification (not to mention the childish self proclamation that Trump is 3x not under investigation).  In the real world, you don't fire your HR Manager when you know they are in the midst of reviewing an employee complaint against the executive suite.

he did this as right as he could.

Not sure I can get behind this.  I don't know what the "right" thing to do is, but this certainly doesn't seem like it.  Time will tell.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: XJDenton on May 10, 2017, 12:35:33 PM
Making a distinction between news and editorial/op-ed content is pointless if the news channels themselves don't bother to make that distinction clear to the viewers.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 10, 2017, 12:36:37 PM
I'm curious if Spicer was given a heads up since he restated Trump's confidence in Comey only a couple of hours before he was shit-canned. I think Spicer is a terrible press secretary, but I don't envy the job the man has to do working for somebody as flaky as his boss.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 10, 2017, 12:37:50 PM
Making a distinction between news and editorial/op-ed content is pointless if the news channels themselves don't bother to make that distinction clear to the viewers.
Which is a problem I see quite a bit with FOX. As I've said I think their journalism is very good. I just think they only represent their agenda and are, at times, stunningly bad at differentiating between news and opinion.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 10, 2017, 12:42:20 PM
I'm curious if Spicer was given a heads up since he restated Trump's confidence in Comey only a couple of hours before he was shit-canned. I think Spicer is a terrible press secretary, but I don't envy the job the man has to do working for somebody as flaky as his boss.

Just like Conway was preaching the confidence in Flynn hours before he was whacked.

Making a distinction between news and editorial/op-ed content is pointless if the news channels themselves don't bother to make that distinction clear to the viewers.

No shit!  I can't even tell what is news, and what is sport on these stations anymore.  On the Fox side, Hannity is as much a "character" as Alex Jones in my opinion.  On the CNN side, they've got a 1/2 dozen or so conservative talking heads who are paid just to be as far opposite their liberal counterparts (who seemingly come out of Mary Poppins' travel bag ad infinitum) and simply sound ridiculous.  There's only a handful of mouths on CNN that I actually will truly listening to, a bunch more that I tolerate, and the remaining 50% are rubbish (liberal and conservative).  They purposefully create these verbal combats, and it isn't doing themselves any good.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 10, 2017, 02:43:36 PM
Making a distinction between news and editorial/op-ed content is pointless if the news channels themselves don't bother to make that distinction clear to the viewers.
Which is a problem I see quite a bit with FOX. As I've said I think their journalism is very good. I just think they only represent their agenda and are, at times, stunningly bad at differentiating between news and opinion.

Won't argue that.  Not just them, though.  Don Lemon and Van Jones make no bones that most of what comes out of their mouths is "op-ed".  Don't get me started on MSNBC.  It's a problem across the board.    Just saw a story on CNN and the headline was "Anderson Cooper's eyeroll is all of us right now".  What kind of fucking headline is that?   It's not me, I can tell you that for damn sure (even if I agree with the underlying article, that Kellyann Conway is a few songs short of a full album).  Wayyyyyyy down in the small print it says "Analysis by Chris Cillizza CNN Editor-At-Large" but still.   

ALL news has gone down this rathole, it seems, and none of us - least of all Coz's Junior; hell, all of our Juniors - is any better for it.  Not only is it slanted, but it does our thinking for us.  Let US collect the facts and draw our own conclusions. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 10, 2017, 02:51:46 PM
I think we can all agree:









































chris cillizza is a tit
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: TAC on May 10, 2017, 03:00:34 PM
   Let US collect the facts and draw our own conclusions. 

We need a DTF Channel. This is where I get my news anyway.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: XeRocks81 on May 10, 2017, 04:20:33 PM

  Not only is it slanted, but it does our thinking for us.  Let US collect the facts and draw our own conclusions.

I agree doing our thinking for us is bad,  but we do need some some form of analysis,  of vulgarisation (is that a word in english?) to help us make sense of things. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: XJDenton on May 10, 2017, 05:17:18 PM
Let US collect the facts and draw our own conclusions. 

That sounds like a recipe for disaster. Ignorant people can shape facts into whatever story they like.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 10, 2017, 06:33:50 PM
Let US collect the facts and draw our own conclusions. 

That sounds like a recipe for disaster. Ignorant people can shape facts into whatever story they like.

You're suggesting they aren't already?   :P
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 10, 2017, 06:58:04 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?utm_term=.e5d51c21517a

remarkable piece of reporting right there
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Cool Chris on May 10, 2017, 08:09:04 PM
Let US collect the facts and draw our own conclusions. 
Ignorant people can shape facts into whatever story they like.

Not false, but is the alternative that people should be told what the facts are and to believe them unequivocally?

Back on track here.... can we please all move on from this Russia thing? They may have "meddled" in the election. I keep feeling that someone is going to rip a mask off Putin and the guy underneath is going to say "I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!" This "meddling" is getting older than Coz's "But her emails!"
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 10, 2017, 08:13:40 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?utm_term=.e5d51c21517a

remarkable piece of reporting right there
I kept reminding myself that all of this is based on off record, anonymous insiders, yet it all seemed so incredibly plausible based on what we've seen of a Trump presidency and his own demeanor.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 10, 2017, 08:20:38 PM

Back on track here.... can we please all move on from this Russia thing? They may have "meddled" in the election.
No, and here are two reasons why. First, it's very important to understand what happened. If "they may have meddled" do we really want to just wait and hope for the best in 2020? My hunch is that Grabby had no involvement in any of this, but that doesn't mean that the situation shouldn't be investigated. Second, as was so often pointed out with the whole Benghazi thing, the coverup is always worse than the crime, even if there wasn't one to begin with. By sacking a person heading an investigation he opened the door to a helluva lot more scrutiny on the matter. Whether it was right or wrong to shitcan Comey, and I think it probably was, by doing so now, and in such a haphazard fashion, he just threw a bucket of chum in the water.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Cyclopssss on May 11, 2017, 12:20:43 AM
Let US collect the facts and draw our own conclusions. 
Ignorant people can shape facts into whatever story they like.


Back on track here.... can we please all move on from this Russia thing? They may have "meddled" in the election. I keep feeling that someone is going to rip a mask off Putin and the guy underneath is going to say "I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!" This "meddling" is getting older than Coz's "But her emails!"

No we won't. The second World Power Nation has meddled, interfered, call it whatever you want in the US Elections. Hello?! Remnants of the Cold War, anyone?!
And after the whole Comey cafuffle, Kelleyanne Conway and Spicer went outside to stand in the dark and later asked to turn the lights off in the office so they couldn't be seen discussing how to proceed  and present this whole thing to the waiting press outside. Face it, folks, this president is a loose cannon.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Chino on May 11, 2017, 06:02:25 AM
Let US collect the facts and draw our own conclusions. 
Ignorant people can shape facts into whatever story they like.

Back on track here.... can we please all move on from this Russia thing? They may have "meddled" in the election. I keep feeling that someone is going to rip a mask off Putin and the guy underneath is going to say "I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!" This "meddling" is getting older than Coz's "But her emails!"

I prefer we didn't. Honestly, if it did occur, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump legitimately didn't know about it. But that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve looking into. There seems to be two main ways Russia could have interfered; 1) They hacked our networks and strategically leaked info on the Democratic party, and only the Democratic party. 2) They played a hell of a social media game.

I think the first one needs to be looked into. Maybe I'm getting a little conspiracy here, but the willingness of many of the high ranking GOP members (Ryan, McConnel, etc..) to fall in line time and time again suggests that their stuff may have been breached too, and acting otherwise would result in a dump of their emails or something.

The second one is fascinating to me, and maybe even more troubling than the first simply because it's so easy and widespread. I've seen many people on the right (not because they're right leaning, but because they're in a defensive position during these exchanges) laugh at the idea that Russia could have swayed an election with Facebook. Is it really that crazy of an idea? Companies invest billions of dollars a year strategically manipulating what we see on social media to subconsciously make us need/want shoes, phones, shirts, jewelry, and all kind of unnecessary crap. Getting someone to not only hate a political opponent, but nearly worship another (God Emperor) isn't all that farfetched. Spam bots and fake accounts are a very real thing on Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter. They artificially inflate articles time and time again, spreading blatant propaganda to generate additional exposure.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 11, 2017, 06:51:01 AM
This "meddling" is getting older than Coz's "But her emails!"

Sorry you're not a fan.

Actually, no, I'm not sorry.  The complete horseshit fabrication of an issue that "her emails" were something to keep beating the American public over the head about is something everyone needs to be CONTINUALLY reminded of, because it's part of what helped put this clown-shoed 24-carat fuck up in the White House.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 11, 2017, 06:56:01 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?utm_term=.e5d51c21517a

remarkable piece of reporting right there
I kept reminding myself that all of this is based on off record, anonymous insiders, yet it all seemed so incredibly plausible based on what we've seen of a Trump presidency and his own demeanor.

The wild thing is how consistently leaky this administration has been. 30 sources? That's nuts.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 11, 2017, 07:03:43 AM
 meanwhile....

(https://puu.sh/vMDIq/832710abec.png)

:lol
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 11, 2017, 07:35:21 AM
Let US collect the facts and draw our own conclusions. 

That sounds like a recipe for disaster. Ignorant people can shape facts into whatever story they like.

So?  Ignorant people can force feed their conclusions to us.  We are accountable for the positions we take, no one else.  I think it's negligent that we as individuals coopt our thought process out to so-called "experts", who are expert in many cases simply because they look good on camera and are reasonably articulate reading someone else's work. 

Plus, "forming your own conclusion" doesn't exist in a vacuum.  This point is lost today on social media and Twitter (see above) but it goes hand in hand with the lately-ignored maxim that any conclusion one draws has to account for ALL facts, not just the ones that fit the narrative or that we agree with.  We can't tell people what to think.  We can, however, challenge them to account for all the facts when they present their case. Some, like Coz's Junior will cower and run when confronted with ideas that don't compute, but others - like many of the people here - will stand and debate, accounting for the details as they go, and hopefully - since no human is perfect, and no human is ALWAYS right (except for Ritchie Blackmore) - perhaps both parties in the debate will come out with a more honed, more cogent position.   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 11, 2017, 08:03:49 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?utm_term=.e5d51c21517a

remarkable piece of reporting right there
I kept reminding myself that all of this is based on off record, anonymous insiders, yet it all seemed so incredibly plausible based on what we've seen of a Trump presidency and his own demeanor.

Plausible, and yet:

Ignorant people can shape facts into whatever story they like.

Not calling those writers ignorant, but without corroboration, it just becomes more of the same.   How do you verify the veracity of the sources if you don't know who they are?  At least Bob Woodward - as just one famous example - was able to ground truth the information he got from other sources so that there was a documentable trail.   And while WOodward is no Shakespeare, his work is pretty free of dumb suppositions and innuendos like commenting on press secretaries standing in the dark in front of hedges as if it's straight out of a Bond movie. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 11, 2017, 08:16:34 AM
Let US collect the facts and draw our own conclusions. 
Ignorant people can shape facts into whatever story they like.


Back on track here.... can we please all move on from this Russia thing? They may have "meddled" in the election. I keep feeling that someone is going to rip a mask off Putin and the guy underneath is going to say "I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!" This "meddling" is getting older than Coz's "But her emails!"

No we won't. The second World Power Nation has meddled, interfered, call it whatever you want in the US Elections. Hello?! Remnants of the Cold War, anyone?!
And after the whole Comey cafuffle, Kelleyanne Conway and Spicer went outside to stand in the dark and later asked to turn the lights off in the office so they couldn't be seen discussing how to proceed  and present this whole thing to the waiting press outside. Face it, folks, this president is a loose cannon.

Oh my GOD!  They STOOD IN THE DARK?  And discussed THEIR JOBS?    THE HORROR!  THE HUMANITY!   

My God, these people must be stopped.  Doing their jobs?  In the DARK?    HEATHENS.    ANIMALS. 



Not that I'm un-American or anything, but a) I need more hands than I have to count the number of elections we have gleefully, willfully and unabashedly "meddled" in over the years, and b) if you don't think that there has been "meddling" by Russia - as well as China, Israel, and others - in our elections in the past, you've had your head in the sand.   It is well documented that at a minimum, Saint Ronald, Wild Bill, and Audacious Obama all spoke with foreign powers in advance of their inauguration (and potentially in violation of the strictest of the codes on such behavior).  So there's no foul there.  There is absolutely not a shred of even a wisp of a hint of evidence that actual votes have been changed either for or against any candidate (which would be a precedent, and would be a grave concern), so now we're down to propaganda.  We live in a free - relatively - society, and part of that is the free flow of information, even that kind of information that is against the norm of society as we know it.  Short of something that violates a campaign guideline or regulation, what do you expect to find here?       

Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 11, 2017, 08:17:21 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?utm_term=.e5d51c21517a

remarkable piece of reporting right there
I kept reminding myself that all of this is based on off record, anonymous insiders, yet it all seemed so incredibly plausible based on what we've seen of a Trump presidency and his own demeanor.

Plausible, and yet:

Ignorant people can shape facts into whatever story they like.

Not calling those writers ignorant, but without corroboration, it just becomes more of the same.   How do you verify the veracity of the sources if you don't know who they are?  At least Bob Woodward - as just one famous example - was able to ground truth the information he got from other sources so that there was a documentable trail.   And while WOodward is no Shakespeare, his work is pretty free of dumb suppositions and innuendos like commenting on press secretaries standing in the dark in front of hedges as if it's straight out of a Bond movie.
Woodward's investigation, at least to the best of my knowledge, was also all based on inside information. Yes, he had a documented paper trail of inside informants, but what makes you think all of these sources aren't? And more to the point, was there any one thing in that entire article that seemed out of character for this administration as you've seen it thus far?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 11, 2017, 08:20:31 AM
"Honey, somebody tried to break into the house while we were out!"
"Did they get the TV?"
"No."
"So what difference does it make?"
"But they might come back! We need to find out what happened and make sure it doesn't happen again."
"But they didn't get the TV. It doesn't matter."
"But they might next time."
"They didn't this time so they probably won't next time."
"Do we want them to try, though?"
"They didn't get the TV. End of story. Where's the remote?"
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: hefdaddy42 on May 11, 2017, 08:24:26 AM
Can we please move on from this "breaking in" narrative?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 11, 2017, 08:27:07 AM
Let US collect the facts and draw our own conclusions. 
Ignorant people can shape facts into whatever story they like.

Back on track here.... can we please all move on from this Russia thing? They may have "meddled" in the election. I keep feeling that someone is going to rip a mask off Putin and the guy underneath is going to say "I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!" This "meddling" is getting older than Coz's "But her emails!"

I prefer we didn't. Honestly, if it did occur, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump legitimately didn't know about it. But that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve looking into. There seems to be two main ways Russia could have interfered; 1) They hacked our networks and strategically leaked info on the Democratic party, and only the Democratic party. 2) They played a hell of a social media game.

I think the first one needs to be looked into. Maybe I'm getting a little conspiracy here, but the willingness of many of the high ranking GOP members (Ryan, McConnel, etc..) to fall in line time and time again suggests that their stuff may have been breached too, and acting otherwise would result in a dump of their emails or something.

The first DOES bear some looking into.  But let's not ignore all possibilities, and one of those is simply that there was dirt on the left side.  I know it's hard to believe for some - to some the GOP members have breakfast, shower, go to work, come home, worship Satan, sacrifice goats (on odd days of the week) and small children (even days of the week), fornicate with their wives and neighbors in an bacchanalian orgy involving the remaining goats, then sleep in their coffins until they can start the process over the next day - but it IS within the realm of possibility that the Podesta thing WAS the worst thing that was found.   

Quote

The second one is fascinating to me, and maybe even more troubling than the first simply because it's so easy and widespread. I've seen many people on the right (not because they're right leaning, but because they're in a defensive position during these exchanges) laugh at the idea that Russia could have swayed an election with Facebook. Is it really that crazy of an idea? Companies invest billions of dollars a year strategically manipulating what we see on social media to subconsciously make us need/want shoes, phones, shirts, jewelry, and all kind of unnecessary crap. Getting someone to not only hate a political opponent, but nearly worship another (God Emperor) isn't all that farfetched. Spam bots and fake accounts are a very real thing on Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter. They artificially inflate articles time and time again, spreading blatant propaganda to generate additional exposure.

But it shouldn't surprise anyone.  From days past when we would drop fliers into other countries from bombers overhead, to Obama being praised high and low for his "ground game" (and thus coining the phrase), which was essentially a "social media movement", to the morons who think that they can cover the entire $20 trillion economy of our country in 140-characters or less, it's pretty disingenuous to live by social media (as in 2008), then whine when you die by social media, no?   (And by the way, this applies to that Twittering fool in the White House, too). 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 11, 2017, 08:28:35 AM
This "meddling" is getting older than Coz's "But her emails!"

Sorry you're not a fan.

Actually, no, I'm not sorry.  The complete horseshit fabrication of an issue that "her emails" were something to keep beating the American public over the head about is something everyone needs to be CONTINUALLY reminded of, because it's part of what helped put this clown-shoed 24-carat fuck up in the White House.

Simple question - and for anyone that cares, THE only reason I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton - if the "emails" were nothing, why did she repeatedly commit perjury - lying under oath to a government investigator(s) about them?   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 11, 2017, 08:31:37 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?utm_term=.e5d51c21517a

remarkable piece of reporting right there
I kept reminding myself that all of this is based on off record, anonymous insiders, yet it all seemed so incredibly plausible based on what we've seen of a Trump presidency and his own demeanor.

Plausible, and yet:

Ignorant people can shape facts into whatever story they like.

Not calling those writers ignorant, but without corroboration, it just becomes more of the same.   How do you verify the veracity of the sources if you don't know who they are?  At least Bob Woodward - as just one famous example - was able to ground truth the information he got from other sources so that there was a documentable trail.   And while WOodward is no Shakespeare, his work is pretty free of dumb suppositions and innuendos like commenting on press secretaries standing in the dark in front of hedges as if it's straight out of a Bond movie.
Woodward's investigation, at least to the best of my knowledge, was also all based on inside information. Yes, he had a documented paper trail of inside informants, but what makes you think all of these sources aren't? And more to the point, was there any one thing in that entire article that seemed out of character for this administration as you've seen it thus far?

None of it is out of character; if anything, just the opposite.  But that doesn't translate into the level of conspiracy that some are painting.  It defies logic at this point.   There is almost no possibility of "conspiracy" with this level of disfunction, with this level of in-fighting, with this level of people looking to save their ass, with this level of people willing to say anything as long as their name isn't tied to it...   it's just ludicrous.   

I still don't think it's "wrong" per se, but assuming it is, it's far more likely to just be "ineptness" than "corruptness". 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 11, 2017, 08:32:24 AM
Can we please move on from this "breaking in" narrative?

Can we please move on from this moving on?   :)  :)  :) 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 11, 2017, 08:41:38 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?utm_term=.e5d51c21517a

remarkable piece of reporting right there
I kept reminding myself that all of this is based on off record, anonymous insiders, yet it all seemed so incredibly plausible based on what we've seen of a Trump presidency and his own demeanor.

Plausible, and yet:

Ignorant people can shape facts into whatever story they like.

Not calling those writers ignorant, but without corroboration, it just becomes more of the same.   How do you verify the veracity of the sources if you don't know who they are?  At least Bob Woodward - as just one famous example - was able to ground truth the information he got from other sources so that there was a documentable trail.   And while WOodward is no Shakespeare, his work is pretty free of dumb suppositions and innuendos like commenting on press secretaries standing in the dark in front of hedges as if it's straight out of a Bond movie.
Woodward's investigation, at least to the best of my knowledge, was also all based on inside information. Yes, he had a documented paper trail of inside informants, but what makes you think all of these sources aren't? And more to the point, was there any one thing in that entire article that seemed out of character for this administration as you've seen it thus far?

None of it is out of character; if anything, just the opposite.  But that doesn't translate into the level of conspiracy that some are painting.  It defies logic at this point.   There is almost no possibility of "conspiracy" with this level of disfunction, with this level of in-fighting, with this level of people looking to save their ass, with this level of people willing to say anything as long as their name isn't tied to it...   it's just ludicrous.   

I still don't think it's "wrong" per se, but assuming it is, it's far more likely to just be "ineptness" than "corruptness".
I'm not "some" and I'm not translating this to the level of massive conspiracy. I'm pointing out why we should continue investigating Russia, contrary to Cool Chris's wishes, and remain skeptical of Grabby's motives. The former is something that needs to be understood and the latter is something that should apply to all presidents. This one just happens to be even more necessary, IMO. You yourself agree that the president must be scrutinized, and also that the sort of instability and dysfunction we're seeing seems to be typical of the character of this administration.

And I think this level of dysfunction would be perfectly understandable. Much of the people involved weren't hand picked by Grabby and probably aren't used to this style of operating. Moreover, the more unstable the leader the more rattled the subs are likely to be. There's a reason KJ-U whacks his staff from time to time.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 11, 2017, 08:44:05 AM
Simple question - and for anyone that cares, THE only reason I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton - if the "emails" were nothing, why did she repeatedly commit perjury - lying under oath to a government investigator(s) about them?

I can't answer that.  But the other side of that, is that if they were as big a deal as everyone made them out to be at the time, why did the issue all but drop off the face of the earth after election day?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 11, 2017, 08:45:50 AM
Simple question - and for anyone that cares, THE only reason I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton - if the "emails" were nothing, why did she repeatedly commit perjury - lying under oath to a government investigator(s) about them?

I can't answer that.  But the other side of that, is that if they were as big a deal as everyone made them out to be at the time, why did the issue all but drop off the face of the earth after election day?

This question has been answered at least 10 times.  It's not that hard to understand. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 11, 2017, 08:47:12 AM
Yes.  The answer is "because it wasn't all the ZOMG that everybody made it out to be".
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 11, 2017, 08:48:36 AM
 :facepalm:
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 11, 2017, 09:04:56 AM
That brings another issue to light.  I wonder if the prevalence of social media nowadays is resulting in higher instances of people presenting with concussions at the emergency room due to face palming.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: hefdaddy42 on May 11, 2017, 09:14:51 AM
The Comey Misfire (http://time.com/4775430/the-comey-misfire/)

Quote
As for the President, White House officials insisted that he was amazed by the hostile reaction to the firing. Where have Americans heard that before? Shocked by the protests against his travel ban, surprised by the complexity of health care, wowed by the nuances of Asian geopolitics. There’s no end to the discoveries a person can make when he pursues a high office without bothering to learn what it entails. Everyone seemed to like it when Trump barked, “You’re fired!” once a week on The Apprentice. So what happened?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 11, 2017, 11:27:40 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?utm_term=.e5d51c21517a

remarkable piece of reporting right there
I kept reminding myself that all of this is based on off record, anonymous insiders, yet it all seemed so incredibly plausible based on what we've seen of a Trump presidency and his own demeanor.

Plausible, and yet:

Ignorant people can shape facts into whatever story they like.

Not calling those writers ignorant, but without corroboration, it just becomes more of the same.   How do you verify the veracity of the sources if you don't know who they are?  At least Bob Woodward - as just one famous example - was able to ground truth the information he got from other sources so that there was a documentable trail.   And while WOodward is no Shakespeare, his work is pretty free of dumb suppositions and innuendos like commenting on press secretaries standing in the dark in front of hedges as if it's straight out of a Bond movie.
Woodward's investigation, at least to the best of my knowledge, was also all based on inside information. Yes, he had a documented paper trail of inside informants, but what makes you think all of these sources aren't? And more to the point, was there any one thing in that entire article that seemed out of character for this administration as you've seen it thus far?

None of it is out of character; if anything, just the opposite.  But that doesn't translate into the level of conspiracy that some are painting.  It defies logic at this point.   There is almost no possibility of "conspiracy" with this level of disfunction, with this level of in-fighting, with this level of people looking to save their ass, with this level of people willing to say anything as long as their name isn't tied to it...   it's just ludicrous.   

I still don't think it's "wrong" per se, but assuming it is, it's far more likely to just be "ineptness" than "corruptness".
I'm not "some" and I'm not translating this to the level of massive conspiracy. I'm pointing out why we should continue investigating Russia, contrary to Cool Chris's wishes, and remain skeptical of Grabby's motives. The former is something that needs to be understood and the latter is something that should apply to all presidents. This one just happens to be even more necessary, IMO. You yourself agree that the president must be scrutinized, and also that the sort of instability and dysfunction we're seeing seems to be typical of the character of this administration.

And I think this level of dysfunction would be perfectly understandable. Much of the people involved weren't hand picked by Grabby and probably aren't used to this style of operating. Moreover, the more unstable the leader the more rattled the subs are likely to be. There's a reason KJ-U whacks his staff from time to time.

Well, of course you're not "some".   You're rational, calm, and analytical.   I know it doesn't seem it, but I'm all for scrutiny, under the logic of, if you're not willing to show how the sausage is being made, then I'm not willing to eat it.   But I'm really torn and conflicted.  We seem to have two different standards, and I don't really understand that.   Process isn't for shit when Trump's winging it from his couch while watching "Dancing With The Stars", but the second Hillary goes off book it's as if the Caesar plundered another virgin.  It either is or it isn't.   Trump is "the lyingest liar that ever lied" when he has two tweets five years apart that aren't in exact unison, but Hillary lies UNDER OATH and it's nothing to see here?  It either matters or it doesn't. 

Continue the investigation.  And if it turns out that Comey was shit-canned because of his role in that, it will come out and it will be another fact to be accounted for (and likewise, if Trump is telling the truth and this was in the works for a while, so be it). 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Chino on May 11, 2017, 11:28:40 AM
Gets really good around 2:45.

https://youtu.be/OnPyq3afvGY

(https://i.redditmedia.com/8wu6sZZ6CyoXW6ETxLmA-OTpnKoKIYO2229XNGLMZus.jpg?w=1024&s=585667376788b13399f48981e288b1d1)

#MAGA
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 11, 2017, 11:28:57 AM
That brings another issue to light.  I wonder if the prevalence of social media nowadays is resulting in higher instances of people presenting with concussions at the emergency room due to face palming.

I know I now have a dent in my forehead, and I'm not even ON social media.  :)
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 11, 2017, 11:56:19 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?utm_term=.e5d51c21517a

remarkable piece of reporting right there
I kept reminding myself that all of this is based on off record, anonymous insiders, yet it all seemed so incredibly plausible based on what we've seen of a Trump presidency and his own demeanor.

Plausible, and yet:

Ignorant people can shape facts into whatever story they like.

Not calling those writers ignorant, but without corroboration, it just becomes more of the same.   How do you verify the veracity of the sources if you don't know who they are?  At least Bob Woodward - as just one famous example - was able to ground truth the information he got from other sources so that there was a documentable trail.   And while WOodward is no Shakespeare, his work is pretty free of dumb suppositions and innuendos like commenting on press secretaries standing in the dark in front of hedges as if it's straight out of a Bond movie.
Woodward's investigation, at least to the best of my knowledge, was also all based on inside information. Yes, he had a documented paper trail of inside informants, but what makes you think all of these sources aren't? And more to the point, was there any one thing in that entire article that seemed out of character for this administration as you've seen it thus far?

None of it is out of character; if anything, just the opposite.  But that doesn't translate into the level of conspiracy that some are painting.  It defies logic at this point.   There is almost no possibility of "conspiracy" with this level of disfunction, with this level of in-fighting, with this level of people looking to save their ass, with this level of people willing to say anything as long as their name isn't tied to it...   it's just ludicrous.   

I still don't think it's "wrong" per se, but assuming it is, it's far more likely to just be "ineptness" than "corruptness".
I'm not "some" and I'm not translating this to the level of massive conspiracy. I'm pointing out why we should continue investigating Russia, contrary to Cool Chris's wishes, and remain skeptical of Grabby's motives. The former is something that needs to be understood and the latter is something that should apply to all presidents. This one just happens to be even more necessary, IMO. You yourself agree that the president must be scrutinized, and also that the sort of instability and dysfunction we're seeing seems to be typical of the character of this administration.

And I think this level of dysfunction would be perfectly understandable. Much of the people involved weren't hand picked by Grabby and probably aren't used to this style of operating. Moreover, the more unstable the leader the more rattled the subs are likely to be. There's a reason KJ-U whacks his staff from time to time.

Well, of course you're not "some".   You're rational, calm, and analytical.   I know it doesn't seem it, but I'm all for scrutiny, under the logic of, if you're not willing to show how the sausage is being made, then I'm not willing to eat it.   But I'm really torn and conflicted.  We seem to have two different standards, and I don't really understand that.   Process isn't for shit when Trump's winging it from his couch while watching "Dancing With The Stars", but the second Hillary goes off book it's as if the Caesar plundered another virgin.  It either is or it isn't.   Trump is "the lyingest liar that ever lied" when he has two tweets five years apart that aren't in exact unison, but Hillary lies UNDER OATH and it's nothing to see here?  It either matters or it doesn't. 

Continue the investigation.  And if it turns out that Comey was shit-canned because of his role in that, it will come out and it will be another fact to be accounted for (and likewise, if Trump is telling the truth and this was in the works for a while, so be it).
I think we're pretty much on the same page here, and I get your frustration with the double standards. They seem to be all over the place. The only thing I will say, as somebody who's repeatedly called Grabby SFoS, to the extent that he is the lyingest liar to ever lie, it's not because of two conflicting tweets. It's because of a remarkably broad pattern of conflicting statements and outright bullshit. If you want to say that Hillary did the same thing, that's alright. We'll consider them tied for the title of LLtEL. That only makes both of them stunningly full of shit, and does not paint a favorable picture of either's ability to be POTUS. Calling Trump out for his seemingly endless stream of false statements is perfectly valid, regardless of the company it puts him in.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: PowerSlave on May 11, 2017, 12:05:09 PM
That only makes both of them stunningly full of shit

Sorry for taking the thread off topic for a moment, but I wanted to ask if you're a George Carlin fan. He used the phrase "stunningly full of shit" on occasion, and some of your posts remind me of him.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 11, 2017, 12:07:25 PM
Big fan. I'm sure that's where I picked it up as it has a nice flow to it.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 11, 2017, 12:21:32 PM
My belief is the current political climate really boils down to one topic - the crumbling of Democracy.  Because that's really all that Putin/Russia want - to prove that democratic institutions are worse than autocratic regimes - which helps him keep his power and citizens in check.  Russia investigation or not, I don't know how anyone can't see that's what is going on here.  US meddling in other governments or not, are you ok with the standing 8-count that Lady Democracy is taking right now?  Checks/balances are bullshit at the moment, because Congress is so partisan, the only "check" comes from the majority party.  Grabby is also lining his ducks up in the Judicial Branch.  The mere notion of firing the FBI Director in the midst of his 10-year term, and an investigation towards those around the President is unprecedented.  I think I heard that only one FBI Director has been fired in the history of the FBI?  For ethical reasons.

If you're fine with the democracy cracking - and potentially crumbling - why not just move to Central America or somewhere in Africa right now?

These are very slippery slopes that your country is on, and if you don't think so, all the best to you.

Also, anyone see some of the commentary on his interview with The Economist?  Wow... he's absolutely clueless.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: hefdaddy42 on May 11, 2017, 12:28:29 PM
The only thing I will say, as somebody who's repeatedly called Grabby SFoS, to the extent that he is the lyingest liar to ever lie, it's not because of two conflicting tweets. It's because of a remarkably broad pattern of conflicting statements and outright bullshit. If you want to say that Hillary did the same thing, that's alright. We'll consider them tied for the title of LLtEL. That only makes both of them stunningly full of shit, and does not paint a favorable picture of either's ability to be POTUS. Calling Trump out for his seemingly endless stream of false statements is perfectly valid, regardless of the company it puts him in.
Bolded for emphasis.

Also, at this point, it doesn't matter if Clinton lied or not (and I know that she did, but certainly not with seemingly every breath, as Trump does), because she isn't the President.  We are discussing the President of the United States.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 11, 2017, 12:35:12 PM
The only thing I will say, as somebody who's repeatedly called Grabby SFoS, to the extent that he is the lyingest liar to ever lie, it's not because of two conflicting tweets. It's because of a remarkably broad pattern of conflicting statements and outright bullshit. If you want to say that Hillary did the same thing, that's alright. We'll consider them tied for the title of LLtEL. That only makes both of them stunningly full of shit, and does not paint a favorable picture of either's ability to be POTUS. Calling Trump out for his seemingly endless stream of false statements is perfectly valid, regardless of the company it puts him in.
Bolded for emphasis.

Also, at this point, it doesn't matter if Clinton lied or not (and I know that she did, but certainly not with seemingly every breath, as Trump does), because she isn't the President.  We are discussing the President of the United States.

But, her emails.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: hefdaddy42 on May 11, 2017, 12:39:28 PM
I knew it
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: bosk1 on May 11, 2017, 12:44:16 PM
In the real world, you don't fire your HR Manager when you know they are in the midst of reviewing an employee complaint against the executive suite. 

Well, hold on just a minute.  In one of the rare instances where I will post here while wearing my employment lawyer hat, I need to chime in to say:  Yeah, sometimes you do.  And I'm not talking about the rogue executive suite that fires the HR Manager to try to cover up.  I'm not endorsing that.  But sometimes, as bad as it may look, you DO fire the HR Manager for perfectly legit reasons.  For example, where the HR Manager is incompetent and/or crooked and, due to his/her incompetence/crookedness, is creating even greater liability, and the company needs to show good faith to limit the damage by promptly [excuse the expression] draining the swamp.  Yeah, sometimes you do, and for perfectly valid reasons.

Simple question - and for anyone that cares, THE only reason I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton - if the "emails" were nothing, why did she repeatedly commit perjury - lying under oath to a government investigator(s) about them?

I can't answer that.  But the other side of that, is that if they were as big a deal as everyone made them out to be at the time, why did the issue all but drop off the face of the earth after election day?
As pointed out, this has been answered, and rather convincingly.  But more to the point, it HASN'T dropped off the face of the earth.  As we now know.  It just dropped of the radar of Mr./Mrs. John Q. Public.

I think we're pretty much on the same page here, and I get your frustration with the double standards. They seem to be all over the place. The only thing I will say, as somebody who's repeatedly called Grabby SFoS, to the extent that he is the lyingest liar to ever lie, it's not because of two conflicting tweets. It's because of a remarkably broad pattern of conflicting statements and outright bullshit. If you want to say that Hillary did the same thing, that's alright. We'll consider them tied for the title of LLtEL. That only makes both of them stunningly full of shit, and does not paint a favorable picture of either's ability to be POTUS. Calling Trump out for his seemingly endless stream of false statements is perfectly valid, regardless of the company it puts him in.

:clap:
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 11, 2017, 12:56:15 PM
As pointed out, this has been answered, and rather convincingly.  But more to the point, it HASN'T dropped off the face of the earth.  As we now know.  It just dropped of the radar of Mr./Mrs. John Q. Public.

If the Clinton investigation is the REAL reason why he's being fired, then what happened from the time that Grabby had the power to act on that (Jan 20), and now?  It's taken almost 4 months for him to come to the conclusion that Comey's actions last summer/fall were termination-worthy?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: hefdaddy42 on May 11, 2017, 12:58:18 PM
Acting FBI Chief Contradicts White House on James Comey Firing (http://time.com/4776035/andrew-mccabe-testimony-james-comey-fired/)

I'm shocked.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 11, 2017, 01:03:27 PM
5/12/17 Headline:  McCabe fired.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: bosk1 on May 11, 2017, 01:13:39 PM
As pointed out, this has been answered, and rather convincingly.  But more to the point, it HASN'T dropped off the face of the earth.  As we now know.  It just dropped of the radar of Mr./Mrs. John Q. Public.

If the Clinton investigation is the REAL reason why he's being fired, then what happened from the time that Grabby had the power to act on that (Jan 20), and now?  It's taken almost 4 months for him to come to the conclusion that Comey's actions last summer/fall were termination-worthy?
I don't know that that is the REAL reason or not.  And I'm not necessarily defending it.  But that seems to indicate that there is a LOT about Comey's actions that justify a firing for BIG reasons.  And often, when that is the case, and you've got the sort of public perception problem that we've been discussing, you just CAN'T pull the trigger right when you optimally should because there is a lot of behind-the-scenes due diligence that takes place.  And that can sometimes take a lot longer than 4 months.  As someone who provides advice in these types of situations, I can tell you that all the reasons you might [correctly] think would be valid reasons to fire someone on the spot in a situation like this are the same reasons why someone in my shoes will say, "Okay, let's just SLOW DOWN--there is a LOT of vetting of this situation that we need to do, because there are lots of potential land mines here that could potentially blow up and make this even worse if we act too quickly."  And, again, that can sometimes take many, many months.

I can't pretend to know what actually went on here and whether this is, in fact, one of those situations.  None of us can.  I'm just saying that the fact that it may have taken so long is normal and, contrary to what you might think, necessary.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 11, 2017, 01:15:44 PM
you just CAN'T pull the trigger right when you optimally should because there is a lot of behind-the-scenes due diligence that takes place

We're talking about Donald Trump, someone who doesn't understand the idea of restraint.  :lol
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: bosk1 on May 11, 2017, 01:16:59 PM
you just CAN'T pull the trigger right when you optimally should because there is a lot of behind-the-scenes due diligence that takes place

We're talking about Donald Trump, someone who doesn't understand the idea of restraint.  :lol

In many situations, I would agree.  But when it comes to handling issues like the handling of a high-level firing, I have the utmost confidence that he has more than enough experience to know better than to act on his own and act too quickly.  Say what you want about his lack of restrain in many areas.  But you don't get to where he has gotten in the business world if you don't know how to slow down and follow advice on this type of thing.  He does.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 11, 2017, 01:18:33 PM
I AM genuinely glad there are people that have this level of trust in him.  I regret to say that I do not.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: bosk1 on May 11, 2017, 01:20:05 PM
I AM genuinely glad there are people that have this level of trust in him.  I regret to say that I do not.

I'm not saying I trust him.  I don't.  I'm just saying that he is business-savvy in that area, and that that likely directly translates to this situation--at least on the process side (again, I can't address the merits of it all).


EDIT:  And it is extremely annoying that, again, anti-Trump bias is SO high and SO strong that any time anyone with experience and a reasoned argument chimes in to say, "Hey, anti-Trump crowd, I get where you are coming from; but on this one issue, you are mistaken in your argument, and here's why," the automatic assumption is, "Oh, well that person is obviously a Trump supporter."  I swear, I just don't get why the hate is so strong that it makes people I otherwise genuinely enjoy interacting with act like complete irrational asses that they can't even acknowledge the flaws in their own arguments or their own overzealousness in their witch-huntery.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: RuRoRul on May 11, 2017, 01:26:29 PM
Acting FBI Chief Contradicts White House on James Comey Firing (http://time.com/4776035/andrew-mccabe-testimony-james-comey-fired/)

I'm shocked.
:tup This is an excellent article that covers quite a few points that have come out bit by bit after the initial firing - definitely worth a read for more context on the situation in general as well as just for the acting FBI director's testimony. Not least of which is the fact that this occurs not long after Comey requested more resources for the Russia investigation.

Also for those who would rather trust the words of Donald himself, here he is speaking on the firing of Comey and whether it was because of the reasons given in the memo written by deputy AG:

Quote
"I was going to fire Comey, my decision. ... I was going to fire Comey. I was going to fire regardless of recommendation. ... He made a recommendation, but regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-reveals-he-asked-comey-whether-he-was-under-investigation-n757821

So straight from the horse's mouth, it was done because Donald wanted to do it - Deputy AG's memo criticising Comey was just a pretense to make it appear slightly more acceptable.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: hefdaddy42 on May 11, 2017, 01:41:08 PM
Trump Wants ‘Goddamned Steam,’ Not Digital Catapults on Aircraft Carriers (http://time.com/4775040/donald-trump-time-interview-being-president/)

Quote
On the future USS Ford-class carriers

You know the catapult is quite important. So I said what is this? Sir, this is our digital catapult system. He said well, we’re going to this because we wanted to keep up with modern [technology]. I said you don’t use steam anymore for catapult? No sir. I said, "Ah, how is it working?" "Sir, not good. Not good. Doesn’t have the power. You know the steam is just brutal. You see that sucker going and steam’s going all over the place, there’s planes thrown in the air."

It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. And I said–and now they want to buy more aircraft carriers. I said what system are you going to be–"Sir, we’re staying with digital." I said no you’re not. You going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 11, 2017, 01:42:24 PM
My cell phone is powered by steam, I'm not sure what the argument here is.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 11, 2017, 01:55:52 PM
In the real world, you don't fire your HR Manager when you know they are in the midst of reviewing an employee complaint against the executive suite. 

Well, hold on just a minute.  In one of the rare instances where I will post here while wearing my employment lawyer hat, I need to chime in to say:  Yeah, sometimes you do.  And I'm not talking about the rogue executive suite that fires the HR Manager to try to cover up.  I'm not endorsing that.  But sometimes, as bad as it may look, you DO fire the HR Manager for perfectly legit reasons.  For example, where the HR Manager is incompetent and/or crooked and, due to his/her incompetence/crookedness, is creating even greater liability, and the company needs to show good faith to limit the damage by promptly [excuse the expression] draining the swamp.  Yeah, sometimes you do, and for perfectly valid reasons.

Fair enough... I'm just not sure that - that there has been such "incompetence" or 'crookedness' creating greater liability to the FBI.  Plus, that's not the rational in Grabby's termination letter to him.

I AM genuinely glad there are people that have this level of trust in him.  I regret to say that I do not.

I'm not saying I trust him.  I don't.  I'm just saying that he is business-savvy in that area, and that that likely directly translates to this situation--at least on the process side (again, I can't address the merits of it all).

Normally, I would say it's be logical to think so.  But for all the mis-steps we've seen out of 'The Donald' - as a businessperson, candidate, President-elect, and now President - I'm unsure what basis any trust in his "business-savvy" can be warranted.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 11, 2017, 01:56:33 PM
Trump Wants ‘Goddamned Steam,’ Not Digital Catapults on Aircraft Carriers (http://time.com/4775040/donald-trump-time-interview-being-president/)

Quote
On the future USS Ford-class carriers

You know the catapult is quite important. So I said what is this? Sir, this is our digital catapult system. He said well, we’re going to this because we wanted to keep up with modern [technology]. I said you don’t use steam anymore for catapult? No sir. I said, "Ah, how is it working?" "Sir, not good. Not good. Doesn’t have the power. You know the steam is just brutal. You see that sucker going and steam’s going all over the place, there’s planes thrown in the air."

It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. And I said–and now they want to buy more aircraft carriers. I said what system are you going to be–"Sir, we’re staying with digital." I said no you’re not. You going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good.

Seriously... this isn't a link to The Onion?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Adami on May 11, 2017, 02:06:09 PM
I'm with jingle......all the way.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: RuRoRul on May 11, 2017, 02:08:58 PM
Trump Wants ‘Goddamned Steam,’ Not Digital Catapults on Aircraft Carriers (http://time.com/4775040/donald-trump-time-interview-being-president/)

Quote
On the future USS Ford-class carriers

You know the catapult is quite important. So I said what is this? Sir, this is our digital catapult system. He said well, we’re going to this because we wanted to keep up with modern [technology]. I said you don’t use steam anymore for catapult? No sir. I said, "Ah, how is it working?" "Sir, not good. Not good. Doesn’t have the power. You know the steam is just brutal. You see that sucker going and steam’s going all over the place, there’s planes thrown in the air."

It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. And I said–and now they want to buy more aircraft carriers. I said what system are you going to be–"Sir, we’re staying with digital." I said no you’re not. You going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good.

What the fuck?  :lol

Honestly it took me a couple of lines to realise what that quoted text was. At first I thought it was a badly formatted interview or comedy sketch. Or even just a nonsensical word salad. But feeling like I was reading a nonsensical word salad made me think "Wait a minute, I've had this feeling before..." So I started imagining it in a particular voice and it clicked.

I hope when they study this period in history they get a lot of chance to read plenty of transcripts of Donald speaking rather than only videos. Obviously almost everyone's speech looks worse when it's transcribed word for word, but Donald's quotes in particular are hilarious in written form.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 11, 2017, 02:19:42 PM
I hope when they study this period in history they get a lot of chance to read plenty of transcripts of Donald speaking rather than only videos. Obviously almost everyone's speech looks worse when it's transcribed word for word, but Donald's quotes in particular are hilarious in written form.

Particularly hilarious when written in the hand-writing and spelling of a 4-year old, like that meme that went around the interwebz a couple weeks ago about the "Sivel War"   :lol
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 11, 2017, 02:49:19 PM
My belief is the current political climate really boils down to one topic - the crumbling of Democracy.  Because that's really all that Putin/Russia want - to prove that democratic institutions are worse than autocratic regimes - which helps him keep his power and citizens in check.  Russia investigation or not, I don't know how anyone can't see that's what is going on here.  US meddling in other governments or not, are you ok with the standing 8-count that Lady Democracy is taking right now?  Checks/balances are bullshit at the moment, because Congress is so partisan, the only "check" comes from the majority party. 

You have me.  Hook line and sinker.  100% in agreement.     Couldn't have less to argue with.

But you keep going to: 

Quote
Grabby is also lining his ducks up in the Judicial Branch.  The mere notion of firing the FBI Director in the midst of his 10-year term, and an investigation towards those around the President is unprecedented.  I think I heard that only one FBI Director has been fired in the history of the FBI?  For ethical reasons.

None of those go to the first point, are unique to Trump, or make the point you want to make.     The FBI was started in 1908, and there have been only 11 directors in that time (not counting Acting Directors).   One served for the better part of 50 years, and if you believe the rather well-substantiated rumors, no President in their right mind would have fired HIM given his files.   The FBI Director serves at the pleasure of the President (though must be confirmed by the Senate) and so you'll note that THREE of the six Directors since Hoover (who died in 1972) were dismissed or left office at the change of the President.   

As for "lining his ducks in the Judicial Branch", his one major appointment - Gorsuch - is a moderate that was palatable to both sides of the aisle (or would be, under normal circumstances) and that was a big part of the reason he was elected to begin with.  Even some Liberals are uneasy with the activist judiciary that has been threatened over the past decade or so. 

Quote
If you're fine with the democracy cracking - and potentially crumbling - why not just move to Central America or somewhere in Africa right now?

Uh, if we agree that democracy is cracking, and we're fine with it, why would we move???

Quote
These are very slippery slopes that your country is on, and if you don't think so, all the best to you.

Also, anyone see some of the commentary on his interview with The Economist?  Wow... he's absolutely clueless.

Missed it, but I wouldn't pay attention to the commentary anyway; I'd read the article and draw my own conclusions.  ?  :)
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 11, 2017, 03:00:29 PM
Normally, I would say it's be logical to think so.  But for all the mis-steps we've seen out of 'The Donald' - as a businessperson, candidate, President-elect, and now President - I'm unsure what basis any trust in his "business-savvy" can be warranted.

"All the missteps"?    Jack Welch - arguably the greatest American CEO of the 20th century, and if not, at least a legend in the business world (I read more articles about Jack Welch in business school than all other CEOs COMBINED, and consider it an honor and privilege to have worked (indirectly) for him, and met him once) - has freely admitted that about half of his business deals went south, but when they did, he jettisoned them immediately and went on to the next one.  You only need a few to hit big to continue your growth.   So what "missteps"?  Atlantic City? Ever been there?  NO ONE succeeds in Atlantic City.   Wine? Steaks?  Okay, offset with raging success in the hardest real estate environment in the world (NYC).  Offset that with a successful global golf course and resort business.   

Look, you either give him the benefit of the doubt or you don't.   I get that being good at one thing doesn't make you good at another (Sean Penn, stick to acting; Phil Collins, stick to music) but to suggest that a multibillionaire and Ivy League graduate hasn't had some successes is just being petty. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 11, 2017, 05:46:48 PM
Quote
If you're fine with the democracy cracking - and potentially crumbling - why not just move to Central America or somewhere in Africa right now?

Uh, if we agree that democracy is cracking, and we're fine with it, why would we move???


Touche

The "mis-steps" I'm talking about are not his failings - we all learn from our failures.  What I'm referring to is things like stiffing contractors, not taking the advice of his predecessor and (essentially) chief counsel in warnings about Flynn, his character, his demeanor, his xenophobia, his misogyny, his nepotism, his racism... Regardless of financial or economic success, these are things I personally don't think qualify him as an even mediocre businessman.

Oh, and he completely contradicted his own letter, and the WH spin on the reasons for firing Comey.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-reveals-he-asked-comey-whether-he-was-under-investigation-n757821

Quote
The president reiterated his claim that he had been planning to fire Comey even before he received Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's recommendation to do so.

So, he setup his own VP, press secretary, WH staff, Deputy AG, and AG to deliver a message that he knew was BS.  He simply wanted Comey fired - allegedly over how the Russia investigation was rolling out.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 11, 2017, 06:05:39 PM
Word around the campfire is that he didn't setup the WH staff, including the press secretary, in as much as he completely blindsided them. He didn't think anybody would object and didn't bother preparing for that outcome. Spicer and his deputy were back-filling the intel to the best of their ability, or basically scrambling to control the narrative.

The person who should be pissed off is Rosenstein. Here's a guy whose credibility is his biggest asset and, intentional or not, they used him. The scrambling to control the narrative had him outed as the person who recommended it when all he did was put together the concerns Grabby asked for.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 11, 2017, 06:55:34 PM
Word around the campfire is that he didn't setup the WH staff, including the press secretary, in as much as he completely blindsided them. He didn't think anybody would object and didn't bother preparing for that outcome. Spicer and his deputy were back-filling the intel to the best of their ability, or basically scrambling to control the narrative.

The person who should be pissed off is Rosenstein. Here's a guy whose credibility is his biggest asset and, intentional or not, they used him. The scrambling to control the narrative had him outed as the person who recommended it when all he did was put together the concerns Grabby asked for.

Fair enough.  Whether intentional or not, the end result is that he made them look uninformed at best, or played them like a fiddle at worst.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 12, 2017, 07:16:23 AM
Bill Clinton meeting Loretta Lynch on the tarmac: Very Bad

FBI Director Comey dining with POTUS, who tried to coerce a loyalty pledge out of him: ???
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Chino on May 12, 2017, 07:20:36 AM
Bill Clinton meeting Loretta Lynch on the tarmac: Very Bad

FBI Director Comey dining with POTUS, who tried to coerce a loyalty pledge out of him: ???

You know who asks people beneath them to pledge loyalty? Dictators. The only thing an FBI agent should be pledging loyalty to is the constitution.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: RuRoRul on May 12, 2017, 07:48:44 AM
Bill Clinton meeting Loretta Lynch on the tarmac: Very Bad

FBI Director Comey dining with POTUS, who tried to coerce a loyalty pledge out of him: ???

You know who asks people beneath them to pledge loyalty? Dictators. The only thing an FBI agent should be pledging loyalty to is the constitution.
:tup
According to the story (coming from two people Comey told about the conversation), Donald twice asked for Comey to pledge loyalty and he instead promised "honesty". I think that conversation will make a pretty good scene in the eventual HBO Series about this.

Quote
As they ate, the president and Mr. Comey made small talk about the election and the crowd sizes at Mr. Trump’s rallies. The president then turned the conversation to whether Mr. Comey would pledge his loyalty to him.

Mr. Comey declined to make that pledge. Instead, Mr. Comey has recounted to others, he told Mr. Trump that he would always be honest with him, but that he was not “reliable” in the conventional political sense.

By Mr. Comey’s account, his answer to Mr. Trump’s initial question apparently did not satisfy the president, the associates said. Later in the dinner, Mr. Trump again said to Mr. Comey that he needed his loyalty.

Mr. Comey again replied that he would give him “honesty” and did not pledge his loyalty, according to the account of the conversation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/trump-comey-firing.html?action=Click&contentCollection=BreakingNews&contentID=65284618&pgtype=article&_r=0

Of course this is just one side of the story - for balance, here is the White House's account:
Quote
The White House says this account is not correct. And Mr. Trump, in an interview on Thursday with NBC, described a far different dinner conversation with Mr. Comey in which the director asked to have the meeting and the question of loyalty never came up. It was not clear whether he was talking about the same meal, but they are believed to have had only one dinner together.

“We don’t believe this to be an accurate account,” said Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the deputy press secretary. “The integrity of our law enforcement agencies and their leadership is of the utmost importance to President Trump. He would never even suggest the expectation of personal loyalty, only loyalty to our country and its great people.”

At the dinner described by Mr. Trump in his interview with NBC, the conversation with Mr. Comey was quite different. Mr. Trump told NBC that Mr. Comey requested it to ask to keep his job. Mr. Trump said he asked the F.B.I. director if he was under investigation, a question that legal experts called highly unusual if not improper. In Mr. Trump’s telling, Mr. Comey reassured him that he was not.

Mr. Trump did not say whether he asked Mr. Comey for his loyalty.
Very tough to decide which is more believable. I'm not sure I can buy the idea of Donald talking about the electoral college and crowd size, and the WH spokesperson's assurance that he would never expect personal loyalty fits so well with his character. And watching his congressional testimony, Comey totally seems like the type to fold under a little bit of questioning and not just stick to "I can neither confirm nor deny" when pressured to talk about FBI investigations.

(Also, I love that in Trump's version he even has to change it to Comey coming to him to request a private dinner rather than the other way around. Reminiscent of his handshake "power move" thing  :lol )
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Chino on May 12, 2017, 08:18:01 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/us/politics/trump-threatens-retaliation-against-comey-warns-he-may-cancel-press-briefings.html?_r=0

Quote
WASHINGTON — President Trump on Friday warned James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director he fired this week, against leaking anything negative about the president and warned the news media that he may cancel all future White House briefings.

In a series of early-morning Twitter posts, Mr. Trump even seemed to suggest that there may be secret tapes of his conversations with Mr. Comey that could be used to counter the former F.B.I. director if necessary. It was not immediately clear whether he meant that literally or simply hoped to intimidate Mr. Comey into silence.

“James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter.

Remember that time Obama wore a brown suit? Man, I'm glad we don't see anything that bad happening today  ::) Seriously though, could you imagine the outrage had Obama suggested the White House no longer engage with the press and that he may or may not have been secretly recording conversations in the Oval Office??
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 12, 2017, 08:24:38 AM
Ideally he's subpoenaed by the Senate investigation committee post hast. That's what I've been hoping for ever since he was shit-canned. While they probably couldn't make very much of it public, it seems to me that as he's no longer affiliated with any investigation he could probably be compelled to disclose what he knows to the Senate. Regardless of Grabby's immature understanding I suspect that Comey has enough integrity to keep his mouth shut. Very few people rush off to start blabbing about the dirty laundry. He might well relish the chance to testify under oath to congress, though.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 12, 2017, 08:36:17 AM
Real good time to be investing is CCA. Mass incarceration took a hit under Obama and Holder. The Sessions memo will just be the first of many.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/12/sessions-doj-releases-memo-to-all-94-us-attorneys-calling-for-reversal-holder-era-policy.html
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 12, 2017, 09:00:26 AM
The "mis-steps" I'm talking about are not his failings - we all learn from our failures.  What I'm referring to is things like stiffing contractors, not taking the advice of his predecessor and (essentially) chief counsel in warnings about Flynn, his character, his demeanor, his xenophobia, his misogyny, his nepotism, his racism... Regardless of financial or economic success, these are things I personally don't think qualify him as an even mediocre businessman.

Oh, and he completely contradicted his own letter, and the WH spin on the reasons for firing Comey.

But separate those out.   You're just throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks.   "Stiffing contractors" - especially in that market - isn't "a misstep".  In some cases, it's good business.   I can sit here for the rest of the day telling stories about things just like that.   I can also tell you the very first thing my contracts professor told me in law school:  "BREACH OF CONTRACT IS NOT ILLEGAL, AND NOT A BAD THING".   It is what it is, and presumably the parties have remedies in the case of breach.  That's what contracts are for.    Is it bad PR?  SURE.  Is it a self-limiting policy?  Perhaps, though not always.    Some of those other things again, are not "missteps" but your observation on things.   His character? His demeanor?  Who are you to say that's a "misstep"?  I don't like it either, by the way (I abhor it, actually; I was the guy that thought that Bill Clinton should put the shades and sax away and act Presidential; I'm the guy that wished Obama would stay the FUCK off the late night TV circuit).   I'll give you the xenophobia, though only by proxy; not the so-called "Muslim ban" that doesn't even apply to 90% of the world's Muslims, let alone ban them ("Hey Bob, here's a condom.  It lets through 90% of sperm, and doesn't prevent 90% of pregnancies, but its a CONDOM!"), but rather the tariffs.  It's not exactly xenophobia, but it works to that effect. 

For the record, his stunning lack of consistency is annoying to me, personally, but I'm not the President, I didn't vote for him, and it's kind of the least of my worries.  I focus more on the policy of things than the petty bullshit.  There was just as much that annoyed me about Obama, and Bush, and Clinton, it's part of the cycle.  No one is going to be perfectly all things to all people.   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 12, 2017, 09:21:59 AM
Real good time to be investing is CCA. Mass incarceration took a hit under Obama and Holder. The Sessions memo will just be the first of many.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/12/sessions-doj-releases-memo-to-all-94-us-attorneys-calling-for-reversal-holder-era-policy.html

Damn, Sessions is a real prick, huh.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 12, 2017, 09:28:45 AM
@ Stadler... some good points, and totally valid to benchmark what you believe to be "good business".  I do love your use of the word "presumably" when it comes to remedies, considering how many lawsuits he's had brought forth against him.  We'll simply have to agree to not see eye-to-eye on what makes a good businessman.  I was simply stating my case challenging Grabby'sTM business-sense of when/why to fire someone - which, as it turns out, was completely justified since the WH has spun the story multiple different ways now.  If everything was on the up-and-up, why not just come out and disclose all facets of the truth from the outset?

Very tough to decide which is more believable.

Really?  How many falsehoods have come out of Grabby'sTM mouth in the last week alone, let alone during the Presidency so far, and his campaign.  Maybe your comments about Comey are legit, but I still have to take everything from the WH with a few sacks of salt.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: RuRoRul on May 12, 2017, 10:22:27 AM
Very tough to decide which is more believable.

Really?  How many falsehoods have come out of Grabby'sTM mouth in the last week alone, let alone during the Presidency so far, and his campaign.  Maybe your comments about Comey are legit, but I still have to take everything from the WH with a few sacks of salt.
Sorry, I was being 100% sarcastic  :lol. Since none of us were there we can't know for sure what was actually said and if people who talked to Comey say one thing and Donald and the White House says another then if people want to believe Trump then it's up to them, but to me it is a laughably easy choice as to which account is more believable, even before you take into account the credibility of the sources.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 12, 2017, 01:49:10 PM
Gotchya.  Haven't seen enough of your posts to know your position on things like this.  I thought it had to be sarcastic, but ya never know.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Cable on May 12, 2017, 02:30:13 PM
Real good time to be investing is CCA. Mass incarceration took a hit under Obama and Holder. The Sessions memo will just be the first of many.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/12/sessions-doj-releases-memo-to-all-94-us-attorneys-calling-for-reversal-holder-era-policy.html

Damn, Sessions is a real prick, huh.


For what it's worth, they are now named CoreCivic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoreCivic . I doubt the name change has *anything* to do with a bad reputation. It's not like Comcast went with Xfinity, or TimeWarner to Spectrum to change their terrible reputations.

Yeah this will just make everything worse, and further strain the budget. As the war on drugs has been soooo successful and appropriate.  :tdwn :tdwn :\ ::) ::)
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 12, 2017, 02:53:56 PM
Real good time to be investing is CCA. Mass incarceration took a hit under Obama and Holder. The Sessions memo will just be the first of many.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/12/sessions-doj-releases-memo-to-all-94-us-attorneys-calling-for-reversal-holder-era-policy.html

Damn, Sessions is a real prick, huh.


For what it's worth, they are now named CoreCivic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoreCivic . I doubt the name change has *anything* to do with a bad reputation. It's not like Comcast went with Xfinity, or TimeWarner to Spectrum to change their terrible reputations.

Yeah this will just make everything worse, and further strain the budget. As the war on drugs has been soooo successful and appropriate.  :tdwn :tdwn :\ ::) ::)
Yeah, I actually saw that when I was looking for their stock symbol.  I wasn't kidding about it being a good time to invest, at least if you're looking to cash in on human misery and suffering.


edit: Oh, and speaking of which, whatever Taser International is calling itself now is fixing to corner the market on cloud storage for police bodycam video. Aside from charging for storage, part of the contract grants them all rights to the video, so they'll be able to charge for access. Nice, eh?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Cable on May 12, 2017, 05:11:13 PM
^ Oh I know El Barto, and you are correct. This guy is turning back the clock, and thinking marijuana is just a notch below opioids. This is what is so frustrating. The criminal justice field (I'm in it) has finally accepted, or more so the public, that mass incarceration fails on so many levels. And the shift was slowly happening, and consequently going to impact Core Civic. The truth is there, but it's like screw that! More prisoners! I wouldn't be shocked if Sessions, or someone close to him was a big share holder in CoreCivic. More people incarcerated = more business for their terrible model, and more back pockets lined.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 12, 2017, 05:48:59 PM
^ Oh I know El Barto, and you are correct. This guy is turning back the clock, and thinking marijuana is just a notch below opioids. This is what is so frustrating. The criminal justice field (I'm in it) has finally accepted, or more so the public, that mass incarceration fails on so many levels. And the shift was slowly happening, and consequently going to impact Core Civic. The truth is there, but it's like screw that! More prisoners! I wouldn't be shocked if Sessions, or someone close to him was a big share holder in CoreCivic. More people incarcerated = more business for their terrible model, and more back pockets lined.
Nah, he's just an asshole. He is the throwback you refer to. Drugs are undermining society and putting dopers in prison where they belong is the only way to save us all.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Cool Chris on May 12, 2017, 07:26:11 PM
Drugs are undermining society and putting dopers in prison where they belong is the only way to save us all.

The drugs aren't, but the junkies are. And I agree jailing them all isn't the solution, but neither is letting them all camp out wherever they want, trashing neighborhoods and public places, and committing any number of crimes to support their destructive habit.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Chino on May 12, 2017, 09:06:10 PM
Can we at least agree that those who wish to buy cannabis over the counter are not in the same class as those who will hold someone at knife point for heroin funds?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 12, 2017, 09:55:53 PM
Drugs are undermining society and putting dopers in prison where they belong is the only way to save us all.

The drugs aren't, but the junkies are. And I agree jailing them all isn't the solution, but neither is letting them all camp out wherever they want, trashing neighborhoods and public places, and committing any number of crimes to support their destructive habit.
I would agree with that. So would all of the pinko-liberal US attorneys operating under the auspices of the Holder manifesto. The difference is that they were supposed to start at the bottom and work their way up to the appropriate sentence. Under Sessions they're supposed to seek the maximum possible penalty, which will always prison time, and if they feel it should be less they need to seek approval first. What do you think of that approach?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: lonestar on May 13, 2017, 11:00:31 PM
Can we at least agree that those who wish to buy cannabis over the counter are not in the same class as those who will hold someone at knife point for heroin funds?

Yup.

My hierarchy of "what would I do to score" would go...

Heroin/opiates/meth
.
.
Booze (you'd be shocked at what a drunk is capable of doing)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Weed
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Cool Chris on May 14, 2017, 12:05:24 PM
What do you think of that approach?

Honestly, I don't know what to think. What I know is that these drugs are destroying our communities, and there seems to be nothing to stop it, whether it be ultra pinko-liberal progressive bleeding heart policies, or hard-ass law and order lock 'em up and throw away the key policies.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 14, 2017, 02:23:49 PM
What do you think of that approach?

Honestly, I don't know what to think. What I know is that these drugs are destroying our communities, and there seems to be nothing to stop it, whether it be ultra pinko-liberal progressive bleeding heart policies, or hard-ass law and order lock 'em up and throw away the key policies.
I don't know as the pinko approach has gotten a good opportunity yet. Remember that the hardassed approach has been going on nearly 100 years. Mere possession of pot used to land you in prison. States have only been liberalizing their drug laws for 10-15 years or so, and it's happened gradually. We know exactly what to expect from the Joe Friday approach. The opposite is still a relative unknown.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Cool Chris on May 14, 2017, 07:02:20 PM
I will reply here, and your subtlety even went over my head! I will reply here though.

Yes, I have been through the CJ system a few times, and feel I have benefited from a liberally-slanted interpretation of the law each time. And one of those times I even had a public defender! So I never bought way my out of the system. None of them involved drugs, unless you want to count DUIs as a "drug crime." If you don't, I cannot relate directly to the subject at hand. Also, I was thinking on a more local level. I don't think of junkies camped out in city parks as a DOJ issue. If we don't toss them in jail (which I agree we shouldn't), and if we offer them help, which they don't want, what are we to do?

Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: portnoy311 on May 14, 2017, 08:10:05 PM
DUIs absolutely are drug crimes. I've never had one myself, but I've known plenty who have. My old roommate was on probation, got house checks and random piss tests. I'm OK with that route for other drugs.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 15, 2017, 10:27:13 AM
Can we at least agree that those who wish to buy cannabis over the counter are not in the same class as those who will hold someone at knife point for heroin funds?

Yup.

My hierarchy of "what would I do to score" would go...

Heroin/opiates/meth
.
.
Booze (you'd be shocked at what a drunk is capable of doing)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Weed

But why do we have to make this determination in order to move forward?   By most accounts, once you get past the nature of the user while under the influence, they are both damaging.  Both change the brain's chemistry in unanticipated ways when used by those whose brains have not fully developed yet (basically anyone under the age of 25).    Both have similar tendencies with respect to use/abuse (users tend to be clustered as very casual users or heavy users; there doesn't seem to be a continuum).  Both have similar outcomes with prolonged heavy usage and performance of the user.   

I think the marijuana movement has been stymied by this over-reliance on the idea that "hey, it's not so bad!  It's not as bad as alcohol!"  Why would you base your entire movement on an argument that can't be proved and that is usually pre-determined in the eyes of the people you're looking to convert?   I find it fascinating, and VERY informative, that Colorado's ECONOMIC success has led to more states adopting similar structures in the last year or two than all of the so-called "harm" arguments combined over the past several decades. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: portnoy311 on May 15, 2017, 10:42:25 AM
The fact that it has been a success across the board and has not led to any increase in crime (actually decrease in both violent and property crime both here and Washington), while adding to tax revenue with no public health problems cannot be understated. Pot advocates are being proven right in their  "No Harm" stances, and bozos like Sessions sound so ridiculous when they refute that, despite all the data we now have.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 15, 2017, 10:43:04 AM

I think the marijuana movement has been stymied by this over-reliance on the idea that "hey, it's not so bad!  It's not as bad as alcohol!"  Why would you base your entire movement on an argument that can't be proved and that is usually pre-determined in the eyes of the people you're looking to convert?   I find it fascinating, and VERY informative, that Colorado's ECONOMIC success has led to more states adopting similar structures in the last year or two than all of the so-called "harm" arguments combined over the past several decades. 
The harm arguments had been paying dividends, though. As I said earlier, we've had generations of the Joe Friday approach. The reality has demonstrated that it doesn't cause people to go insane. It doesn't make white women sleep with the negroes. It doesn't turn people into junkies. As a result, many places had already started to lax their prohibition policies quite a bit. I'd suggest that the trends towards taxation stem more from that than the strictly economic aspect.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 15, 2017, 10:46:38 AM

I think the marijuana movement has been stymied by this over-reliance on the idea that "hey, it's not so bad!  It's not as bad as alcohol!"  Why would you base your entire movement on an argument that can't be proved and that is usually pre-determined in the eyes of the people you're looking to convert?   I find it fascinating, and VERY informative, that Colorado's ECONOMIC success has led to more states adopting similar structures in the last year or two than all of the so-called "harm" arguments combined over the past several decades. 
The harm arguments had been paying dividends, though. As I said earlier, we've had generations of the Joe Friday approach. The reality has demonstrated that it doesn't cause people to go insane. It doesn't make white women sleep with the negroes. It doesn't turn people into junkies. As a result, many places had already started to lax their prohibition policies quite a bit. I'd suggest that the trends towards taxation stem more from that than the strictly economic aspect.

I disagree.   Pot is not "paying dividends" because it is "harmless", at least on in the sense of harm to the specific user.  It's paying dividends because it is economically sound to do so.  "Crime" isn't down because a pot high is "peaceful, man!".  It's down because law-abiding citizens don't have to go to Compton or Father Panick Village to get their stash.  They don't have to deal with a dude named "Junior" with gold teeth who may or may not give you a baggy of actual weed when he takes your ten bucks.   You would see the same benefits with a legalization of heroin and/or cocaine, and are you really going to make the same "harm" arguments?   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: portnoy311 on May 15, 2017, 11:03:13 AM
It's also proving bozos like Sessions wrong who predicted legalizing it would lead to all the things Barto listed. Which is key to spreading the idea of legalization in this country. Colorado is basically printing free money and having zero ramifications for doing so. You don't think attitudes towards pot itself are softening up, even over the last 5 - 10 years? I'd say they definitely are.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 15, 2017, 11:56:29 AM

I think the marijuana movement has been stymied by this over-reliance on the idea that "hey, it's not so bad!  It's not as bad as alcohol!"  Why would you base your entire movement on an argument that can't be proved and that is usually pre-determined in the eyes of the people you're looking to convert?   I find it fascinating, and VERY informative, that Colorado's ECONOMIC success has led to more states adopting similar structures in the last year or two than all of the so-called "harm" arguments combined over the past several decades. 
The harm arguments had been paying dividends, though. As I said earlier, we've had generations of the Joe Friday approach. The reality has demonstrated that it doesn't cause people to go insane. It doesn't make white women sleep with the negroes. It doesn't turn people into junkies. As a result, many places had already started to lax their prohibition policies quite a bit. I'd suggest that the trends towards taxation stem more from that than the strictly economic aspect.

I disagree.   Pot is not "paying dividends" because it is "harmless", at least on in the sense of harm to the specific user.  It's paying dividends because it is economically sound to do so.  "Crime" isn't down because a pot high is "peaceful, man!".  It's down because law-abiding citizens don't have to go to Compton or Father Panick Village to get their stash.  They don't have to deal with a dude named "Junior" with gold teeth who may or may not give you a baggy of actual weed when he takes your ten bucks.   You would see the same benefits with a legalization of heroin and/or cocaine, and are you really going to make the same "harm" arguments?
Well, first off I didn't mean to suggest that pot was paying dividends. I was saying that the "no harm" mentality was paying dividends with regards to pot. And as for you greater point, I'd simply ask where these economic benefits were in 1980? Or 2000? Or 1930? We've only gotten to the point where this was acceptable because people started to realize that it actually is generally harmless and that prohibition never works. Unfortunately, our new AG doesn't appear to be a real person.

On a side note, I've been procuring grass one way or another since 1983, and I've never had any of the experiences you speak of. Remember, the free market works even in an illicit trade (you could ask Scalia if he weren't worm food). Dealers tend to be pretty honest folk out of necessity.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 15, 2017, 12:23:25 PM
It's also proving bozos like Sessions wrong who predicted legalizing it would lead to all the things Barto listed. Which is key to spreading the idea of legalization in this country. Colorado is basically printing free money and having zero ramifications for doing so. You don't think attitudes towards pot itself are softening up, even over the last 5 - 10 years? I'd say they definitely are.

Well, qualify "zero ramifications".  "Zero IMMEDIATE ramifications"?   Maybe.   But all those kids that now smoke that wouldn't have before it was legal who's brains haven't fully formed yet... there are ramifications there.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying CO shouldn't have, I'm just saying, let's not overstate the argument.   There ARE downsides to this.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 15, 2017, 12:27:20 PM

I think the marijuana movement has been stymied by this over-reliance on the idea that "hey, it's not so bad!  It's not as bad as alcohol!"  Why would you base your entire movement on an argument that can't be proved and that is usually pre-determined in the eyes of the people you're looking to convert?   I find it fascinating, and VERY informative, that Colorado's ECONOMIC success has led to more states adopting similar structures in the last year or two than all of the so-called "harm" arguments combined over the past several decades. 
The harm arguments had been paying dividends, though. As I said earlier, we've had generations of the Joe Friday approach. The reality has demonstrated that it doesn't cause people to go insane. It doesn't make white women sleep with the negroes. It doesn't turn people into junkies. As a result, many places had already started to lax their prohibition policies quite a bit. I'd suggest that the trends towards taxation stem more from that than the strictly economic aspect.

I disagree.   Pot is not "paying dividends" because it is "harmless", at least on in the sense of harm to the specific user.  It's paying dividends because it is economically sound to do so.  "Crime" isn't down because a pot high is "peaceful, man!".  It's down because law-abiding citizens don't have to go to Compton or Father Panick Village to get their stash.  They don't have to deal with a dude named "Junior" with gold teeth who may or may not give you a baggy of actual weed when he takes your ten bucks.   You would see the same benefits with a legalization of heroin and/or cocaine, and are you really going to make the same "harm" arguments?
Well, first off I didn't mean to suggest that pot was paying dividends. I was saying that the "no harm" mentality was paying dividends with regards to pot. And as for you greater point, I'd simply ask where these economic benefits were in 1980? Or 2000? Or 1930? We've only gotten to the point where this was acceptable because people started to realize that it actually is generally harmless and that prohibition never works. Unfortunately, our new AG doesn't appear to be a real person.

On a side note, I've been procuring grass one way or another since 1983, and I've never had any of the experiences you speak of. Remember, the free market works even in an illicit trade (you could ask Scalia if he weren't worm food). Dealers tend to be pretty honest folk out of necessity.

Admittedly, I'm skewing things here.  The heroin trade here in CT is rampant, and it's not at all as "gentleman friendly" as apparently your weed transactions are.  My wife works in Probate, and she sometimes helps families to get through the process and she's done two now where people died because of the "blue bag" heroin that's going around.   

That, by the way, is one of the two single biggest upsides of legalization (that and the revenue) for me.   Liquor is harmful, no doubt about it, but at least when you buy that bottle of Tito's you know what you're getting. It's not cut with water, or bleach, or Windex or whatever the fuck.   I think the quicker we get some desperate fuck out of the business of stretching his supply as far as he can, the better off we are "as a society".  The less "harm".   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Chino on May 15, 2017, 12:29:16 PM
It's also proving bozos like Sessions wrong who predicted legalizing it would lead to all the things Barto listed. Which is key to spreading the idea of legalization in this country. Colorado is basically printing free money and having zero ramifications for doing so. You don't think attitudes towards pot itself are softening up, even over the last 5 - 10 years? I'd say they definitely are.

Well, qualify "zero ramifications".  "Zero IMMEDIATE ramifications"?   Maybe.   But all those kids that now smoke that wouldn't have before it was legal who's brains haven't fully formed yet... there are ramifications there.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying CO shouldn't have, I'm just saying, let's not overstate the argument.   There ARE downsides to this.



Just something to think about.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/colorado-s-teen-marijuana-usage-dips-after-legalization/
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 15, 2017, 12:35:58 PM

I think the marijuana movement has been stymied by this over-reliance on the idea that "hey, it's not so bad!  It's not as bad as alcohol!"  Why would you base your entire movement on an argument that can't be proved and that is usually pre-determined in the eyes of the people you're looking to convert?   I find it fascinating, and VERY informative, that Colorado's ECONOMIC success has led to more states adopting similar structures in the last year or two than all of the so-called "harm" arguments combined over the past several decades. 
The harm arguments had been paying dividends, though. As I said earlier, we've had generations of the Joe Friday approach. The reality has demonstrated that it doesn't cause people to go insane. It doesn't make white women sleep with the negroes. It doesn't turn people into junkies. As a result, many places had already started to lax their prohibition policies quite a bit. I'd suggest that the trends towards taxation stem more from that than the strictly economic aspect.

I disagree.   Pot is not "paying dividends" because it is "harmless", at least on in the sense of harm to the specific user.  It's paying dividends because it is economically sound to do so.  "Crime" isn't down because a pot high is "peaceful, man!".  It's down because law-abiding citizens don't have to go to Compton or Father Panick Village to get their stash.  They don't have to deal with a dude named "Junior" with gold teeth who may or may not give you a baggy of actual weed when he takes your ten bucks.   You would see the same benefits with a legalization of heroin and/or cocaine, and are you really going to make the same "harm" arguments?
Well, first off I didn't mean to suggest that pot was paying dividends. I was saying that the "no harm" mentality was paying dividends with regards to pot. And as for you greater point, I'd simply ask where these economic benefits were in 1980? Or 2000? Or 1930? We've only gotten to the point where this was acceptable because people started to realize that it actually is generally harmless and that prohibition never works. Unfortunately, our new AG doesn't appear to be a real person.

On a side note, I've been procuring grass one way or another since 1983, and I've never had any of the experiences you speak of. Remember, the free market works even in an illicit trade (you could ask Scalia if he weren't worm food). Dealers tend to be pretty honest folk out of necessity.

Admittedly, I'm skewing things here.  The heroin trade here in CT is rampant, and it's not at all as "gentleman friendly" as apparently your weed transactions are.  My wife works in Probate, and she sometimes helps families to get through the process and she's done two now where people died because of the "blue bag" heroin that's going around.   

That, by the way, is one of the two single biggest upsides of legalization (that and the revenue) for me.   Liquor is harmful, no doubt about it, but at least when you buy that bottle of Tito's you know what you're getting. It's not cut with water, or bleach, or Windex or whatever the fuck.   I think the quicker we get some desperate fuck out of the business of stretching his supply as far as he can, the better off we are "as a society".  The less "harm".   

There's definitely a difference between your marijuana dealer and heroin dealer.  Maybe they are the same person in some places, but the culture of those two drugs doesn't really clash so unlike what Sessions might say, there's very little similarities between marijuna purchase/usage and heroin.  I personally believe it has to do with the addictiveness of the drugs.  Someone with a bad marijuana experience is likely to not buy again or find another source, but for heroin, you might still be going back to the shady guy on the street who sold you a mixed bag before because you are looking for that fix and will take those risks.  It's one reason why i've always felt weed should be legal, it's definitely mentally addicting (it makes you feel great, so it's going to be addicting on some level) but it's not a physical addiction that drives you like heroin or alcohol.  And because of that, people with bad experiences are more likely to kick the habit compared to other drugs.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 15, 2017, 12:39:05 PM

I think the marijuana movement has been stymied by this over-reliance on the idea that "hey, it's not so bad!  It's not as bad as alcohol!"  Why would you base your entire movement on an argument that can't be proved and that is usually pre-determined in the eyes of the people you're looking to convert?   I find it fascinating, and VERY informative, that Colorado's ECONOMIC success has led to more states adopting similar structures in the last year or two than all of the so-called "harm" arguments combined over the past several decades. 
The harm arguments had been paying dividends, though. As I said earlier, we've had generations of the Joe Friday approach. The reality has demonstrated that it doesn't cause people to go insane. It doesn't make white women sleep with the negroes. It doesn't turn people into junkies. As a result, many places had already started to lax their prohibition policies quite a bit. I'd suggest that the trends towards taxation stem more from that than the strictly economic aspect.

I disagree.   Pot is not "paying dividends" because it is "harmless", at least on in the sense of harm to the specific user.  It's paying dividends because it is economically sound to do so.  "Crime" isn't down because a pot high is "peaceful, man!".  It's down because law-abiding citizens don't have to go to Compton or Father Panick Village to get their stash.  They don't have to deal with a dude named "Junior" with gold teeth who may or may not give you a baggy of actual weed when he takes your ten bucks.   You would see the same benefits with a legalization of heroin and/or cocaine, and are you really going to make the same "harm" arguments?
Well, first off I didn't mean to suggest that pot was paying dividends. I was saying that the "no harm" mentality was paying dividends with regards to pot. And as for you greater point, I'd simply ask where these economic benefits were in 1980? Or 2000? Or 1930? We've only gotten to the point where this was acceptable because people started to realize that it actually is generally harmless and that prohibition never works. Unfortunately, our new AG doesn't appear to be a real person.

On a side note, I've been procuring grass one way or another since 1983, and I've never had any of the experiences you speak of. Remember, the free market works even in an illicit trade (you could ask Scalia if he weren't worm food). Dealers tend to be pretty honest folk out of necessity.

Admittedly, I'm skewing things here.  The heroin trade here in CT is rampant, and it's not at all as "gentleman friendly" as apparently your weed transactions are.  My wife works in Probate, and she sometimes helps families to get through the process and she's done two now where people died because of the "blue bag" heroin that's going around.   

That, by the way, is one of the two single biggest upsides of legalization (that and the revenue) for me.   Liquor is harmful, no doubt about it, but at least when you buy that bottle of Tito's you know what you're getting. It's not cut with water, or bleach, or Windex or whatever the fuck.   I think the quicker we get some desperate fuck out of the business of stretching his supply as far as he can, the better off we are "as a society".  The less "harm".
The heroin problem is a different sort of animal. We've seen a huge increase due in part to doctors over-prescribing opiates and also the prohibition which has made H cheaper and easier to obtain than the real deal. I don't think it's reasonable to lump that in with the policy discussions based on 100 years of observation and the war on drugs.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: portnoy311 on May 15, 2017, 12:56:20 PM
Stadler, pot use amongst teens is down.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/colorado-s-teen-marijuana-usage-dips-after-legalization/


http://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/21/one-of-the-greatest-fears-about-legalizing-marijuana-has-so-far-failed-to-happen/
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 15, 2017, 03:44:09 PM
It's a day ending in "y", so here's another bonkers story about this administration

Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador

Quote
President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.

The information the president relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.

The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said Trump’s decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency.

“This is code-word information,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers to one of the highest classification levels used by American spy agencies. Trump “revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-high_trumpintel-0504pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.4a644e8bdde9
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 15, 2017, 04:42:04 PM
Is anyone surprised by this?  This dude has got to be either a Russian asset (knowing or unknowingly... it doesn't matter), or a complete f'n moron, or trying to get himself fired.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 15, 2017, 04:49:37 PM
In before someone dismisses this due to WaPo or unnamed sources.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: hefdaddy42 on May 15, 2017, 05:49:50 PM
H.R. McMaster forcefully denied things that weren't alleged as facts in the Post's article, and then didn't take any questions.

Glad we got that cleared up.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: hefdaddy42 on May 16, 2017, 05:58:19 AM
And after that non-denial denial,  this morning Trump sent out a tweet basically admitting he did it.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 16, 2017, 06:31:03 AM
Trump sent out a tweet basically admitting he did it.

Quote
Well, what he meant was...
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 16, 2017, 06:42:27 AM
So let's recap:

Trump revealed information that he is entitled, under law, to do.  Doesn't matter whether it is classified or not.

McMaster calls an Intelligence Agent to inform of the information transmitted, again, legally.

Intelligence Agent anonymously and illegally leaks that information to the press.   Again, ILLEGALLY.

Press and partisan "analysts" go after the President.

Sure, makes sense to me. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: AngelBack on May 16, 2017, 06:48:02 AM
This is an outrage, classified info must be protected.  I guess Tillerson hasn't had time to set up that Radio Shack server in his bathroom yet...


Meanwhile, it is reported that Seth Rich (former DNC staffer) had sent thousands of emails to Wiki Leaks shortly before he was assassinated. 

But the Russians....
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: RuRoRul on May 16, 2017, 06:57:48 AM
Donald is legally allowed to do whatever he wants with classified information, sure.

He irresponsibly passed on extremely secret info compromising an ally to top Russian officials. If that country wanted to share intel with Russia, it could have done so itself. Now it has been shown (something I'm sure was already obvious to lots of other intelligence agencies around the globe due either to Trumpo's incompetence, his position as a Russian stooge, or both) that to share with the US is to share with Russia - or who ever else Donald blabs to.

It's hard to know the specific consequences of this situation since we obviously don't know what exactly was shared or what sources were compromised because of it. But the long term consequences of having an executive that cannot be trusted to keep its ally's secrets should be obvious.

When you guys find yourself with fewer and fewer allies in the future, stuff like this will be why.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 16, 2017, 06:58:49 AM
From a friend of mine who works with this sort of information:

Quote
He can declassify anything (though it's not instantaneous). He is not, however, a foreign disclosure officer. Anything given to a foreign government must be vetted by a FDO. This may have happened, I don't know.

Quote
It seems he gave up *another* country's intel, which he is not authorized to do.

Quote
Also of note, it seems this info was given to us under a strict caveat that it couldn't be disseminated... even to other Americans without the right read-ons.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: hefdaddy42 on May 16, 2017, 07:09:34 AM
So let's recap:

Trump revealed information that he is entitled, under law, to do.  Doesn't matter whether it is classified or not.

McMaster calls an Intelligence Agent to inform of the information transmitted, again, legally.

Intelligence Agent anonymously and illegally leaks that information to the press.   Again, ILLEGALLY.

Press and partisan "analysts" go after the President.

Sure, makes sense to me.
Wow
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Chino on May 16, 2017, 07:13:58 AM
So let's recap:

Trump revealed information that he is entitled, under law, to do.  Doesn't matter whether it is classified or not.

McMaster calls an Intelligence Agent to inform of the information transmitted, again, legally.

Intelligence Agent anonymously and illegally leaks that information to the press.   Again, ILLEGALLY.

Press and partisan "analysts" go after the President.

Sure, makes sense to me.

Is legality the only metric we should use when criticizing  the man though? Legal or not, this seems irresponsible, and as usual, it contradicts the other stories coming out of the White House. Trump seems to be acting like a lone ranger and I think that's what has most people freaked. I mean, he could legally order a nuclear strike on China if he wanted to, it doesn't mean we shouldn't give him hell if he carried through with it.

I don't think anyone is questioning whether what he did was legal or not. They're asking if it was appropriate. If we have foreign help and have a guy inside ISIS that's sneaking information out to us, doesn't this risk that relationship? If the country/group/person we're working with didn't want this information in the hands of the Russians, was it right to give it to them regardless of legality?

Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 16, 2017, 07:25:16 AM
(https://i.redditmedia.com/RrUSoM5i4l-GoNSsOd_VLUYcEF2s6gKBzXwk1pbf0YQ.jpg?w=1024&s=79db3e631a8e08556cf584cd82c546f8)
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 16, 2017, 08:20:56 AM
So let's recap:

Trump revealed information that he is entitled, under law, to do.  Doesn't matter whether it is classified or not.

McMaster calls an Intelligence Agent to inform of the information transmitted, again, legally.

Intelligence Agent anonymously and illegally leaks that information to the press.   Again, ILLEGALLY.

Press and partisan "analysts" go after the President.

Sure, makes sense to me.
You're stepping out on your wife. You tell your best friend about it over beers one night, with the caveat "don't tell anybody!" He tells his wife and word gets back to yours. Are you ever going to tell your friend anything? Of course not. He's unreliable. The difference is that we need to know what others know, and by being flippant with that info we make it considerably less likely they'll help us. Moreover, I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time. I think we had this problem with Qatar once before, and I'm guessing it was those guys that gave us this intel.

And what happens if this country, my guess Qatar, catches heat from its own populace. Or from the Saudis or some other neighboring country that doesn't take kindly on helping us out? But hey, it was legal so fuck'em.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 16, 2017, 08:22:09 AM
So let's recap:

Trump revealed information that he is entitled, under law, to do.  Doesn't matter whether it is classified or not.

McMaster calls an Intelligence Agent to inform of the information transmitted, again, legally.

Intelligence Agent anonymously and illegally leaks that information to the press.   Again, ILLEGALLY.

Press and partisan "analysts" go after the President.

Sure, makes sense to me. 

Not sure if you're looking for work but I've heard through the grapevine that there might be a high-profile PR job opening up in the District.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 16, 2017, 08:38:26 AM
won't these silly  (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/opinion/trump-classified-data.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)

liberals (https://www.lawfareblog.com/bombshell-initial-thoughts-washington-posts-game-changing-story)

stop going crazy over nothing? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/05/16/mcmaster-and-tillerson-are-complicit-in-trumps-dishonesty-so-must-they-resign/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.737e79862647)

Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 16, 2017, 08:40:02 AM
won't these silly  (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/opinion/trump-classified-data.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)

liberals (https://www.lawfareblog.com/bombshell-initial-thoughts-washington-posts-game-changing-story)

stop going crazy over nothing? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/05/16/mcmaster-and-tillerson-are-complicit-in-trumps-dishonesty-so-must-they-resign/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.737e79862647)

Opinion pieces, ZOMG liberal media bias, nothing to see here.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 16, 2017, 09:54:37 AM
even more partisan spin:
Quote
Washington, D.C. ­– U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, released the following statement today on reports that President Trump shared sensitive intelligence with Russian officials:

“The reports that the President shared sensitive intelligence with Russian officials are deeply disturbing. Reports that this information was provided by a U.S. ally and shared without its knowledge sends a troubling signal to America’s allies and partners around the world and may impair their willingness to share intelligence with us in the future. Regrettably, the time President Trump spent sharing sensitive information with the Russians was time he did not spend focusing on Russia’s aggressive behavior, including its interference in American and European elections, its illegal invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea, its other destabilizing activities across Europe, and the slaughter of innocent civilians and targeting of hospitals in Syria.”

https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=press-releases&id=03DB18B6-80CC-451B-8AAC-BFB42321CDA4
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 16, 2017, 09:57:05 AM
Anybody else getting tired of all this winning?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Chino on May 16, 2017, 10:18:04 AM
even more partisan spin:
Quote
Washington, D.C. ­– U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, released the following statement today on reports that President Trump shared sensitive intelligence with Russian officials:

“The reports that the President shared sensitive intelligence with Russian officials are deeply disturbing. Reports that this information was provided by a U.S. ally and shared without its knowledge sends a troubling signal to America’s allies and partners around the world and may impair their willingness to share intelligence with us in the future. Regrettably, the time President Trump spent sharing sensitive information with the Russians was time he did not spend focusing on Russia’s aggressive behavior, including its interference in American and European elections, its illegal invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea, its other destabilizing activities across Europe, and the slaughter of innocent civilians and targeting of hospitals in Syria.”

https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=press-releases&id=03DB18B6-80CC-451B-8AAC-BFB42321CDA4

Trump disclosed more secrets in an hour with Russians in the Oval Office than John McCain did in 5.5 years as a POW.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: bosk1 on May 16, 2017, 10:37:37 AM
Wait, I'm confused.  Let me see if I can break it down.

So, the only people who actually KNOW what was disclosed and why say nothing wrong was done.

People who have no idea what was disclosed and why say: We don't know what was disclosed or why, and we can't say for sure that it was illegal, or even wrong, but :panicattack:

And we should go with the second group...why exactly?   ???
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: gmillerdrake on May 16, 2017, 10:44:46 AM
Wait, I'm confused.  Let me see if I can break it down.

So, the only people who actually KNOW what was disclosed and why say nothing wrong was done.

People who have no idea what was disclosed and why say: We don't know what was disclosed or why, and we can't say for sure that it was illegal, or even wrong, but :panicattack:

And we should go with the second group...why exactly?   ???

Because Trump bad
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 16, 2017, 10:45:14 AM
I don't think the people who know say nothing he didn't do anything wrong. They were very selective about how they phrased their defense.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 16, 2017, 10:53:47 AM
So let's recap:

Trump revealed information that he is entitled, under law, to do.  Doesn't matter whether it is classified or not.

McMaster calls an Intelligence Agent to inform of the information transmitted, again, legally.

Intelligence Agent anonymously and illegally leaks that information to the press.   Again, ILLEGALLY.

Press and partisan "analysts" go after the President.

Sure, makes sense to me.
Wow

Yeah.  Indeed.  If it wasn't for how thorough and well spoken almost all of Stadler's P/R commentary was, I might have believed he's a troll.  Perhaps he's the most eloquent troll in the world.  If what is reported is true - disclosing classified information to a foreign non-ally - it's hard to make sense of how anyone can see this a 'no biggie', that the bigger problem is the media/leaks.

Stadler, I wasn't around much during the campaign, but what was your position on all the Wikileaks shit?

So, the only people who actually KNOW what was disclosed and why say nothing wrong was done.

Naturally!  Those in Grabby's inner circle that were there are going to cry "no biggie".  To use El Barto's analogy - a guy who cheats on his wife at his bachelor party with a stripper that his pals ordered for him - of course they're all going to claim 'no biggie'.

People who have no idea what was disclosed and why say: We don't know what was disclosed or why, and we can't say for sure that it was illegal, or even wrong, but :panicattack:

Well, what I understand has been reported is that - regardless of the details - this was NOT information that was wise or *should* have been shared with anyone, let alone the Russians.  Does the lack of specifics of 'what' and 'why' mean that no one should be alarmed? 

Remember Flynn?  "nothing to see here" was the administration's response for weeks.  Then... Ooops, there is something here - You're Fired!  There are so many damaging topics that have been reported on that ultimately come out as true.  How are ANY of those situations good for your President/Presidency.  It's an absolute gong-show - at least, that's how the rest of the world sees it.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 16, 2017, 10:54:28 AM
I don't think the people who know say nothing he didn't do anything wrong. They were very selective about how they phrased their defense.

Yeah, that press conference wasn't exactly reassuring.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: bosk1 on May 16, 2017, 11:06:58 AM
Naturally!  Those in Grabby's inner circle that were there are going to cry "no biggie".  To use El Barto's analogy - a guy who cheats on his wife at his bachelor party with a stripper that his pals ordered for him - of course they're all going to claim 'no biggie'.

But how do we know El Barto's analogy is anywhere in the ballpark of what occurred?  How do you know that anything that was disclosed, or the reason it was disclosed, actually IS a biggie?

Well, what I understand has been reported is that - regardless of the details - this was NOT information that was wise or *should* have been shared with anyone, let alone the Russians.

How do we know?  Nobody has said what was disclosed or why, correct?  So how do we know?

Remember Flynn?  "nothing to see here" was the administration's response for weeks.  Then...


Then...he was fired.

Then...the reaction was :panicattack:  "Since he was fired, there MUST be something nefarious going on!"

Then...it was looked into.

Then...it turned out to be "nothing to see here."

So, again, so what?  Upon what exactly are we basing this reaction that we "SHOULD" be alarmed?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 16, 2017, 11:19:49 AM
When was the Flynn thing "looked in to"?  Wasn't he just subpoena'd last week?  Hearings still on going, aren't they?  How do YOU know that it was 'nothing to see here'?  The acting AG testified he was compromised.  That doesn't exactly sound like 'nothing'.

But, whatever.  It's not my intent to come off that I'm trying to convince anyone of anything, just offering points on the issues that are being reported.  I guess if you think this is all normal, then by all means, do so.  If this is what "winning" looks like, I guess I'll be content to be a Canadian loser, eh?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: RuRoRul on May 16, 2017, 11:22:07 AM


Remember Flynn?  "nothing to see here" was the administration's response for weeks.  Then...


Then...he was fired.

Then...the reaction was :panicattack:  "Since he was fired, there MUST be something nefarious going on!"

Then...it was looked into.

Then...it turned out to be "nothing to see here."
Hahahaha.

Despite Donald's attempts to impede it, at this point the efforts to "look into" things regarding Flynn are far from over, so I don't know how you or anyone else could declare that there was "nothing to see".

Since it's not concluded yet we don't know exactly what will go down, but from what I've seen my prediction is that it's more likely that they have Flynn dead to rights rather than finding that there was "nothing to see".
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 16, 2017, 11:30:05 AM
I don't know how you or anyone else could declare that there was "nothing to see"

I have a tough time with this also, but I suspect in most instances, it's because (R).

That's not specifically pointed at bosk or anyone here, but in general.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: bosk1 on May 16, 2017, 11:30:35 AM
Okay, fair enough.  You both are right.  It IS still being looked into.  From what has been disclosed thus far, it does not look like there is anything to see.  And the investigation SHOULD continue.  That's how it is supposed to work.  But fair enough that it is still an open issue. 

But the Flynn thing aside (because it isn't really germaine to what we were discussing anyway), I go back to my question with regard to the Russia thing:  How do we know?  Why exactly should we be in :panicattack: mode?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 16, 2017, 11:32:02 AM
Okay, fair enough.  You both are right.  It IS still being looked into.  From what has been disclosed thus far, it does not look like there is anything to see.  And the investigation SHOULD continue.  That's how it is supposed to work.  But fair enough that it is still an open issue. 

But the Flynn thing aside (because it isn't really germaine to what we were discussing anyway), I go back to my question with regard to the Russia thing:  How do we know?  Why exactly should we be in :panicattack: mode?

Because when someone has a history of boneheadedly setting fires, it becomes more and more likely that even a wisp of smoke from their vicinity means another fire.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: bosk1 on May 16, 2017, 11:43:34 AM
Fair enough.  Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.  Personally, I think we're expending far too much energy searching for smoke and chasing potential fires.  But I get it. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 16, 2017, 11:48:25 AM
(https://scontent.fphl2-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/18486235_1382058405221731_6237467246948860269_n.jpg?oh=6f1fe82919a50692189ee5eabea46ec8&oe=59A6B5A2)
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 16, 2017, 11:49:12 AM
McMaster has pretty much confirmed the entire episode as described by the "inside sources." He's only saying that it was appropriate and, rather specifically, that no methods or sources were discussed. Again, that was never suggested, but rather that any fool could figure it all out.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/16/trump-acknowledges-facts-shared-with-russian-envoys-during-white-house-meeting/
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: RuRoRul on May 16, 2017, 11:58:00 AM
But the Flynn thing aside (because it isn't really germaine to what we were discussing anyway), I go back to my question with regard to the Russia thing:  How do we know?  Why exactly should we be in :panicattack: mode?
Well it is the problem with all these things based on sources that can't be disclosed. Unless we have a video or something there's no way for average punters to know for sure what was said.

However, just because a story is based on an undisclosed source doesn't mean it should be immediately discounted as bogus. In fact, that's basically what a lot of journalism is - the press gets information from sources that they trust, and they print it. But in a lot of cases they can't just print who told them, because then they would lose that source.

Of course, that leaves the reader in a bit of a bind. Could I just say that "sources" or "officials" told me something, and expect you to believe me? Obviously not. But the idea is that a news organisation must build up credibility and not print stuff that doesn't come from trustworthy sources or if they are not sure of it, so that over time people can trust the credibility of that organisation to the point that they trust if they run with something, then they are fairly confident it is true.

Now obviously that credibility and trust has taken a hit in recent years. Distrust of the media has been a big theme before and after the election. The media has been seen to have abused that trust and eroded some of that credibility that they rely on for people to believe them.

However, I have yet to see anything that suggests that the Washington Post, Reuters and some of the other major news organisations cannot be trusted to have solid information when they report on something as major as this. Both cite multiple sources for this - they may not be able to write those sources, but again, I have no reason to suspect that such organisations would run something so big  based on absolute bullshit. And that seems to be what some folk around the internet suggest is the case when they say "Oh, more anonymous sources. So it doesn't mean anything." That Washington Post just decided to make it up out of thin air, or got a prank call from a teenager claiming to be the Secretary of Defence and didn't realise or something.

There are major faults in media coverage, and they deserve some of the criticism that is levied at them. But - assuming Donald eventually leaves the hot seat without pushing the button - this may be one of the worst things to come from all of this in the end: the fact that that distrust of the media for legitimate reasons has been taken and simplified to the point of just pointing at something you don't like and saying "fake news!". In my opinion, the major problems with the media have been less about making stuff up out of no where (that was reserved for genuine "fake news" when it actually had a meaning), and more about the bias shown when they covered what happens, or even in their choices of what to cover. CNN or Fox News choosing to focus exclusively on the stories that fit their "side", or blending news reporting with "infotainment" and opinion so that people can't easily tell which is which, are imo prime examples of the problems with the media that meant they lost a lot of the public trust. But that is different from literally reporting completely incorrect or fabricated information.

In this case, WaPo reported that the president revealed classified information to the Russians in their meeting. Given the reactions of the administration (denying specifically that sources were named or methods were revealed, claiming that it was appropriate to the conversation, justifying the legality of it, Donald himself Tweeting saying he has the right to do so) I think there is every indication that this is essentially true. There's also every reason to believe that the general description we have been given (that it concerned intel given by an ally that was meant to be kept to an extremely small circle) is true.

We don't know exactly what was said, because it is *supposed* to be secret. But even without knowing the specifics it is easy to see that there are grave concerns. Even if the administration is claiming that it was appropriate to the conversation, it is still going to make anyone who doesn't want their secrets in the hands of the Russians even more skeptical about sharing any info with the US.

McMaster is doing his best job of damage control on this, and with good reason - it is bad for national security if other countries don't want to share intel. That doesn't mean that his interpretation that it was "no biggie" is credible, at least to me. Even if he was in the room.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: bosk1 on May 16, 2017, 12:09:38 PM
Good post, RuRoRul.  I think you hit the nail on the head with the first few paragraphs.  The problem I have is what you mention in terms of us not being able to know.  We just don't.  And every few days there is seemingly a new story about how we "SHOULD"  be concerned because some anonymous source somewhere says we should be.  About something.  And because a lot of these sources have said similar things that are similarly unconfirmed, we should see a pattern and established history.  But the pattern and history I keep seeing is a pattern and history of reporting things that end up not being substantiated.  That concerns me more than anything I have actually seen out of this administration so far, because if and when something happens that actually should concern me, there is a far greater likelihood that I am going to miss it because it's lumped in with all the crying wolf and handwringing that has been going on at the expense of finding and reporting truth.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 16, 2017, 12:11:29 PM
Well, if he did give up classified info, I'm just glad he gave up it face to face, because if he'd used a private email server instead, who knows what kinda shitstorm may have happened.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jammindude on May 16, 2017, 12:12:38 PM
Well, if he did give up classified info, I'm just glad he gave up it face to face, because if he'd used a private email server instead, who knows what kinda shitstorm may have happened.

 :rollin
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 16, 2017, 12:22:27 PM
Good post, RuRoRul.  I think you hit the nail on the head with the first few paragraphs.  The problem I have is what you mention in terms of us not being able to know.  We just don't.  And every few days there is seemingly a new story about how we "SHOULD"  be concerned because some anonymous source somewhere says we should be.  About something.  And because a lot of these sources have said similar things that are similarly unconfirmed, we should see a pattern and established history.  But the pattern and history I keep seeing is a pattern and history of reporting things that end up not being substantiated.  That concerns me more than anything I have actually seen out of this administration so far, because if and when something happens that actually should concern me, there is a far greater likelihood that I am going to miss it because it's lumped in with all the crying wolf and handwringing that has been going on at the expense of finding and reporting truth.
Well, for one thing we should always be concerned. As I've said before, there is nobody on Earth more deserving of scrutiny than the POTUS, and it doesn't matter if he's a R, D or certified lunatic. But more to this point, I'm not sure how this isn't confirmed. The events have been by his staff, and Grabby has suggested the same. The end result is the only thing that's up in the air, and the WH will neither confirm nor deny them.

Unnamed source: A, B, C and D happened, leading to E.
White House: A, B, C and D happened, but we didn't do E, so no big deal.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 16, 2017, 12:26:05 PM
This is an outrage, classified info must be protected.  I guess Tillerson hasn't had time to set up that Radio Shack server in his bathroom yet...


Meanwhile, it is reported that Seth Rich (former DNC staffer) had sent thousands of emails to Wiki Leaks shortly before he was assassinated. 

But the Russians....

Since you brought it up... the investigation of Rich has been stymied, and the lead investigator has gone on record as saying that he was told to "let it go".  Give you a dollar if you can tell me who has been pushing to bury this investigation?

The DNC and people in Hillary Clinton's campaign team.   Wonder why that would be, hmm?  Maybe by finding out Rich's killer we might see that the whole "Russia!" thing is BULLSHIT.   

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/16/slain-dnc-staffer-had-contact-with-wikileaks-investigator-says.html

An earlier, expanded version of the stpry included this little nugget: 
"Wheeler [independent investigator] believes powerful forces are preventing the case from a thorough investigation.
 "My investigation shows someone within the D.C. government, Democratic National Committee or Clinton team is blocking the murder investigation from going forward," Wheeler told Fox News. "That is unfortunate. Seth Rich's murder is unsolved as a result of that.""
   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: TAC on May 16, 2017, 12:29:01 PM
I totally understand people's doubt's about Trump, but Clinton was fucking disgusting. So disgusting that an asshole like Trump could become President.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Chino on May 16, 2017, 12:31:31 PM
Remember when Obama wore a brown suit? What a shit show that was.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 16, 2017, 12:31:41 PM
So let's recap:

Trump revealed information that he is entitled, under law, to do.  Doesn't matter whether it is classified or not.

McMaster calls an Intelligence Agent to inform of the information transmitted, again, legally.

Intelligence Agent anonymously and illegally leaks that information to the press.   Again, ILLEGALLY.

Press and partisan "analysts" go after the President.

Sure, makes sense to me.

Is legality the only metric we should use when criticizing  the man though? Legal or not, this seems irresponsible, and as usual, it contradicts the other stories coming out of the White House. Trump seems to be acting like a lone ranger and I think that's what has most people freaked. I mean, he could legally order a nuclear strike on China if he wanted to, it doesn't mean we shouldn't give him hell if he carried through with it.

I don't think anyone is questioning whether what he did was legal or not. They're asking if it was appropriate. If we have foreign help and have a guy inside ISIS that's sneaking information out to us, doesn't this risk that relationship? If the country/group/person we're working with didn't want this information in the hands of the Russians, was it right to give it to them regardless of legality?

Well, when we're talking about the things that some here are talking about, sure.   "Impeachment"?   

As for the next tier of "appropriateness", we can speculate, but we are not in a position to make that determination.  We have no idea the circumstances of the release. We don't know if we got something in return.  We don't know if it was vetted first.  We don't know ANY of the things we need to know to make that determination.

Google this, Trump fans:   back in July of 1945, Harry S. Truman sat down with one of the most dangerous dictators in modern history, a man that was ostensibly our "ally" but who FDR famously DID NOT TRUST (read "Roosevelt's Secret War" by Joseph Persico for a great outline of the level of his distrust for Stalin), and told him - "casually", in Truman's own words - of the development of what was then and likely still is now, the most awesome weapon the world has ever known.

 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: TAC on May 16, 2017, 12:32:33 PM
Remember when Obama wore a brown suit? What a shit show that was.

What happened?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 16, 2017, 12:35:24 PM
So let's recap:

Trump revealed information that he is entitled, under law, to do.  Doesn't matter whether it is classified or not.

McMaster calls an Intelligence Agent to inform of the information transmitted, again, legally.

Intelligence Agent anonymously and illegally leaks that information to the press.   Again, ILLEGALLY.

Press and partisan "analysts" go after the President.

Sure, makes sense to me.
You're stepping out on your wife. You tell your best friend about it over beers one night, with the caveat "don't tell anybody!" He tells his wife and word gets back to yours. Are you ever going to tell your friend anything? Of course not. He's unreliable. The difference is that we need to know what others know, and by being flippant with that info we make it considerably less likely they'll help us. Moreover, I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time. I think we had this problem with Qatar once before, and I'm guessing it was those guys that gave us this intel.

And what happens if this country, my guess Qatar, catches heat from its own populace. Or from the Saudis or some other neighboring country that doesn't take kindly on helping us out? But hey, it was legal so fuck'em.

I don't argue any of that.  All of it is possibly and even probably true.   But at the point that it moves from "illegal" to "legal", it becomes mere speculation, and like we question the backroom deal that Obama cut with the Big Pharmaceuticals (to the tune of $80 billion dollars in guaranteed profits) in order to get his pet law passed, we can only offer that without more info, it doesn't seem to make sense.   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Chino on May 16, 2017, 12:35:28 PM
Remember when Obama wore a brown suit? What a shit show that was.

What happened?

He got absolutely shit on for it with people on news networks saying things like "this sends the wrong message to our allies"
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: bosk1 on May 16, 2017, 12:36:55 PM
Good post, RuRoRul.  I think you hit the nail on the head with the first few paragraphs.  The problem I have is what you mention in terms of us not being able to know.  We just don't.  And every few days there is seemingly a new story about how we "SHOULD"  be concerned because some anonymous source somewhere says we should be.  About something.  And because a lot of these sources have said similar things that are similarly unconfirmed, we should see a pattern and established history.  But the pattern and history I keep seeing is a pattern and history of reporting things that end up not being substantiated.  That concerns me more than anything I have actually seen out of this administration so far, because if and when something happens that actually should concern me, there is a far greater likelihood that I am going to miss it because it's lumped in with all the crying wolf and handwringing that has been going on at the expense of finding and reporting truth.
Well, for one thing we should always be concerned. As I've said before, there is nobody on Earth more deserving of scrutiny than the POTUS, and it doesn't matter if he's a R, D or certified lunatic.

Agreed.  But I am not talking about mere scrutiny.  I'm talking about chicken little "the sky is falling" reporting that is at such a fever pitch that the general public cannot separate fact from fiction.

But more to this point, I'm not sure how this isn't confirmed. The events have been by his staff, and Grabby has suggested the same. The end result is the only thing that's up in the air, and the WH will neither confirm nor deny them.

Unnamed source: A, B, C and D happened, leading to E.
White House: A, B, C and D happened, but we didn't do E, so no big deal.

I haven't seen anything that indicates anywhere near that level of certainty.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 16, 2017, 12:37:20 PM
won't these silly  (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/opinion/trump-classified-data.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)

liberals (https://www.lawfareblog.com/bombshell-initial-thoughts-washington-posts-game-changing-story)

stop going crazy over nothing? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/05/16/mcmaster-and-tillerson-are-complicit-in-trumps-dishonesty-so-must-they-resign/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.737e79862647)

And this is EXACTLY why the "legal"/"illegal" distinction is important.  Antigoon, I presume was 'joking', but it wasn't funny, and is painfully accurate.    Why should anyone resign?   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: AngelBack on May 16, 2017, 12:38:37 PM
This is an outrage, classified info must be protected.  I guess Tillerson hasn't had time to set up that Radio Shack server in his bathroom yet...


Meanwhile, it is reported that Seth Rich (former DNC staffer) had sent thousands of emails to Wiki Leaks shortly before he was assassinated. 

But the Russians....

Since you brought it up... the investigation of Rich has been stymied, and the lead investigator has gone on record as saying that he was told to "let it go".  Give you a dollar if you can tell me who has been pushing to bury this investigation?

The DNC and people in Hillary Clinton's campaign team.   Wonder why that would be, hmm?  Maybe by finding out Rich's killer we might see that the whole "Russia!" thing is BULLSHIT.   

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/16/slain-dnc-staffer-had-contact-with-wikileaks-investigator-says.html

An earlier, expanded version of the stpry included this little nugget: 
"Wheeler [independent investigator] believes powerful forces are preventing the case from a thorough investigation.
 "My investigation shows someone within the D.C. government, Democratic National Committee or Clinton team is blocking the murder investigation from going forward," Wheeler told Fox News. "That is unfortunate. Seth Rich's murder is unsolved as a result of that.""
 

Yep, and over 60,000 emails forwarded to Wiki from this guy in the days preceding his murder.  Yoga, wedding plans etc....I'm sure
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 16, 2017, 12:39:03 PM
Anybody else getting tired of all this winning?

Not me.  Stock market up, jobs being created, trade deals being addressed, a key alliance in the war on ISIS being formed...   my wallet has room, let's keep the winning going!  FINALLY we're getting shit done.   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 16, 2017, 12:40:23 PM
Good post, RuRoRul.  I think you hit the nail on the head with the first few paragraphs.  The problem I have is what you mention in terms of us not being able to know.  We just don't.  And every few days there is seemingly a new story about how we "SHOULD"  be concerned because some anonymous source somewhere says we should be.  About something.  And because a lot of these sources have said similar things that are similarly unconfirmed, we should see a pattern and established history.  But the pattern and history I keep seeing is a pattern and history of reporting things that end up not being substantiated. That concerns me more than anything I have actually seen out of this administration so far, because if and when something happens that actually should concern me, there is a far greater likelihood that I am going to miss it because it's lumped in with all the crying wolf and handwringing that has been going on at the expense of finding and reporting truth.

First... agree that RuRo had a great post - especially the "infotainment" aspect of the media, particularly CNN/Fox.  Despite that what they often report on is accurate, the spectacle that they then create as a result of it is maddening.

Second to the point I bolded.  Really?  What has the media reported on that has ended up being unsubstantiated?  I'm drawing blanks at the moment.  If you mean opinion and conjecture pieces (eg, why Comey was fired), then ok.  But what pieces of information have they uncovered and reported on that have turned out to be false?  If we flip that coin on POTUS, there's  Obama 'tapp' of Trump tower; 3M voter fraud; employment stats; crime stats; terror attacks in Sweden... I'll just stop at 5.  I've read articles that suggest it's anywhere between 250 and 493 mis-truths/lies/deceptions in his first 100 days.

Are you not also concerned that your POTUS continually claims things that are simply not true?

@ coz ... :clap:
@ TAC ... as was recently said about Hilary "It takes a lot of hard work to lose to Donald Trump". 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 16, 2017, 12:41:03 PM
a key alliance in the war on ISIS being formed ratted out to the Reds

FTFY
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: TAC on May 16, 2017, 12:43:36 PM
Remember when Obama wore a brown suit? What a shit show that was.

What happened?

He got absolutely shit on for it with people on news networks saying things like "this sends the wrong message to our allies"

Huh. I totally don't even know what that's about.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 16, 2017, 12:44:34 PM
This is an outrage, classified info must be protected.  I guess Tillerson hasn't had time to set up that Radio Shack server in his bathroom yet...


Meanwhile, it is reported that Seth Rich (former DNC staffer) had sent thousands of emails to Wiki Leaks shortly before he was assassinated. 

But the Russians....

Since you brought it up... the investigation of Rich has been stymied, and the lead investigator has gone on record as saying that he was told to "let it go".  Give you a dollar if you can tell me who has been pushing to bury this investigation?

The DNC and people in Hillary Clinton's campaign team.   Wonder why that would be, hmm?  Maybe by finding out Rich's killer we might see that the whole "Russia!" thing is BULLSHIT.   

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/16/slain-dnc-staffer-had-contact-with-wikileaks-investigator-says.html

An earlier, expanded version of the stpry included this little nugget: 
"Wheeler [independent investigator] believes powerful forces are preventing the case from a thorough investigation.
 "My investigation shows someone within the D.C. government, Democratic National Committee or Clinton team is blocking the murder investigation from going forward," Wheeler told Fox News. "That is unfortunate. Seth Rich's murder is unsolved as a result of that.""
 
What on Earth would make the Rich thing any more believable than any of the countless bungles you give Grabby the benefit of the doubt on? You seem to demand nothing short of iron clad proof on one, yet seem perfectly content to latch onto the other and run with it with little more than allegations and innuendo.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 16, 2017, 12:47:42 PM
Anybody else getting tired of all this winning?

Not me.  Stock market up, jobs being created, trade deals being addressed, a key alliance in the war on ISIS being formed...   my wallet has room, let's keep the winning going!  FINALLY we're getting shit done.

Yes, stock market is up.  Jobs created?  Arguable - I thought I saw a report that said growth was in decline in Q1?  Trade deals being addressed... sure, whatever.  Canadian media is reporting something a little different, but you go ahead and take Grabby at face value. 

Personally, my opinion is that the stock market is over-compensating for the political environment, and there is an "adjustment" looming.  Just wait for that tax plan, or until year-end in September, or some economic reports showing the real impact of a Trump Administration.  Right now, you haven't even had a full fiscal quarter with Grabby at the helm.  I'd buckle up.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 16, 2017, 12:52:51 PM
won't these silly  (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/opinion/trump-classified-data.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)

liberals (https://www.lawfareblog.com/bombshell-initial-thoughts-washington-posts-game-changing-story)

stop going crazy over nothing? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/05/16/mcmaster-and-tillerson-are-complicit-in-trumps-dishonesty-so-must-they-resign/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.737e79862647)

And this is EXACTLY why the "legal"/"illegal" distinction is important.  Antigoon, I presume was 'joking', but it wasn't funny, and is painfully accurate.    Why should anyone resign?   

the "joke" is that the authors of all those pieces aren't exactly liberals. This isn't just partisan hysteria, is the point.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 16, 2017, 12:53:51 PM
So let's recap:

Trump revealed information that he is entitled, under law, to do.  Doesn't matter whether it is classified or not.

McMaster calls an Intelligence Agent to inform of the information transmitted, again, legally.

Intelligence Agent anonymously and illegally leaks that information to the press.   Again, ILLEGALLY.

Press and partisan "analysts" go after the President.

Sure, makes sense to me.
Wow

Yeah.  Indeed.  If it wasn't for how thorough and well spoken almost all of Stadler's P/R commentary was, I might have believed he's a troll.  Perhaps he's the most eloquent troll in the world.  If what is reported is true - disclosing classified information to a foreign non-ally - it's hard to make sense of how anyone can see this a 'no biggie', that the bigger problem is the media/leaks.

Stadler, I wasn't around much during the campaign, but what was your position on all the Wikileaks shit?

Jingle, please don't dismiss me as a troll.  I'm not at all interested in winding people up.  I'm not at all interested in arguing for the sake of arguing (except with el Barto, because I ALWAYS learn something arguing with him and he's a top dude.  I consider him a friend).    This isn't at all trolling. It's presenting alternative viewpoints in the face of what seems to be a lot of innuendo, supposition and conflation of a bunch of important issues down to "he's not my guy".   Most of my friends in "real life" are at least moderately liberal, if not hard core Bernie supporters, and I feel like I'm a man without a party.  I did not vote for Trump (and wouldn't now, even if I could) and think he is an embarrassment when compared to real Presidents like Clinton, Reagan, Kennedy, Truman, Lincoln, Adams (my favorite of the Founding Fathers), Jefferson, and Washington. 

But that doesn't mean we get to slander/libel him.   I feel like the current evironmnet of "social media", the blurring of the lines between "fact" and "editorial", and the recent trend that "MY OPINION MATTERS!" independent of any grounding in facts (or accounting for facts that disagree with your sacred opinions), and I feel it's my job to puncture hyperbole and bluster.   

Quote
Naturally!  Those in Grabby's inner circle that were there are going to cry "no biggie".  To use El Barto's analogy - a guy who cheats on his wife at his bachelor party with a stripper that his pals ordered for him - of course they're all going to claim 'no biggie'.

But the difference is, in el Barto's example, we KNOW that the guy cheated.   Here, we don't.   And in el Barto's example, what the friend (or the friend's wife) did wasn't illegal.  Here, it is VERY likely that leak to WaPo WAS illegal.  So let's not get too carried away with hypotheticals here, when we don't have a complete story.

And it SLAYS me that we aren't even talking about the most important piece of information here, that potentially ISIS can load explosives into a LAPTOP that can bring down a jet airliner.   

Quote
Well, what I understand has been reported is that - regardless of the details - this was NOT information that was wise or *should* have been shared with anyone, let alone the Russians.  Does the lack of specifics of 'what' and 'why' mean that no one should be alarmed? 

Remember Flynn?  "nothing to see here" was the administration's response for weeks.  Then... Ooops, there is something here - You're Fired!  There are so many damaging topics that have been reported on that ultimately come out as true.  How are ANY of those situations good for your President/Presidency.  It's an absolute gong-show - at least, that's how the rest of the world sees it.

Well, let's not get into the 'the rest of the world...'   That's all we heard about Bush - the rest of the world mocks us, the rest of the world this, the rest of the world that, but when Obama came in and basically rolled on every issue, we didn't seem to worry that the rest of the world was walking all over us as a nation. 

As for your point on "so many stories..." well, so be it.  Let's wait until they come out instead of trying to guess what bad thing it is today.  You have plenty of ammo; Trump is impetuous, impulsive, and thinks he can run the free world off the top of his head.   All less than desireable traits in a President.   But - depending on how you characterize it - that's either why he was elected (to shake things up and stop with the gladhanding) or not why he was elected (he was elected because he was going to get things done for that middle class that the left has ignored, in favor of the special interests and their war on the 1%, for years). 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 16, 2017, 12:55:22 PM
This new piece from Thrusch and Haberman is worth reading in its entirety but here's the last few paragraphs:

Quote
There is a fear among some of Mr. Trump’s senior advisers about leaving him alone in meetings with foreign leaders out of concern he might speak out of turn. General McMaster, in particular, has tried to insert caveats or gentle corrections into conversations when he believes the president is straying off topic or onto boggy diplomatic ground.

This has, at times, chafed the president, according to two officials with knowledge of the situation. Mr. Trump, who still openly laments having to dismiss his first national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, has groused that General McMaster talks too much in meetings, and the president has referred to him as “a pain,” according to one of the officials.

In private, three administration officials conceded that they could not publicly articulate their most compelling — and honest — defense of the president: that Mr. Trump, a hasty and indifferent reader of printed briefing materials, simply did not possess the interest or knowledge of the granular details of intelligence gathering to leak specific sources and methods of intelligence gathering that would do harm to United States allies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/white-house-staff.html?_r=0
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 16, 2017, 12:58:31 PM
If this is what "winning" looks like, I guess I'll be content to be a Canadian loser, eh?

This is the kind of statement - along with the flip "but her emails!" - actually explains why Trump was elected.   "Winning" isn't defined as "doing things like the Democrats want it done".   "Winning" is "addressing the problems of the people that have been ignored for too long now in favor of the elitist, identity-politics driven agenda of the Democrat party".   I'm not suggesting that this is right, or that I agree with it (I don't, for the record; I disagree with over half of Trump's economic policy, and I can explain why, if you're interested), but it is.   The people that voted for Trump in the swing states were all Obama Democrats; almost all those counties/districts that swung him to victory were counties/districts that Obama won in '08 and '12.  And they got dick to show for it.   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 16, 2017, 01:03:42 PM
"Winning" isn't defined as "doing things like the Democrats want it done".

No, it isn't.  It's defined as "doing things like Donald J. Trump (or Charlie Sheen) wants it done."  Neither he, nor Republicans, nor Democrats give a shit about "the problems of the people".  They give a shit about power and money in their pockets like everybody else.  Difference between them and "the people" is that they already have the power and money and they're going to fight tooth and nail to keep it out of the hands of "the people".
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 16, 2017, 01:03:54 PM
I don't know how you or anyone else could declare that there was "nothing to see"

I have a tough time with this also, but I suspect in most instances, it's because (R).

That's not specifically pointed at bosk or anyone here, but in general.

To both of you; why does it have to be "FULL BLOWN INFERNO" or "NOTHING TO SEE"?    If Flynn is guilty of something, then prove it and be done with it.  You (collective) don't need "Trump" making that determination unilaterally; it has to be proved.   I know for me, I don't really care whether Flynn is guilty or not in the sense that "R" has nothing to do with it.  If you commit a crime, you should be convicted and do the time, regardless of the party.  But whether you're Hillary Clinton or Michael Flynn, you have the right to Due Process, you have the right to be considered "innocent" until proven "guilty".   Why is that a "party" issue?   

I was clear, if not here, then on other boards, that I was prepared and ready, willing and able to vote for Hillary until it was showed conclusively and without doubt that she perjured herself in front of both the FBI and Congress.  Then I voted - out of principle - for the Libertarian candidate (in part because I don't like the idea that someone who has never held elected office on any level should have his/her first office be the most powerful office on the planet). 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 16, 2017, 01:06:08 PM
I don't know how you or anyone else could declare that there was "nothing to see"

I have a tough time with this also, but I suspect in most instances, it's because (R).

That's not specifically pointed at bosk or anyone here, but in general.

To both of you; why does it have to be "FULL BLOWN INFERNO" or "NOTHING TO SEE"?    If Flynn is guilty of something, then prove it and be done with it.  You (collective) don't need "Trump" making that determination unilaterally; it has to be proved.   I know for me, I don't really care whether Flynn is guilty or not in the sense that "R" has nothing to do with it.  If you commit a crime, you should be convicted and do the time, regardless of the party.  But whether you're Hillary Clinton or Michael Flynn, you have the right to Due Process, you have the right to be considered "innocent" until proven "guilty".   Why is that a "party" issue?   
So would you let OJ date your daughter?  :biggrin:
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 16, 2017, 01:07:25 PM
lol
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 16, 2017, 01:09:56 PM
There are major faults in media coverage, and they deserve some of the criticism that is levied at them. But - assuming Donald eventually leaves the hot seat without pushing the button - this may be one of the worst things to come from all of this in the end: the fact that that distrust of the media for legitimate reasons has been taken and simplified to the point of just pointing at something you don't like and saying "fake news!". In my opinion, the major problems with the media have been less about making stuff up out of no where (that was reserved for genuine "fake news" when it actually had a meaning), and more about the bias shown when they covered what happens, or even in their choices of what to cover. CNN or Fox News choosing to focus exclusively on the stories that fit their "side", or blending news reporting with "infotainment" and opinion so that people can't easily tell which is which, are imo prime examples of the problems with the media that meant they lost a lot of the public trust. But that is different from literally reporting completely incorrect or fabricated information.

But you realize that the only "new" think from Trump is the term "fake news".  This has been going on now in one form or another for a decade.   The idea that the media is biased, and has an agenda beyond the mere disbursement of facts, is nothing new.  Both Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather were VERY vocal following the end of their on-air tenures that their "craft" of journalism is under attack by less scrupulous purveyors.  Sean Hannity isn't a new show on Fox News.  Rachel Maddow has been around for a while.  Van Jones, crying and pitching a hissy fit ON AIR as the news breaks that Hillary lost to Trump...  this is not Trump.   Trump is  PRODUCT of this. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 16, 2017, 01:11:33 PM
Remember when Obama wore a brown suit? What a shit show that was.

What happened?

He got absolutely shit on for it with people on news networks saying things like "this sends the wrong message to our allies"

Is that true? I never heard that.  What does a "brown suit" have to do with anything?   Wha????
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 16, 2017, 01:18:29 PM
Remember when Obama wore a brown suit? What a shit show that was.

What happened?

He got absolutely shit on for it with people on news networks saying things like "this sends the wrong message to our allies"

Is that true? I never heard that.  What does a "brown suit" have to do with anything?   Wha????

I dont recall that personally
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Chino on May 16, 2017, 01:19:35 PM
Remember when Obama wore a brown suit? What a shit show that was.

What happened?

He got absolutely shit on for it with people on news networks saying things like "this sends the wrong message to our allies"

Is that true? I never heard that.  What does a "brown suit" have to do with anything?   Wha????

I dont recall that personally

Really? It was right up there with the coffee salute.

Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 16, 2017, 01:20:33 PM
 :lol now I remember the coffee salute
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 16, 2017, 01:21:20 PM
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/president-obama-peter-king-tan-suit-rant
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 16, 2017, 01:21:45 PM
It was a tan suit, but the uproar was real. Personally, I didn't have a problem with the message, but it was a butt ugly suit.

(https://dawm7kda6y2v0.cloudfront.net/uploads/2014/08/ogmr5kkzxhafxyfxqro2-654x362-d41d8cd.jpg)
Quote from: Rep Peter King
“There’s no way any of us can excuse what the president did yesterday,” King said on NewsMaxTV on Friday. The interview was flagged by Buzzfeed. “When you have the world watching … a week, two weeks of anticipation of what the United States is gonna do. For him to walk out —I’m not trying to be trivial here— in a light suit, light tan suit, saying that first he wants to talk about what most Americans care about the revision of second quarter numbers on the economy. This is a week after Jim Foley was beheaded and he’s trying to act like real Americans care about the economy, not about ISIS and not about terrorism. And then he goes on to say he has no strategy.”

Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: TAC on May 16, 2017, 01:23:53 PM
What's the coffee salute?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: bosk1 on May 16, 2017, 01:24:18 PM
I don't know how you or anyone else could declare that there was "nothing to see"

I have a tough time with this also, but I suspect in most instances, it's because (R).

That's not specifically pointed at bosk or anyone here, but in general.

To both of you; why does it have to be "FULL BLOWN INFERNO" or "NOTHING TO SEE"?    If Flynn is guilty of something, then prove it and be done with it.  You (collective) don't need "Trump" making that determination unilaterally; it has to be proved.   I know for me, I don't really care whether Flynn is guilty or not in the sense that "R" has nothing to do with it.  If you commit a crime, you should be convicted and do the time, regardless of the party.  But whether you're Hillary Clinton or Michael Flynn, you have the right to Due Process, you have the right to be considered "innocent" until proven "guilty".   Why is that a "party" issue?   
Pretty much this.  If there is fire (or even smoke), let's go after it.  But I'm not going to go hide in my neighbor's backyard bunker because the news is telling me every five minutes that I need to because they think there is smoke somewhere, yet again, and it has reportedly reached unprecedented levels of smoke.  I can't see it for all the smoke being blown by the news.

And along those lines...
Good post, RuRoRul.  I think you hit the nail on the head with the first few paragraphs.  The problem I have is what you mention in terms of us not being able to know.  We just don't.  And every few days there is seemingly a new story about how we "SHOULD"  be concerned because some anonymous source somewhere says we should be.  About something.  And because a lot of these sources have said similar things that are similarly unconfirmed, we should see a pattern and established history.  But the pattern and history I keep seeing is a pattern and history of reporting things that end up not being substantiated. That concerns me more than anything I have actually seen out of this administration so far, because if and when something happens that actually should concern me, there is a far greater likelihood that I am going to miss it because it's lumped in with all the crying wolf and handwringing that has been going on at the expense of finding and reporting truth.

First... agree that RuRo had a great post - especially the "infotainment" aspect of the media, particularly CNN/Fox.  Despite that what they often report on is accurate, the spectacle that they then create as a result of it is maddening.

Second to the point I bolded.  Really?  What has the media reported on that has ended up being unsubstantiated?  I'm drawing blanks at the moment.  If you mean opinion and conjecture pieces (eg, why Comey was fired), then ok.  But what pieces of information have they uncovered and reported on that have turned out to be false?  If we flip that coin on POTUS, there's  Obama 'tapp' of Trump tower; 3M voter fraud; employment stats; crime stats; terror attacks in Sweden... I'll just stop at 5.  I've read articles that suggest it's anywhere between 250 and 493 mis-truths/lies/deceptions in his first 100 days.

Are you not also concerned that your POTUS continually claims things that are simply not true?

If he were continually claiming things that are simply not true, then yes.  But the point remains, I haven't seen anything.  250-493 lies?  Great.  Show me.  But I guarantee they can't.  If there were even 1% of that many actual mis-truths, and those rose to a level of being substantial enough to be actionable, there would be legitimate action being taken against him.  There isn't.  So, instead, we are left with this circular narrative along the lies of:  "He must be lying now because there is a report that shows 250 lies, and therefore, he must be a liar, and so we should revise the report now to say 251 lies, which proves he is a liar, so he must be lying about the next thing that some anonymous source says he is lying about..."  Show me the money.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 16, 2017, 01:27:21 PM
What's the coffee salute?
He kind of half-assed a salute to the marines guarding Marine One while juggling a cup of coffee. This showed how much he hates America, apparently.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 16, 2017, 01:27:53 PM
Show me the money.

(http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u97/FierociousGT/Obama-MakeItRain-32.gif)
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 16, 2017, 01:27:59 PM
This is an outrage, classified info must be protected.  I guess Tillerson hasn't had time to set up that Radio Shack server in his bathroom yet...


Meanwhile, it is reported that Seth Rich (former DNC staffer) had sent thousands of emails to Wiki Leaks shortly before he was assassinated. 

But the Russians....

Since you brought it up... the investigation of Rich has been stymied, and the lead investigator has gone on record as saying that he was told to "let it go".  Give you a dollar if you can tell me who has been pushing to bury this investigation?

The DNC and people in Hillary Clinton's campaign team.   Wonder why that would be, hmm?  Maybe by finding out Rich's killer we might see that the whole "Russia!" thing is BULLSHIT.   

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/16/slain-dnc-staffer-had-contact-with-wikileaks-investigator-says.html

An earlier, expanded version of the stpry included this little nugget: 
"Wheeler [independent investigator] believes powerful forces are preventing the case from a thorough investigation.
 "My investigation shows someone within the D.C. government, Democratic National Committee or Clinton team is blocking the murder investigation from going forward," Wheeler told Fox News. "That is unfortunate. Seth Rich's murder is unsolved as a result of that.""
 
What on Earth would make the Rich thing any more believable than any of the countless bungles you give Grabby the benefit of the doubt on? You seem to demand nothing short of iron clad proof on one, yet seem perfectly content to latch onto the other and run with it with little more than allegations and innuendo.

<Shh, don't tell anyone on the board, just between us, neither story is any more or less credible than the other.   That's not the point. I don't believe that Hillary Clinton had Seth Rich double-tapped in the back of the head any more than I believe that Trump is in cahoots with the Rooskies.   It's just a way of showing that the innuendo goes both ways, that none of these stories is as black and white as we'd like to think, and there's nothing "unique" about the "smoke and fire" analogies that we're being pelted with.> 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: RuRoRul on May 16, 2017, 01:31:52 PM
There are major faults in media coverage, and they deserve some of the criticism that is levied at them. But - assuming Donald eventually leaves the hot seat without pushing the button - this may be one of the worst things to come from all of this in the end: the fact that that distrust of the media for legitimate reasons has been taken and simplified to the point of just pointing at something you don't like and saying "fake news!". In my opinion, the major problems with the media have been less about making stuff up out of no where (that was reserved for genuine "fake news" when it actually had a meaning), and more about the bias shown when they covered what happens, or even in their choices of what to cover. CNN or Fox News choosing to focus exclusively on the stories that fit their "side", or blending news reporting with "infotainment" and opinion so that people can't easily tell which is which, are imo prime examples of the problems with the media that meant they lost a lot of the public trust. But that is different from literally reporting completely incorrect or fabricated information.

But you realize that the only "new" think from Trump is the term "fake news".  This has been going on now in one form or another for a decade.   The idea that the media is biased, and has an agenda beyond the mere disbursement of facts, is nothing new.  Both Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather were VERY vocal following the end of their on-air tenures that their "craft" of journalism is under attack by less scrupulous purveyors.  Sean Hannity isn't a new show on Fox News.  Rachel Maddow has been around for a while.  Van Jones, crying and pitching a hissy fit ON AIR as the news breaks that Hillary lost to Trump...  this is not Trump.   Trump is  PRODUCT of this.
Trump is a product of this. That doesn't mean that he can't contribute to making it even worse.

Since we're talking about scenarios where a good degree of critical thinking and a balance between open-mindedness and skepticism is necessary, then I would argue that anything which further simplifies and strips the nuance and complexities from the discussion makes things worse. The idea that you do not even need to acknowledge reality when you can just call anything that doesn't appeal to you "fake" is very dangerous. Rather than confronting the facts and making the case as to why an interpretation is wrong or that something else is being missed, you can just chant "fake news, fake news! Fake news! Fake News! FAKE NEWS! FAKE NEWS!!!" over and over, until the noise is loud enough that it can placate those that would prefer not to hear anything else, and loud enough to at least muddy the waters for anyone else who wants to find out the truth.

Yes, it's not a brand new phenomenon and stuff like that has been happening for a long time. But  Trump's contribution, including the normalisation of that phrase being used to describe any reporting you don't like, makes things worse because it drags the discussion down even further and increases the division between the different information bubbles, to the point where rather than confronting both the facts and the bias that might be used to spin them, people on either side will be encouraged further to essentially just stick their fingers in their ears and shout "la la la la la". See the anecdote a few pages ago about the kid who upon being told that CNN was reporting Comey was fired went on to say "Oh, CNN? That's fake news." That's not helping people to be genuinely critical or skeptical of what they hear in the media so they can be better informed - that's giving people an easy, catch-all response they can apply without thought to anything that they don't want to hear. Regardless of what happens with Trump, the fact that this might still be the standard way people respond to new information is very concerning.

Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: TAC on May 16, 2017, 01:32:50 PM
What's the coffee salute?
He kind of half-assed a salute to the marines guarding Marine One while juggling a cup of coffee. This showed how much he hates America, apparently.

Huh. Guess I haven't been paying attention.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Chino on May 16, 2017, 01:33:03 PM
What's the coffee salute?

Marine One pilots who were on great terms with Obama received a salute from Obama while he had a cup of coffee in his hand. It was basically the worst parts of the Bible and 9/11 all in one.


(http://brightcove.vo.llnwd.net/e1/pd/4221396001/4221396001_3802537746001_obama-coffee.jpg?pubId=4221396001)

And just for good measure.
(https://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/uploader/image/2014/09/23/LatteSaluteBushBarney1.jpg)
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 16, 2017, 01:33:31 PM
Anybody else getting tired of all this winning?

Not me.  Stock market up, jobs being created, trade deals being addressed, a key alliance in the war on ISIS being formed...   my wallet has room, let's keep the winning going!  FINALLY we're getting shit done.

Yes, stock market is up.  Jobs created?  Arguable - I thought I saw a report that said growth was in decline in Q1?  Trade deals being addressed... sure, whatever.  Canadian media is reporting something a little different, but you go ahead and take Grabby at face value. 

Personally, my opinion is that the stock market is over-compensating for the political environment, and there is an "adjustment" looming.  Just wait for that tax plan, or until year-end in September, or some economic reports showing the real impact of a Trump Administration.  Right now, you haven't even had a full fiscal quarter with Grabby at the helm.  I'd buckle up.

Well the Canadians are just pissed about the softwood tariffs, so... :)  :D

As for the stock market, I posted a couple pieces about six months back that basically put some of the blame for the crash of 2008/2009 on Obama.  I'm not going to go into it here, but suffice to say, for me, "Consumer Confidence" has as much to do with the stock market - if not more - than any specific fact or anything that any president could specifically do.  So you're preaching to the choir on that.  I'm more responding to the "Twitter-level" analysis of quippy, pithy statements that have no real probative value.  The truth and reality is, we - and that means BOTH sides - have no idea at this point if we're actually "winning" or not.   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 16, 2017, 01:34:19 PM
won't these silly  (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/opinion/trump-classified-data.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)

liberals (https://www.lawfareblog.com/bombshell-initial-thoughts-washington-posts-game-changing-story)

stop going crazy over nothing? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/05/16/mcmaster-and-tillerson-are-complicit-in-trumps-dishonesty-so-must-they-resign/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.737e79862647)

And this is EXACTLY why the "legal"/"illegal" distinction is important.  Antigoon, I presume was 'joking', but it wasn't funny, and is painfully accurate.    Why should anyone resign?   

the "joke" is that the authors of all those pieces aren't exactly liberals. This isn't just partisan hysteria, is the point.

Gotcha.  It's BIPARTISAN hysteria.   :)   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: TAC on May 16, 2017, 01:35:42 PM
What's the coffee salute?

Marine One pilots who were on great terms with Obama received a salute from Obama while he had a cup of coffee in his hand. It was basically the worst parts of the Bible and 9/11 all in one.


(http://brightcove.vo.llnwd.net/e1/pd/4221396001/4221396001_3802537746001_obama-coffee.jpg?pubId=4221396001)

And just for good measure.
(https://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/uploader/image/2014/09/23/LatteSaluteBushBarney1.jpg)

 :lol

Apparently Bush couldn't even have the decency to salute them with an American Terrier!
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 16, 2017, 01:38:20 PM
Holy fuck this board is moving fast today - 16 replies while I typed this!

@ Stadler... First, I DON'T consider you a troll, that was my point (apologies it wasn't clear).  You have excellent points in everything you say - even if I think some of them are misguided and/or I disagree with them.  This is healthy dialog.  Second, it's probably unfair for me to say "rest of the world", when I really only have a Canadian perspective - and it's not THE Canadian perspective... I know people who are in favour of Grabby.

@ Bosk...

If he were continually claiming things that are simply not true, then yes.  But the point remains, I haven't seen anything.  250-493 lies?  Great.  Show me.  But I guarantee they can't.  If there were even 1% of that many actual mis-truths, and those rose to a level of being substantial enough to be actionable, there would be legitimate action being taken against him.  There isn't.  So, instead, we are left with this circular narrative along the lies of:  "He must be lying now because there is a report that shows 250 lies, and therefore, he must be a liar, and so we should revise the report now to say 251 lies, which proves he is a liar, so he must be lying about the next thing that some anonymous source says he is lying about..."  Show me the money.

If you want to read them, here's one link (https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/05/16/donald-trump-has-said-100s-of-false-things-heres-all-of-them.html).  Here's another (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.e4e848b925af).  Happy reading.

It's not 250 topics his lied about, but 250 times he's mis-spoke the truth and/or facts.  While some of these comments come across as his opinion (eg, 'Obamacare is imploding'), it's still a mis-truth, and one would think that POTUS would be very careful on what is offered as opinion.  Many of these are outright false - whether stated through ignorance or deception, it's still making false statements.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 16, 2017, 01:39:15 PM
I'm still confused about the Obama suit  :lol It looks bad IMO (stylish that is) but why were people mad?  Even that quote and linked article make no sense to me.  I can at least see why people were bothered by the coffee salute.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 16, 2017, 01:41:37 PM
I'm still confused about the Obama suit  :lol It looks bad IMO (stylish that is) but why were people mad?  Even that quote and linked article make no sense to me.  I can at least see why people were bothered by the coffee salute.
They felt it wasn't serious enough. Personally, I just think it was poorly tailored.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: vtgrad on May 16, 2017, 01:47:29 PM
This new piece from Thrusch and Haberman is worth reading in its entirety but here's the last few paragraphs:

Quote
There is a fear among some of Mr. Trump’s senior advisers about leaving him alone in meetings with foreign leaders out of concern he might speak out of turn. General McMaster, in particular, has tried to insert caveats or gentle corrections into conversations when he believes the president is straying off topic or onto boggy diplomatic ground.

This has, at times, chafed the president, according to two officials with knowledge of the situation. Mr. Trump, who still openly laments having to dismiss his first national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, has groused that General McMaster talks too much in meetings, and the president has referred to him as “a pain,” according to one of the officials.

In private, three administration officials conceded that they could not publicly articulate their most compelling — and honest — defense of the president: that Mr. Trump, a hasty and indifferent reader of printed briefing materials, simply did not possess the interest or knowledge of the granular details of intelligence gathering to leak specific sources and methods of intelligence gathering that would do harm to United States allies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/white-house-staff.html?_r=0

Perhaps the honesty in that last paragraph is what is needed.  No POTUS, regardless of their party or politics, should have it said of them what is in bold above.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 16, 2017, 01:50:43 PM
I don't know how you or anyone else could declare that there was "nothing to see"

I have a tough time with this also, but I suspect in most instances, it's because (R).

That's not specifically pointed at bosk or anyone here, but in general.

To both of you; why does it have to be "FULL BLOWN INFERNO" or "NOTHING TO SEE"?    If Flynn is guilty of something, then prove it and be done with it.  You (collective) don't need "Trump" making that determination unilaterally; it has to be proved.   I know for me, I don't really care whether Flynn is guilty or not in the sense that "R" has nothing to do with it.  If you commit a crime, you should be convicted and do the time, regardless of the party.  But whether you're Hillary Clinton or Michael Flynn, you have the right to Due Process, you have the right to be considered "innocent" until proven "guilty".   Why is that a "party" issue?   
So would you let OJ date your daughter?  :biggrin:

You've been hanging out with me too long.  :)   

Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 16, 2017, 01:53:01 PM
Show me the money.

(http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u97/FierociousGT/Obama-MakeItRain-32.gif)

I want a hat like that dude on the left. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 16, 2017, 01:58:28 PM
Since we're talking about scenarios where a good degree of critical thinking and a balance between open-mindedness and skepticism is necessary, then I would argue that anything which further simplifies and strips the nuance and complexities from the discussion makes things worse. The idea that you do not even need to acknowledge reality when you can just call anything that doesn't appeal to you "fake" is very dangerous. Rather than confronting the facts and making the case as to why an interpretation is wrong or that something else is being missed, you can just chant "fake news, fake news! Fake news! Fake News! FAKE NEWS! FAKE NEWS!!!" over and over, until the noise is loud enough that it can placate those that would prefer not to hear anything else, and loud enough to at least muddy the waters for anyone else who wants to find out the truth.

I wish that was a little shorter, and I'd put it in my signature.   I still may even take the first sentence.  I couldn't have said it better.   BUT, it can be more insidious than the blatant "FAKE NEWS".  I would even argue that the "FAKE NEWS" makes it less believable because it's more cartoonish.  What's REALLY bad, and why I argue against the hyperbole so vociferously, though, is the "simplicity" that is a step removed from the blatant "FAKE NEWS".   It's no less fanciful but it has the patina of truthfulness to it and so it escapes the scrutiny.  And we're seeing a SHIT TON of it.   When you have credible news sources like CNN using headlines that simply presume that the reader is anti-Trump, that's problematic. 
Yes, it's not a brand new phenomenon and stuff like that has been happening for a long time. But  Trump's contribution, including the normalisation of that phrase being used to describe any reporting you don't like, makes things worse because it drags the discussion down even further and increases the division between the different information bubbles, to the point where rather than confronting both the facts and the bias that might be used to spin them, people on either side will be encouraged further to essentially just stick their fingers in their ears and shout "la la la la la". See the anecdote a few pages ago about the kid who upon being told that CNN was reporting Comey was fired went on to say "Oh, CNN? That's fake news." That's not helping people to be genuinely critical or skeptical of what they hear in the media so they can be better informed - that's giving people an easy, catch-all response they can apply without thought to anything that they don't want to hear. Regardless of what happens with Trump, the fact that this might still be the standard way people respond to new information is very concerning.
[/quote]
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 16, 2017, 01:59:50 PM
What's the coffee salute?

Marine One pilots who were on great terms with Obama received a salute from Obama while he had a cup of coffee in his hand. It was basically the worst parts of the Bible and 9/11 all in one.


(http://brightcove.vo.llnwd.net/e1/pd/4221396001/4221396001_3802537746001_obama-coffee.jpg?pubId=4221396001)

And just for good measure.
(https://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/uploader/image/2014/09/23/LatteSaluteBushBarney1.jpg)

Not the same though; the coffee cup was in the saluting hand, and at least Bush was a fellow soldier. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: kaos2900 on May 16, 2017, 02:14:27 PM
So assuming we still have more than 3 1/2 years left of Trump what do you think the average joe is going to be more annoyed with: 1. Trump and his administration, 2. the media handling of Trumps administration, 3. the anti-trumpers?

Someone I believe brought the "cry wolf" analogy. 4 years of constant finger pointing with nothing that sticks is going to grow very wearisome. Personally, I hope he resigns and Pence takes over but I doubt that's going to happen.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 16, 2017, 02:19:27 PM
I'm hoping for "civilization ending asteroid", but it seems that the likelihood of mother nature putting most of us out of our misery is very low.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 16, 2017, 02:20:34 PM
What's the coffee salute?

Marine One pilots who were on great terms with Obama received a salute from Obama while he had a cup of coffee in his hand. It was basically the worst parts of the Bible and 9/11 all in one.


(http://brightcove.vo.llnwd.net/e1/pd/4221396001/4221396001_3802537746001_obama-coffee.jpg?pubId=4221396001)

And just for good measure.
(https://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/uploader/image/2014/09/23/LatteSaluteBushBarney1.jpg)

Not the same though; the coffee cup was in the saluting hand, and at least Bush was a fellow soldier. 
The second part was interesting at the time. He was catching hell from both sides. He shouldn't salute because he didn't serve, and when he did it was inappropriate for myriad reasons. The Emily Post explanation is that it's at the POTUS's discretion. He's entitled to since he is C&C, but he's not obligated to.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 16, 2017, 02:21:10 PM
So assuming we still have more than 3 1/2 years left of Trump what do you think the average joe is going to be more annoyed with: 1. Trump and his administration, 2. the media handling of Trumps administration, 3. the anti-trumpers?

Someone I believe brought the "cry wolf" analogy. 4 years of constant finger pointing with nothing that sticks is going to grow very wearisome. Personally, I hope he resigns and Pence takes over but I doubt that's going to happen.
Your side never got tired of it.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 16, 2017, 02:26:13 PM
Didn't Reagan start this whole silly tradition?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 17, 2017, 06:21:12 AM
I can declassify anything at any time.

Great, let's see your tax returns!

Benghazi.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: kaos2900 on May 17, 2017, 06:41:54 AM
So assuming we still have more than 3 1/2 years left of Trump what do you think the average joe is going to be more annoyed with: 1. Trump and his administration, 2. the media handling of Trumps administration, 3. the anti-trumpers?

Someone I believe brought the "cry wolf" analogy. 4 years of constant finger pointing with nothing that sticks is going to grow very wearisome. Personally, I hope he resigns and Pence takes over but I doubt that's going to happen.
Your side never got tired of it.

What do you mean my side? I don't have a side. This is the fucking problem right now. There should be no side. Our country shouldn't be the NFL and we shouldn't be rooting for one team or the other. To be fair, I don't recall there being widespread violent protests when from conservatives against Obama. I didn't love Obama and I disagree with alot of his policy's but at least he seems like a decent guy.

 These dipshits in Washington are supposed to be representing the people not their own self-interests. That's both sides. I've been an independent voter for 20 years and at this point I'm so tired of Republicans and Democrats that I may not vote for either party again because at this point I don't think either party has the leadership to lead our country. I'm not defending Trump. The vast majority of his issues are because he can't keep his mouth and ego in check. He's definitely helping dig is own grave. I think what most people criticizing him over every little thing don't seem to notice is that his grave was half dug before he was even sworn in to office. There are a large number of citizens, media, and politicians who would do anything to oppose him regardless of what the issue was.

Honestly, what pisses me off the most about Trump is that he's giving conservatives an incredibly bad name.  Again going back to the election how in the hell were the two best candidate Trump and Clinton?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 17, 2017, 06:50:59 AM
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet but...

Notes made by former FBI director Comey say Trump pressured him to end Flynn probe
Quote
President Trump asked the FBI to drop its probe into former national security adviser Michael Flynn and urged former FBI director James B. Comey instead to pursue reporters in leak cases, according to associates of Comey who have seen private notes he wrote recounting the conversation.

According to the notes written by Comey following a February meeting with the president, Trump brought up the counterintelligence investigation into Flynn and urged Comey to drop the probe in the wake of the national security adviser’s resignation.

The conversation between Trump and Comey took place after a national security meeting. The president asked to speak privately to the FBI director, and the others left the room, according to the Comey associates, who, like other officials, spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal internal discussions.

“I hope you can let this go,’’ Trump said, according to the Comey notes, which were described by the associates. Comey’s written account of the meeting is two pages long and highly detailed, the associates said.

The conversation described in the notes raises new questions about whether Trump may have crossed any legal lines into criminal behavior by pressuring the FBI to end an investigation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/notes-made-by-former-fbi-director-comey-say-trump-pressured-him-to-end-flynn-probe/2017/05/16/52351a38-3a80-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-banner-main_comey-615pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.b3e969354179
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 17, 2017, 07:09:00 AM
I don't recall there being widespread violent protests when from conservatives against Obama

Maybe they weren't violent, but they were every bit as vitriolic and hateful, if not more so.

(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/vx58841769.jpg)
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 17, 2017, 07:34:31 AM
Didn't Reagan start this whole silly tradition?

Nixon did, and it was in response to a very specific inquiry.  There were reports that Nixon was under investigation - NOT audit, but investigation; that's the step AFTER audit - and so he released his taxes in conjunction with the famous "I am NOT a crook!" speech.  It wasn't intended to be an obligation during elections, official or otherwise.  In fact, Ford didn't release his taxes (though he released a summary of his taxes across multiple years).  The first to do so simply as a matter of course during an election was Jimmy Carter.   

Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: ariich on May 17, 2017, 07:34:57 AM
Pretty much this.  If there is fire (or even smoke), let's go after it.  But I'm not going to go hide in my neighbor's backyard bunker because the news is telling me every five minutes that I need to because they think there is smoke somewhere, yet again, and it has reportedly reached unprecedented levels of smoke.  I can't see it for all the smoke being blown by the news.
Fine, in principle, but what incentive does, say, Congress have to investigate, and I mean properly investigate, if the press and the public just go "well, we don't really know the facts because this is all a secret behind-closed-doors thing, so let's just ignore it for now"?

I don't disagree that the press sensationalises most things, but in this case there's a lot of smoke and the implications are significant, and so anything the press/public can do to put pressure on and establish the facts is an important part of democratic accountability.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 17, 2017, 07:37:02 AM
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet but...

Notes made by former FBI director Comey say Trump pressured him to end Flynn probe
Quote
President Trump asked the FBI to drop its probe into former national security adviser Michael Flynn and urged former FBI director James B. Comey instead to pursue reporters in leak cases, according to associates of Comey who have seen private notes he wrote recounting the conversation.

According to the notes written by Comey following a February meeting with the president, Trump brought up the counterintelligence investigation into Flynn and urged Comey to drop the probe in the wake of the national security adviser’s resignation.

The conversation between Trump and Comey took place after a national security meeting. The president asked to speak privately to the FBI director, and the others left the room, according to the Comey associates, who, like other officials, spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal internal discussions.

“I hope you can let this go,’’ Trump said, according to the Comey notes, which were described by the associates. Comey’s written account of the meeting is two pages long and highly detailed, the associates said.

The conversation described in the notes raises new questions about whether Trump may have crossed any legal lines into criminal behavior by pressuring the FBI to end an investigation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/notes-made-by-former-fbi-director-comey-say-trump-pressured-him-to-end-flynn-probe/2017/05/16/52351a38-3a80-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-banner-main_comey-615pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.b3e969354179

So which is it; did he "pressure"?  "Urge?"  "Ask?"

And since Comey has an obligation to report if it elevates to the level of an actionable offense, where is the corresponding report if in fact this is a "bad" thing?   

And how does this comport with the not-so-secret, not-so-backroom meeting with Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch right before the Department of Justice decided that Hillary's provable perjury was not a pursuable case?   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 17, 2017, 07:43:03 AM
I don't recall there being widespread violent protests when from conservatives against Obama

Maybe they weren't violent, but they were every bit as vitriolic and hateful, if not more so.

(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/vx58841769.jpg)

NOT.

I have posted this before, and the "K***" is actually "Kill", but I'm being paranoid, but...

Click on "private browsing" (or whatever the equivalent is in your browswer) and Google "K*** Bush".   You will see PAGES of responses all offering t-shirts with the expression, you'll see pictures, t-shirt offers, bumper stickers and posters with Bush in a gun sight, and a bunch of other really sick shit calling for - advocating for - the assassination of our President.    Then Google "K*** Obama".  Last time I did this - about six months ago or so - the first five or six responses were stories about actual real life assassination attempts that were rumored or thwarted by the Secret Service - in other words, hard news about the security detail of the President - then... amazingly... the ads for the "Bush" memorabilia start in.  NOT for Obama, but BUSH.   

The point being, yeah, maybe Republicans were not kind to Obama, and maybe they pushed dumb shit like "Kenya" too far, but at least there is an issue there - irrelevant though it may be - and not the crass, base level stuff that was foisted on Bush.   Plus, what would YOU rather be called:  A "Kenyan" or "dumb"?   As the last time I checked "Kenyan" wasn't anything more than a nationality, I'm thinking I'd much rather be a "Kenyan".    there was abuse hurled both ways, but it reached a new, vitriolic, ad hominem level with Bush, NOT Obama.   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 17, 2017, 07:49:03 AM
That's great.  Nobody was talking about Bush.  He was comparing Trump to Obama.  I'm not denying that there were nasty things said about Bush.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 17, 2017, 07:52:25 AM
So assuming we still have more than 3 1/2 years left of Trump what do you think the average joe is going to be more annoyed with: 1. Trump and his administration, 2. the media handling of Trumps administration, 3. the anti-trumpers?

Someone I believe brought the "cry wolf" analogy. 4 years of constant finger pointing with nothing that sticks is going to grow very wearisome. Personally, I hope he resigns and Pence takes over but I doubt that's going to happen.
Your side never got tired of it.

What do you mean my side? I don't have a side. This is the fucking problem right now. There should be no side. Our country shouldn't be the NFL and we shouldn't be rooting for one team or the other. To be fair, I don't recall there being widespread violent protests when from conservatives against Obama. I didn't love Obama and I disagree with alot of his policy's but at least he seems like a decent guy.

 These dipshits in Washington are supposed to be representing the people not their own self-interests. That's both sides. I've been an independent voter for 20 years and at this point I'm so tired of Republicans and Democrats that I may not vote for either party again because at this point I don't think either party has the leadership to lead our country. I'm not defending Trump. The vast majority of his issues are because he can't keep his mouth and ego in check. He's definitely helping dig is own grave. I think what most people criticizing him over every little thing don't seem to notice is that his grave was half dug before he was even sworn in to office. There are a large number of citizens, media, and politicians who would do anything to oppose him regardless of what the issue was.

Honestly, what pisses me off the most about Trump is that he's giving conservatives an incredibly bad name.  Again going back to the election how in the hell were the two best candidate Trump and Clinton?
I stand corrected.

The republicans and conservatives never got tired of it.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 17, 2017, 07:55:31 AM
Didn't Reagan start this whole silly tradition?

Nixon did, and it was in response to a very specific inquiry.  There were reports that Nixon was under investigation - NOT audit, but investigation; that's the step AFTER audit - and so he released his taxes in conjunction with the famous "I am NOT a crook!" speech.  It wasn't intended to be an obligation during elections, official or otherwise.  In fact, Ford didn't release his taxes (though he released a summary of his taxes across multiple years).  The first to do so simply as a matter of course during an election was Jimmy Carter.
He was referring to saluting the Marine One guards, and yeah, that was Reagan. Now there's a dude that understood appearances. If Grabby were an actor rather than a reality TV star he'd get it too.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: bosk1 on May 17, 2017, 07:56:17 AM
Pretty much this.  If there is fire (or even smoke), let's go after it.  But I'm not going to go hide in my neighbor's backyard bunker because the news is telling me every five minutes that I need to because they think there is smoke somewhere, yet again, and it has reportedly reached unprecedented levels of smoke.  I can't see it for all the smoke being blown by the news.
Fine, in principle, but what incentive does, say, Congress have to investigate, and I mean properly investigate, if the press and the public just go "well, we don't really know the facts because this is all a secret behind-closed-doors thing, so let's just ignore it for now"?

I don't disagree that the press sensationalises most things, but in this case there's a lot of smoke and the implications are significant, and so anything the press/public can do to put pressure on and establish the facts is an important part of democratic accountability.

Actually, Rich, it's supposed to be the exact opposite of what you are saying.  Congress (and specific agencies) has an independent duty to audit and/or investigate the moment facts that trigger that duty are known.  That is completely independent of what the press/public says or does.  In fact, I would say that that duty to be independent also mandates that an investigation or audit NOT be conducted where the public or press is blowing smoke or making an outcry, and there is nothing to substantiate that.  There is equally a duty to push back and not bow to external pressures. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 17, 2017, 08:33:05 AM
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet but...

Notes made by former FBI director Comey say Trump pressured him to end Flynn probe
Quote
President Trump asked the FBI to drop its probe into former national security adviser Michael Flynn and urged former FBI director James B. Comey instead to pursue reporters in leak cases, according to associates of Comey who have seen private notes he wrote recounting the conversation.

According to the notes written by Comey following a February meeting with the president, Trump brought up the counterintelligence investigation into Flynn and urged Comey to drop the probe in the wake of the national security adviser’s resignation.

The conversation between Trump and Comey took place after a national security meeting. The president asked to speak privately to the FBI director, and the others left the room, according to the Comey associates, who, like other officials, spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal internal discussions.

“I hope you can let this go,’’ Trump said, according to the Comey notes, which were described by the associates. Comey’s written account of the meeting is two pages long and highly detailed, the associates said.

The conversation described in the notes raises new questions about whether Trump may have crossed any legal lines into criminal behavior by pressuring the FBI to end an investigation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/notes-made-by-former-fbi-director-comey-say-trump-pressured-him-to-end-flynn-probe/2017/05/16/52351a38-3a80-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-banner-main_comey-615pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.b3e969354179

So which is it; did he "pressure"?  "Urge?"  "Ask?"

And since Comey has an obligation to report if it elevates to the level of an actionable offense, where is the corresponding report if in fact this is a "bad" thing?   

And how does this comport with the not-so-secret, not-so-backroom meeting with Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch right before the Department of Justice decided that Hillary's provable perjury was not a pursuable case?   

We'll find out soon enough, I suppose.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 17, 2017, 08:38:01 AM
Chaffetz has asked for all memos and documents related to all discussions between Comey and Grabby. He seems ready to subpoena them, but my hunch is that there's nobody in the FBI that wouldn't be thrilled to hand them all over. I can't imagine there's a whole lot of personal loyalty left at this point.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: XeRocks81 on May 17, 2017, 08:52:42 AM




The point being, yeah, maybe Republicans were not kind to Obama, and maybe they pushed dumb shit like "Kenya" too far, but at least there is an issue there - irrelevant though it may be - and not the crass, base level stuff that was foisted on Bush.   Plus, what would YOU rather be called:  A "Kenyan" or "dumb"?   As the last time I checked "Kenyan" wasn't anything more than a nationality, I'm thinking I'd much rather be a "Kenyan". 

It was  xenophobia hiding undier the flimsiest of excuses.   Or rather campaign strategists exploiting the prejudice of a certain part of the population (an of one pussy-grabbing future president) to their benefit.  It was never a real "issue" imo. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: ariich on May 17, 2017, 09:42:15 AM
Pretty much this.  If there is fire (or even smoke), let's go after it.  But I'm not going to go hide in my neighbor's backyard bunker because the news is telling me every five minutes that I need to because they think there is smoke somewhere, yet again, and it has reportedly reached unprecedented levels of smoke.  I can't see it for all the smoke being blown by the news.
Fine, in principle, but what incentive does, say, Congress have to investigate, and I mean properly investigate, if the press and the public just go "well, we don't really know the facts because this is all a secret behind-closed-doors thing, so let's just ignore it for now"?

I don't disagree that the press sensationalises most things, but in this case there's a lot of smoke and the implications are significant, and so anything the press/public can do to put pressure on and establish the facts is an important part of democratic accountability.

Actually, Rich, it's supposed to be the exact opposite of what you are saying.  Congress (and specific agencies) has an independent duty to audit and/or investigate the moment facts that trigger that duty are known.  That is completely independent of what the press/public says or does.  In fact, I would say that that duty to be independent also mandates that an investigation or audit NOT be conducted where the public or press is blowing smoke or making an outcry, and there is nothing to substantiate that.  There is equally a duty to push back and not bow to external pressures. 
I agree that's what it's supposed to be. I'm talking about reality.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 17, 2017, 11:52:16 AM
That's great.  Nobody was talking about Bush.  He was comparing Trump to Obama.  I'm not denying that there were nasty things said about Bush.

It's relevant, because the implication was that Obama had it SO hard and conservatives were SO tough on Obama.   I have good friend - hard core lefty - that is EXTREMELY bitter over the way the Republicans supposedly abused Obama, to the point that he rejects everything about Trump on principle.    You can't pick and choose what affronts you are going to be offended by.  If it's bad to treat Obama like a piece of crap, then it's bad to treat Bush and/or Trump like pieces of crap. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 17, 2017, 11:54:19 AM
Didn't Reagan start this whole silly tradition?

Nixon did, and it was in response to a very specific inquiry.  There were reports that Nixon was under investigation - NOT audit, but investigation; that's the step AFTER audit - and so he released his taxes in conjunction with the famous "I am NOT a crook!" speech.  It wasn't intended to be an obligation during elections, official or otherwise.  In fact, Ford didn't release his taxes (though he released a summary of his taxes across multiple years).  The first to do so simply as a matter of course during an election was Jimmy Carter.
He was referring to saluting the Marine One guards, and yeah, that was Reagan. Now there's a dude that understood appearances. If Grabby were an actor rather than a reality TV star he'd get it too.

WOW.  Did I misread that one badly.  I thought he was referring to the habit of releasing tax returns.  WOW.  That's a blunder on par with Mike Rutherford's bass clam in "Return of the Giant Hogweed" on Genesis Live!
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 17, 2017, 11:58:03 AM




The point being, yeah, maybe Republicans were not kind to Obama, and maybe they pushed dumb shit like "Kenya" too far, but at least there is an issue there - irrelevant though it may be - and not the crass, base level stuff that was foisted on Bush.   Plus, what would YOU rather be called:  A "Kenyan" or "dumb"?   As the last time I checked "Kenyan" wasn't anything more than a nationality, I'm thinking I'd much rather be a "Kenyan". 

It was  xenophobia hiding undier the flimsiest of excuses.   Or rather campaign strategists exploiting the prejudice of a certain part of the population (an of one pussy-grabbing future president) to their benefit.  It was never a real "issue" imo.

WHAT?   People were questioning Obama's bona vides because they hate Kenyans?   It was a (potential) violation of a basic tenet of the Constitution.  Granted, it went on too long, but that had as much to do with Obama as it did those evil, alien Republicans.   

At least you didn't claim "RACISM!" (though I suspect you were thinking it... c'mon! Admit it!  :) :) :D
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: XeRocks81 on May 17, 2017, 12:39:59 PM




The point being, yeah, maybe Republicans were not kind to Obama, and maybe they pushed dumb shit like "Kenya" too far, but at least there is an issue there - irrelevant though it may be - and not the crass, base level stuff that was foisted on Bush.   Plus, what would YOU rather be called:  A "Kenyan" or "dumb"?   As the last time I checked "Kenyan" wasn't anything more than a nationality, I'm thinking I'd much rather be a "Kenyan". 

It was  xenophobia hiding undier the flimsiest of excuses.   Or rather campaign strategists exploiting the prejudice of a certain part of the population (an of one pussy-grabbing future president) to their benefit.  It was never a real "issue" imo.

WHAT?   People were questioning Obama's bona vides because they hate Kenyans?   It was a (potential) violation of a basic tenet of the Constitution.  Granted, it went on too long, but that had as much to do with Obama as it did those evil, alien Republicans.   

At least you didn't claim "RACISM!" (though I suspect you were thinking it... c'mon! Admit it!  :) :) :D

of course I was  :biggrin: If it was really an issue, when Obama popped onto the national stage after the 04  convention and all his new supporters wanted him to run for president he would have said it then if he wasn't eligible.  After that once he announced there was no reason to think that aspect wasn't properly vetted by his team
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: portnoy311 on May 17, 2017, 10:46:39 PM
I'm behind, but Stadler - you think stories about Hillary getting someone murdered is on par with Trump working with a foreign government that he's being investigated for, has embroiled his administration in its biggest scandal yet over said investigation, and whose government figures he met with where our press wasn't invited in the White House? I see what you did there with flipping it and saying you don't actually think Hillary did it, but the bigger point still stands that why are you brushing off Trump / Russia so easily. Why is 'RUSSIA!' still a thing? At this point it's not a media thing. 2 GOP congressman today said they're waiting for the results of this investigation and impeachment isn't out of the question depending on the result. This isn't MSNBC (i can't name one of their anchors) nonsense, we're past that point.


Btw - he knows this but for anyone else reading, I legitimately have all the respect in the world for ol' Stadsky. It's why I mostly respond to his posts, I'm not trolling him, he's my boy and genuinely interested in his take, and know he can handle the tough questions.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 18, 2017, 08:48:22 AM
I'm behind, but Stadler - you think stories about Hillary getting someone murdered is on par with Trump working with a foreign government that he's being investigated for, has embroiled his administration in its biggest scandal yet over said investigation, and whose government figures he met with where our press wasn't invited in the White House? I see what you did there with flipping it and saying you don't actually think Hillary did it, but the bigger point still stands that why are you brushing off Trump / Russia so easily. Why is 'RUSSIA!' still a thing? At this point it's not a media thing. 2 GOP congressman today said they're waiting for the results of this investigation and impeachment isn't out of the question depending on the result. This isn't MSNBC (i can't name one of their anchors) nonsense, we're past that point.

Well, to be fair, you're right to call me on that.   It was "RUSSIA!" during the election, when all Hillary had to do was smugly stand there, look around and say "Russia." and we were all supposed to know EXACTLY what that meant (you can google the scene I'm describing; it happened in the third debate).   Here, I agree there should be an investigation; I'm all for that, and I support the naming of the Special Counsel (though I don't know enough about Mueller himself, but he comes with recommendations from both sides, so it seems like a good pick) one hundred percent.  Having said that, I'm no more swayed or impressed with the circumstantial evidence (I think the "no American press in the Oval Office thing to be borderline ridiculous; if I was Trump at this point, I wouldn't have the press anywhere near my meetings).   I don't deal in "black and white" on matters like this;  I don't view Russia as "the Devil Incarnate", like many do.  I don't see Putin as the "homicidal maniac" like the guy on Outnumbered yesterday called him.  If Russia wants "world domination", they CANNOT defeat China by themselves.   Putin knows it, Trump knows it, Xi Jinping knows it... it seems everyone knows it except the anti-Trumpers who need SOMETHING, ANYTHING to get their guy back in there. 

I think we need answers and clarity, without question, but to say this is radically different than, say, the way FDR handles Stalin is to lose sight of history.   We're spoiled by the Reagan détente years in terms of what the perception of our relationship with Russia ought to be.

Quote
Btw - he knows this but for anyone else reading, I legitimately have all the respect in the world for ol' Stadsky. It's why I mostly respond to his posts, I'm not trolling him, he's my boy and genuinely interested in his take, and know he can handle the tough questions.

All true; other than his dumb screenname ( :laugh: :-*) I think the world of Portnoy311 and we go back. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 18, 2017, 08:51:10 AM
Nothing dumb about that SN, 311 is awesome and so is Portnoy  :yarr
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 18, 2017, 09:44:16 AM
Nothing dumb about that SN, 311 is awesome and so is Portnoy  :yarr

Haha, no, I don't disagree (at least about the Portnoy thing; I can take or leave 311), but it's something he's lamented in the past.  :) 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: AngelBack on May 18, 2017, 04:03:44 PM
His recommendation to fire him was bullshit, and everyone knows it.  It was done to give Trump a "reason".

AND..........you were right.  Rosenstein knew Comey was gonna be fired before he wrote the letter....
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 18, 2017, 04:14:59 PM
my surprised face

(https://media.giphy.com/media/SxpX5m1rJXjMY/giphy.gif?response_id=591e1cc035d7835c3d0a81a9)
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Chino on May 22, 2017, 06:43:49 AM
Trump during a September debate;
"She doesn't have the look. She doesn't have the stamina, I said she doesn't have the stamina, and I don't believe she does have the stamina,"


Clinton's response;
"As soon as he travels to 112 countries and negotiates a peace deal, a cease fire, a release of dissidents, an opening of new opportunities in nations around the world, or even spends 11 hours testifying in front of a congressional committee he can talk to me about stamina."


Trump today;
Donald Trump was “exhausted” during his first trip overseas as President and asked his daughter to attend a scheduled event in his place.

Ivanka Trump spoke at the “tweeps” youth forum in Riyadh, an event to discuss combating extremism on social media, instead of her father after a long day for the President of meetings, conferences and speeches.

Mr Trump abruptly skipped the event on the second day of his trip in Saudi Arabia and the day before he was due to meet with Israeli leaders to negotiate a peace process with Palestine.

“Just an exhausted guy,” she replied.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-exhausted-skipped-saudi-arabia-forum-social-media-sends-ivanka-trump-israel-a7748546.html



Mark my words. If Trump makes it through 4 years, I'm betting Ivanka runs in 2020.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: gmillerdrake on May 22, 2017, 07:05:57 AM
Mark my words. If Trump makes it through 4 years, I'm betting Ivanka runs in 2020.

I wish she were in there now.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Cable on May 22, 2017, 09:55:42 AM
Mark my words. If Trump makes it through 4 years, I'm betting Ivanka runs in 2020.

I wish she were in there now.



And too bad that she cannot actually run.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Chino on May 22, 2017, 09:58:48 AM
Why not?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: gmillerdrake on May 22, 2017, 10:00:05 AM
Why not?

probably age....she's not over 35
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 22, 2017, 10:06:48 AM
She was born in New York, NY, in October of 1981.  So she is old enough and qualifies from a citizenship standpoint.

What's the problem? 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Chino on May 22, 2017, 10:06:54 AM
Why not?

probably age....she's not over 35

She'll be 39 come the 2020 election.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Cool Chris on May 22, 2017, 10:38:13 AM
But.... Misogyny!
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: gmillerdrake on May 22, 2017, 11:05:52 AM
maybe CableX meant she literally can't run. Perhaps an achilles injury or strained hamstring?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 22, 2017, 11:30:19 AM
Unclear if any of the Trumps have ever attempted this "running" activity of which you speak.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: gmillerdrake on May 22, 2017, 11:36:22 AM
Unclear if any of the Trumps have ever attempted this "running" activity of which you speak.


(http://i791.photobucket.com/albums/yy197/gmillerdrake/3F7EB19E00000578-0-image-m-33_1492882049561.jpg) (http://s791.photobucket.com/user/gmillerdrake/media/3F7EB19E00000578-0-image-m-33_1492882049561.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 22, 2017, 11:40:28 AM
Ivanka would have two problems with running. While she's popular her old man's not. I suspect he'd be a real drag on her. But more importantly, what would she run as? She and Kushner are far closer to democrat than republican, and there was already that question mark over Trump's head. She'd mostly likely be a centrist running under the GOP banner, and I don't think that'd work.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Cable on May 22, 2017, 12:34:48 PM
She was born in New York, NY, in October of 1981.  So she is old enough and qualifies from a citizenship standpoint.

What's the problem?


Doh, I made an error and was thinking his wife. I tend to get his crew's names mixed up. Disregard me!  :\
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 22, 2017, 12:50:18 PM
So there's this.  The dangers of going off script (https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/22/15675502/trump-israel-netanyahu-intelligence-gaffe)

Quote
Here’s what just happened: Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were about to leave a scheduled press availability — the room was already filled with noisy chatter. Trump and Netanyahu are called back for one last handshake photo. The press gaggle, as it always does, continues to shout out questions, even though it seemed the time for answers has ended. Netanyahu calls out, “Intelligence cooperation is terrific!”

Then Trump offers up his own off-script pronouncement. “Just so you understand,” he says, quieting the press, “just so you understand — I never mentioned the word or the name Israel in conversation. Never mentioned it.” As he’s talking, a clearly horrified Netanyahu’s eyes dart everywhere.

“They are all saying I did,” Trump continues, unaware. “Never mentioned the word Israel.”

But actually no one had said Trump used the word “Israel.” The reports only said that during a visit in the Oval Office, Trump had casually discussed highly classified intelligence with the Russians that, it turns out, had been from Israel — and thus shouldn’t have been disclosed to the Russians without getting Israel’s permission first.

And no one in either administration — Israel’s or the United States’ — had officially confirmed the intelligence was in fact from Israel.

That is, until Trump seems to have done so just now.

Oh, and Flynn taking the 5th and refusing to appear for his subpoena or hand over documents.... Nothing to see here.
 ;)
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Chino on May 22, 2017, 01:04:01 PM
*snip*

Oh, and Flynn taking the 5th and refusing to appear for his subpoena or hand over documents.... Nothing to see here.
 ;)

"I am no fan of Bill Cosby but never-the-less some free advice - if you are innocent, do not remain silent. You look guilty as hell!" - Donald Trump

"When you have your staff taking the Fifth Amendment, taking the Fifth so they are not prosecuted, when you have the man that set up the illegal server taking the Fifth, I think it is disgraceful." - Donald Trump

"The mob takes the Fifth Amendment. If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?" - Donald Trump

"If you are not guilty of a crime, what do you need immunity for?" - Donald Trump

Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 22, 2017, 01:31:27 PM
The irony is that somebody like Trump, whose big mouth gets him into trouble time and time again, is exactly what makes his remarks here completely wrong.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 22, 2017, 01:35:59 PM
Oh, and Flynn taking the 5th and refusing to appear for his subpoena or hand over documents.... Nothing to see here.
 ;)

*snip*

Oh, and Flynn taking the 5th and refusing to appear for his subpoena or hand over documents.... Nothing to see here.
 ;)

"I am no fan of Bill Cosby but never-the-less some free advice - if you are innocent, do not remain silent. You look guilty as hell!" - Donald Trump

"When you have your staff taking the Fifth Amendment, taking the Fifth so they are not prosecuted, when you have the man that set up the illegal server taking the Fifth, I think it is disgraceful." - Donald Trump

"The mob takes the Fifth Amendment. If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?" - Donald Trump

"If you are not guilty of a crime, what do you need immunity for?" - Donald Trump

Why is ANY of this relevant?  Unless and until Trump himself takes the Fifth - in which case you can put the two and two together as you see fit - this is Trump's opinion.  Michael Flynn is entitled to make decisions that suit Michael Flynn as he sees fit.   "Taking the Fifth" is not now nor never was considered the same as "pleading guilty".  Some people use that merely as a way of not giving up information that would further an investigation.  Some people use that merely to protect other issues that they have involvement in.  Some people use it merely to stay off the record on certain matters.   

The right answer isn't that Trump is a hypocrite; the answer is (as usual) Trump is trying to oversimplify things down to a level that the logic is not sustainable. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 22, 2017, 01:39:33 PM
:lolpalm:
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 22, 2017, 02:11:06 PM
Why the face slap?   What was so egregious?  What do Trump's comments about the fifth from over a year ago have to do with a decision Michael Flynn makes?


And I thought Trump was a fucking idiot?  Why now, why in THIS instance, is what he says gospel hard truth?   He's either an unreliable boob or he's not.  You don't get to pick and choose what of his spew is "sage advice" and which is "pablum", least of all not on the basis of "what helps your argument".   

The Fifth prevents against revealing information that MAY incriminate you, fairly or unfairly. It is expressly designed to help INNOCENT people to avoid contributing information to the pile of circumstantial evidence against them.  The landmark case (it went to the Supreme Court, who affirmed that the fifth is NOT tantamount to admitting guilt) is the murder charge against a father of a child; his defense was that the babysitter did it.    SHE maintained her innocence, but pleaded the fifth, because some of the questions were akin to "how much time did YOU spend with the child versus the father?" and "were you with the child at all during the window in which the injuries were likely incurred?".    Her lawyer advised her to take the fifth, which she did. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 22, 2017, 02:23:42 PM
Why the face slap?   What was so egregious?  What do Trump's comments about the fifth from over a year ago have to do with a decision Michael Flynn makes?


And I thought Trump was a fucking idiot?  Why now, why in THIS instance, is what he says gospel hard truth?   
Pretty much. I just consider it another glaring example of the man's reality being based solely in the moment. He needs no facts, and dare I saw would prefer not to have any. He stands for nothing, and every answer is specific to whatever he wants to sell. He's a used car salesman touting every car on the lot as better than the other.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 22, 2017, 02:35:47 PM
Oh, and Flynn taking taking the 5th means nothing. Not only is it his right, but he'd already sought immunity in exchange for testimony, so we knew this was coming. The bigger issue is defying the subpoena for documents related to their investigation. They call that contempt and the Bill of Rights won't help him much on that one. The big question is whether or not the DOJ backs up Congress on this one or if it lets it slide on the basis of "witch-hunt" and "fake story."
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 22, 2017, 03:20:28 PM
Why the face slap?   What was so egregious?  What do Trump's comments about the fifth from over a year ago have to do with a decision Michael Flynn makes?

I think my facepalm was over the fact that you don't think this makes Trump a hypocrite.  Either he stands by his comments/opinions regarding the issue of invoking the 5th amendment, or he doesn't.  If he stands by his comments, then he believes that Flynn is guilty of something.  If he doesn't stand by his comments, then he is by definition, a hypocrite (having standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform).  Given that he supported Flynn even after he fired him, I don't see Trump all of a sudden changing his stance on the good General.

I'm not arguing the issue or relevancy (or not) of anyone taking the fifth.  I'm pointing out Trump's prior comments on what HE feels about those that invoke the fifth.  I guess we'll see in the coming days whether Trump stands by his own comments (assuming what Chino posted is legit - and I have no reason to challenge them), or whether he stands by Flynn.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 22, 2017, 03:55:58 PM
Why the face slap?   What was so egregious?  What do Trump's comments about the fifth from over a year ago have to do with a decision Michael Flynn makes?

I think my facepalm was over the fact that you don't think this makes Trump a hypocrite.  Either he stands by his comments/opinions regarding the issue of invoking the 5th amendment, or he doesn't.  If he stands by his comments, then he believes that Flynn is guilty of something.  If he doesn't stand by his comments, then he is by definition, a hypocrite (having standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform).  Given that he supported Flynn even after he fired him, I don't see Trump all of a sudden changing his stance on the good General.

I'm not arguing the issue or relevancy (or not) of anyone taking the fifth.  I'm pointing out Trump's prior comments on what HE feels about those that invoke the fifth.  I guess we'll see in the coming days whether Trump stands by his own comments (assuming what Chino posted is legit - and I have no reason to challenge them), or whether he stands by Flynn.

I missed the story; why is Trump involved in Flynn's taking of the Fifth?   That Trump said it is not at all related to Flynn's decision.  What am I missing?   Maybe Trump DOES secretly think Flynn is guilty.  How the hell do we know?   What do the comments that Chino posted have to do with a decision taken by Michael Flynn?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 22, 2017, 04:12:54 PM
I missed the story; why is Trump involved in Flynn's taking of the Fifth?   

He isn't... directly.  And no one said that he was. 

What do the comments that Chino posted have to do with a decision taken by Michael Flynn?

Nothing - other than the fact they represent Trump's (prior) position regarding people under accusation/investigation who are silent/take the fifth.  You probably miss the irony that someone Trump stood steadfastly by is now taking an action that Trump previously admonished.

Geez you're making this into something it isn't.  Trump is "involved" by association because he hired and fired the guy, and the actions Flynn is under investigation over occurred while he was employed by Trump - both during the campaign, and as NSA advisor.  C'mon man, you're not this dense.  To think that Trump isn't "involved" - and by that, I mean a player in the entirety of the whole affair - is like saying Fox News isn't "involved" with Bill O'Reilly. 

And again... all that was pointed out is Trump's prior comments regarding those who are silent/take the fifth, and what his (probable) stance is going to be about Flynn taking the fifth.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 22, 2017, 04:20:48 PM
Unclear if any of the Trumps have ever attempted this "running" activity of which you speak.


(http://i791.photobucket.com/albums/yy197/gmillerdrake/3F7EB19E00000578-0-image-m-33_1492882049561.jpg) (http://s791.photobucket.com/user/gmillerdrake/media/3F7EB19E00000578-0-image-m-33_1492882049561.jpg.html)

classic still-life running pose photoshoot. I can tell by the pixels.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 22, 2017, 04:33:21 PM
I missed the story; why is Trump involved in Flynn's taking of the Fifth?   

He isn't... directly.  And no one said that he was. 

What do the comments that Chino posted have to do with a decision taken by Michael Flynn?

Nothing - other than the fact they represent Trump's (prior) position regarding people under accusation/investigation who are silent/take the fifth.  You probably miss the irony that someone Trump stood steadfastly by is now taking an action that Trump previously admonished.

Geez you're making this into something it isn't.  Trump is "involved" by association because he hired and fired the guy, and the actions Flynn is under investigation over occurred while he was employed by Trump - both during the campaign, and as NSA advisor.  C'mon man, you're not this dense.  To think that Trump isn't "involved" - and by that, I mean a player in the entirety of the whole affair - is like saying Fox News isn't "involved" with Bill O'Reilly. 

And again... all that was pointed out is Trump's prior comments regarding those who are silent/take the fifth, and what his (probable) stance is going to be about Flynn taking the fifth.

No, none of those things.  YOU are making it something it isn't.    TRUMP took a opposition against people in government taking the Fifth.   PERIOD.  That's where it ends.   That someone later, from his administration, took the Fifth, has nothing to do with Trump's alleged hypocrisy.  I don't recall anywhere where Trump say "The Fifth is for pussies... except my guy".   Or "Flynn is the exception."   Or "Way to go, Mike!  The Fifth is the way to go!"    If that's the case, then I stand corrected.  But I don't see that anywhere here, certainly not in the Tweet that was posted.   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 22, 2017, 06:13:34 PM
Oh ffs man, I didn't do anything except respond to your post with a lolpalm.  I didn't make anything of this other than to laugh at your response that there's 'nothing to see here'.  You are the one goading the thread on with your 'what did Trump do here?' schtick.  I'm just offering my view on what the irony/hypocrisy is.  Has Trump made any statement on this yet?  No.  But, based on his typical MO, and (as I already said) his defense of Flynn AFTER firing him would suggest that his stance on the man will still be 'pro'.

TRUMP took a opposition against people in government taking the Fifth.   PERIOD.  That's where it ends.   

Why does that position of his end there?

I don't recall anywhere where Trump say "The Fifth is for pussies... except my guy".   Or "Flynn is the exception."   

Precisely.  No one (except you now) has said or suggested any of that in the last page of posts.
 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Mister Gold on May 22, 2017, 07:24:59 PM
Mark my words. If Trump makes it through 4 years, I'm betting Ivanka runs in 2020.

At this point, I really can't see him lasting the full first term.

Hell, I half-expect him to resign before he makes it to the first year anniversary of his inauguration at this point. He's very noticeably miserable being President and it's becoming increasingly likely- regardless of whether or not Trump himself actually ever colluded with the Russians- that Trump has probably committed obstruction of justice with his attempts to interfere with the investigations on him and also on Mike Flynn. Won't surprise me at all if Trump ends up resigning.

Not gonna bother discussing whether or not I think he's a good president here or anything, but I will be genuinely shocked if Trump is still president by the time 2020 rolls around.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 22, 2017, 08:27:13 PM
Oh ffs man, I didn't do anything except respond to your post with a lolpalm.  I didn't make anything of this other than to laugh at your response that there's 'nothing to see here'.  You are the one goading the thread on with your 'what did Trump do here?' schtick.  I'm just offering my view on what the irony/hypocrisy is.  Has Trump made any statement on this yet?  No.  But, based on his typical MO, and (as I already said) his defense of Flynn AFTER firing him would suggest that his stance on the man will still be 'pro'.

And there's not.  You might think I'm busting your balls, but I'm really not.  I'm asking you, sincerely, to show me where the hypocrisy ACTUALLY is.  Not "might be", not "could very well be", but IS.   There's no nexus at this point between Trump's words and Flynn's actions.   Trump said it's bad, Flynn acted.  What, do you expect Trump to call an emergency press conference and say "I want to go on record; you don't take the fifth unless you're guilty.  Mike Flynn therefore must be guilty.  Oh, but it's nothing on me!"    I'm sincerely asking you to spell it out, because all I see now is innuendo, supposition and guess work. 

Quote
TRUMP took a opposition against people in government taking the Fifth.   PERIOD.  That's where it ends.   

Why does that position of his end there?

Because it does.  What else do we have besides guesswork, supposition and innuendo? 

Quote
I don't recall anywhere where Trump say "The Fifth is for pussies... except my guy".   Or "Flynn is the exception."   

Precisely.  No one (except you now) has said or suggested any of that in the last page of posts.

So without that, there is no hypocrisy.  Just one guy saying one thing, and another doing another.    I think cheating is for weak people and losers.  My best friend cheated on his wife.  He's still my best friend.  I "got him" in the divorce.  I never did actually come out and make a formal statement to him and his ex that "I believe he may have cheated, and if so, that makes him weak and a loser."    Does that make me a hypocrite? 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: XeRocks81 on May 22, 2017, 08:48:04 PM
Stadler I've never seen anyone expend so much energy  to ensure every stupid little comment about donald fucking trump is fair and evidence based.   Here, have one of these  :chill
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 22, 2017, 08:49:10 PM
If my friend did that, I'd let him know in no uncertain terms that he's a shithead.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 22, 2017, 09:54:42 PM
I'm asking you, sincerely, to show me where the hypocrisy ACTUALLY is.  Not "might be", not "could very well be", but IS.   

First, we don't need Trump to go on the record with a Presser, because we know what his views on the 5th are - Chino quoted them for us.  Second, until such time that Trump makes some other proclamation of what his views on Flynn are, what else do we have to go on other than what Trump has already said about the man:
“It’s very unfair what happened to Gen. Flynn"
"It’s really a sad thing that he was treated so badly"
"General Flynn is a wonderful man.  I think he’s been treated very, very unfairly by the media"
Trump telling Flynn to "stay strong" in April.

So THAT is where his hypocrisy lies.  Pulling the literal definition of hypocrisy "having standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform"

Trump's standards/beliefs on the 5th - people are guilty / it's disgraceful
Trump's behaviour towards Flynn - treated poorly and a wonderful man

The two don't seem to conform with one another.

Until Trump does make his current/actual views on Flynn known, it is "innuendo, supposition and guess work" on your part to say that Trump is not a hypocrite when connecting Trump's publicly stated opinion of Flynn and his publicly stated opinion of those that remain silent/take the 5th.

I think cheating is for weak people and losers.  My best friend cheated on his wife.  He's still my best friend.  I "got him" in the divorce.  I never did actually come out and make a formal statement to him and his ex that "I believe he may have cheated, and if so, that makes him weak and a loser."    Does that make me a hypocrite?

I'm not sure if you're using this as a 'for example', or if it is indeed your best friend - if the latter, no offense intended.  In this scenario, you're only a hypocrite if you don't believe your best friend is weak and a loser.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: yeshaberto on May 23, 2017, 07:54:51 AM
Stadler I've never seen anyone expend so much energy  to ensure every stupid little comment about donald fucking trump is fair and evidence based.   Here, have one of these  :chill

The P/R thread is already volatile enough without stuff like this...
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 23, 2017, 10:02:55 AM
Stadler I've never seen anyone expend so much energy  to ensure every stupid little comment about donald fucking trump is fair and evidence based.   Here, have one of these  :chill

First, XeRocks81, it's my effort, I'll expend it like I want.   The kids are (largely) out of the house, so it's this or masturbation.  I kid.  Seriously, this point is important, if not to you - or the people that feel somehow "righteous" for their slander/libel - but to the political landscape as we now know it.  Because I firmly believe that NOT worrying about fairness to Obama, and to Bush and to Clinton got us here.   Like a callus building up on your playing fingers, we got numb to the fact that we feel like we can say whatever the fuck we want and slap "OPINION!" on it, and it's all good, and it doesn't work that way.  Because what happens is you get people that disagree just dismissing the other side as "FAKE NEWS" and "LIBERAL PC BULLSHIT" and "CONSERVATIVE CRONISM" and there's no meaningful conversation.

I've been on Jingle for a little bit here, but it's necessary.  He is entitled to think Trump is a hypocrite, but he (and anyone that makes a proclamation like that) has to back it up, and with more than "well, read the Tweets!"   If you feel it strongly enough, back it the fuck up.  And on a lot of it, when the layers are stripped away, there's not a lot there.       
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 23, 2017, 10:04:01 AM
If my friend did that, I'd let him know in no uncertain terms that he's a shithead.

You mean I should tell XeRocks81 that he's a shithead?  That's not very nice (but I think he knows it already anyway. ;) :) :) :))
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 23, 2017, 10:09:10 AM
I'm asking you, sincerely, to show me where the hypocrisy ACTUALLY is.  Not "might be", not "could very well be", but IS.   

First, we don't need Trump to go on the record with a Presser, because we know what his views on the 5th are - Chino quoted them for us.  Second, until such time that Trump makes some other proclamation of what his views on Flynn are, what else do we have to go on other than what Trump has already said about the man:
“It’s very unfair what happened to Gen. Flynn"
"It’s really a sad thing that he was treated so badly"
"General Flynn is a wonderful man.  I think he’s been treated very, very unfairly by the media"
Trump telling Flynn to "stay strong" in April.

So THAT is where his hypocrisy lies.  Pulling the literal definition of hypocrisy "having standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform"

Trump's standards/beliefs on the 5th - people are guilty / it's disgraceful
Trump's behaviour towards Flynn - treated poorly and a wonderful man

The two don't seem to conform with one another.

Until Trump does make his current/actual views on Flynn known, it is "innuendo, supposition and guess work" on your part to say that Trump is not a hypocrite when connecting Trump's publicly stated opinion of Flynn and his publicly stated opinion of those that remain silent/take the 5th.

Well, still a lot of soft words.  "Seem to"; "may".   It's not "innuendo, supposition and guess work" on my part.  I'm not saying he's NOT a hypocrite.  I'm saying YOU CAN'T SAY HE IS.   I'm saying WE DON'T KNOW.    It's like Shroedinger's Cat, and we haven't opened the box yet.    This isn't that hard, man.   

Quote
I think cheating is for weak people and losers.  My best friend cheated on his wife.  He's still my best friend.  I "got him" in the divorce.  I never did actually come out and make a formal statement to him and his ex that "I believe he may have cheated, and if so, that makes him weak and a loser."    Does that make me a hypocrite?

I'm not sure if you're using this as a 'for example', or if it is indeed your best friend - if the latter, no offense intended.  In this scenario, you're only a hypocrite if you don't believe your best friend is weak and a loser.

And you don't get to call me a hypocrite until I tell you what I believe.   

In the Flynn case, he can think him guilty and still think him a good man.  He can think him guilty and think him unfairly treated by the media.   In my scenario (and yes, made up.  Sort of. ;)) I can think my friend a weak person, but still love him, and still wish his wife would go easy on him and not kick him to the curb.  We do this sort of thing with our children all the time. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Adami on May 23, 2017, 10:11:51 AM
Stadler, this is conversation. If conversation required the same amount of proof/evidence/etc as a court of law, we'd all be mute.




As far as the hypocrite thing goes....well yes, we can say he is one, even if the Flynn thing plays no part in it.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 23, 2017, 10:39:17 AM
If my friend did that, I'd let him know in no uncertain terms that he's a shithead.

You mean I should tell XeRocks81 that he's a shithead?  That's not very nice (but I think he knows it already anyway. ;) :) :) :))

If he's the subject of your example, then yes.  My best of friends know me well enough to know that if they're wrong, I'm going to tell them so.  And I mean wrong in the sense of "generally societally accepted as a shitheaded thing to do", like cheating.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 23, 2017, 10:40:18 AM
Stadler, this is conversation. If conversation required the same amount of proof/evidence/etc as a court of law, we'd all be mute.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't expect reason or logic. Personally I think this is a silly argument and a waste of time, but Stadler's correct. Trump has said nothing about Flynn's use of 5th amendment protection and his fondness for the man doesn't mean otherwise. I've seen plenty of dear friends do things I thought were wrong.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 23, 2017, 10:42:53 AM
I've seen plenty of dear friends do things I thought were wrong.

You're also not the president of the country.  Unfortunately, when you're on that big a stage, not condemning something comes off to the public almost the same as tacitly condoning it.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 23, 2017, 11:01:25 AM
I've seen plenty of dear friends do things I thought were wrong.

You're also not the president of the country.
Dammit! Why the hell aren't I notified about these things?

If he's been asked he should probably cough up an opinion. If not he shouldn't go around volunteering it. Dude's got a big enough mouth for causing problems.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: RuRoRul on May 23, 2017, 11:01:48 AM
I've been on Jingle for a little bit here, but it's necessary.  He is entitled to think Trump is a hypocrite, but he (and anyone that makes a proclamation like that) has to back it up, and with more than "well, read the Tweets!"   If you feel it strongly enough, back it the fuck up.  And on a lot of it, when the layers are stripped away, there's not a lot there.     
Just because they are "Tweets" doesn't mean they don't count - if Donald didn't want the shit he posts on social media to be held against him he should have laid off Twitter.

Quote
First, we don't need Trump to go on the record with a Presser, because we know what his views on the 5th are - Chino quoted them for us.  Second, until such time that Trump makes some other proclamation of what his views on Flynn are, what else do we have to go on other than what Trump has already said about the man:
“It’s very unfair what happened to Gen. Flynn"
"It’s really a sad thing that he was treated so badly"
"General Flynn is a wonderful man.  I think he’s been treated very, very unfairly by the media"
Trump telling Flynn to "stay strong" in April.

Quote
"When you have your staff taking the Fifth Amendment, taking the Fifth so they are not prosecuted, when you have the man that set up the illegal server taking the Fifth, I think it is disgraceful." - Donald Trump

"The mob takes the Fifth Amendment. If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?" - Donald Trump

Donald when Clinton's staff take the Fifth: It's disgraceful, it bears comparison to the mob, it gives me reason to question their innocence. Now the former member of Donald's staff that Donald has been standing by and claiming is innocent has done the same - so either Trump's previous criticisms still stand, and he should agree this is disgraceful and think that the same line of "if you're innocent, why take the Fifth?" applies now... or it's yet another example of hypocrisy. Now it is true that as far as I know Donald has yet commented on the recent developments regarding Flynn - so maybe he will in fact maintain his position on taking the Fifth and no longer defend Flynn now. If he does that I'm sure jingle and others who accuse him of hypocrisy in this instance will take it back and say he proved them wrong here.

But the basics of the issue are: A politician lambasts his opponents for something, then is silent when himself or his allies find themselves in a similar situation. It's dime a dozen political hypocrisy - and it's something that probably every single politician out there is guilty of on some occasions. Of course two scenarios are never 100% the same so in each instance there will always be some disagreement over whether the different details mean that the same criticisms don't apply. You can register your position that you think the specifics are different enough that you don't personally consider it hypocrisy, even if others disagree. But if you really can't "look at the Tweets" (and if he didn't want people to "look at the Tweets", he probably shouldn't have Twat them) and see how many folk could reasonably think it's an example of his hypocrisy, or at the very least the meaninglessness of his statements as anything other than a way to promote himself at any given time, then you don't get to claim the "reasonable one" ground in the conversation.

Since you often say that you argue against many points here to stand against what you percieve as people being critical of Trump when it is not justified and hence weakening any legitimate criticism by contributing to hysteria, you risk doing the same on the other side of the conversation. By going to the bat every single time on positions such as "Trump is not a hypocrite" that are both a) pretty minor in the grand scheme of things, and b) positions that lack a leg to stand on, then you gain the "reputation as the guy who always defends Trump no matter what and for even the slightest criticism". So when people really do go too far or jump the gun on criticisms about the really meaningful issues, then don't be too surprised if rather than being seen as the voice of reason you might instead be seen as "the guy who will defend Trump for anything just coming to defend him again".
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 23, 2017, 11:05:46 AM
he probably shouldn't have Twat them

Fucking gold.  I have to start using this term.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 23, 2017, 11:57:23 AM
Stadler, this is conversation. If conversation required the same amount of proof/evidence/etc as a court of law, we'd all be mute.

Hmmm.  I think it's somewhere in between.   I don't know that we need a court of law, and it's not like I haven't had the kind of conversations that Jingle is having with my friends, but we need more than just "my gut feeling" when we're talking about issues like this. 

I know I sound like my grandfather - You kids! With the bikes!  Get off my lawn! - but I have a REAL problem with this trend lately.  We are too flip, and we're not putting in the effort.  That someone "thinks" something, doesn't make it right.   History is littered with examples of things that "sounded right" at the time, or that people "believed to be true" and didn't wait for the evidence.   That someone figures out how to log into Facegram, and post a meme, doesn't make them politically savvy.  That someone has a login to Twatter doesn't make them an expert on geopolitical economics.   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 23, 2017, 12:23:55 PM
I've seen plenty of dear friends do things I thought were wrong.

You're also not the president of the country.  Unfortunately, when you're on that big a stage, not condemning something comes off to the public almost the same as tacitly condoning it.

And that is part of the problem, and in fact is a good portion of the problem that many people - me included - have with the whole "PC" movement.   I do not consider myself a racist.   But I shouldn't have to sprain my cerebellum castigating Ted Nugent or Phil Anselmo to "prove" my non-racist bona fides.   It's still America.  We can have differing thoughts and ideas.  We can take different sides - respectfully.   We can acknowledge differences of opinion between people we respect.    More importantly, we can learn and accommodate the facts that don't readily fit our preconceived notions of the way things ought to be.   I was very harsh on Hillary for not leaving Bill when he dallied with untold women.   But my marriage didn't actually end until the THIRD affair by my ex.   Why?   Because it was nominally better for my kid if we stayed together and I toughed it out.  (By the way, I don't feel that way now; to do all over again, I would have left after number two.)  Am I a "hypocrite"?  In the strictest senses of the word, yes.   But why am I not entitled to adjust my thinking? Accommodate new information that I hadn't had before?  Or perhaps even just weigh each circumstance on it's own merit?

I'm reminded of a discussion I had with someone else - XeRocks81 will know about this - who called Trump a hypocrite because he "called China currency manipulators" and then said "China is not a currency manipulator".    What that other person respectfully failed to do was account for different fact patterns.  For the longest time China WAS a currency manipulator (a phrase that means "artificially manipulating currency" period, but more specifically means "artificially holding you currency down to facilitate your export growth."  And there is even an index where countries that do this are "flagged".    For YEARS, China was the poster boy for this.    But in recent months, they have released their currency, and allowed it to float; it has hurt their exports - predictably - but it has also served to get capital INTO China (via investment).    As such, while they are still, technically, manipulating their currency (in that they are not letting it float freely in the market, like, for example, we do, though we're not clean on this) they are NOT "manipulating it" in the precise sense that inspired the "flagging" of China. 

the facts are important.  And if you don't know and/or understand the facts that give rise to what is being said, in my opinion, you really have no bidniss pontificating about how much of a "hypocrite" Trump is (and for all his faults and for all he doesn't know, I guaran-fucking-TEE you he knows about China and their currency).   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 23, 2017, 01:16:21 PM
Since I'm not allowed to talk about politics in the Political Humor thread...


If only the people spending innumerable hours sifting through obscure footage for every little slight, nuance, shuffle, and shift in every handshake and encounter between Trump and Melania would put the same - nay, even half of the... no, even a QUARTER of the - effort into understanding the important issues, like how the EO is NOT a Muslim ban in any way, shape or form (except maybe in Donald's dreams, which, thankfully for us, are not law as of yet), or how tariffs are bad for business long term, or how rescinding the tax penalties imposed on the few in order to subsidize a horrible plan for many is NOT the same thing as "massive tax cuts for the rich", or give the full details of the Foundation that received the recent grant of 100 million for promotion of womens-related issues (most importantly, that Ivanka did not start, is not involved with and in no way shape or form sees any benefit of any kind from the Foundation), this country would be a far better place. 

EVEN IF the Melania thing is actual fact - and I suspect strongly it's not - that's between them.   Just like when Bill was throwing his cock around like a tootsie roll at a Memorial Day Parade, what went on between Hillary and him was HIS BIDNISS, and no one elses.  That she might have brushed his hand away - MIGHT HAVE - doesn't at all even imply any of the things that the media is saying it does. It's doesn't mean she's REPULSED by him, or DISGUSTED by him, or any of the wishful thinking of the hateful, mean-spirited, utterly hypocritical anti-Trump crowd.   

Walter Cronkite didn't have to resort to this base level of nonsense to report the news. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 23, 2017, 01:25:09 PM
I agree.  I think its ok if we are going to have a laugh, and I know lots of us are doing just that in the political humor thread, but there is a point where people take that humor and make it into a political statement.  Maybe some cases you can, but a lot of the time the comic relief is through exaggeration, and you can't then take that exaggeration and put it into a political context and make a point.  I see this a lot on social media where there is little to no border between comedy and political statement.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 23, 2017, 02:10:36 PM
Ok... here we go.
Seriously, this point is important, if not to you - or the people that feel somehow "righteous" for their slander/libel - but to the political landscape as we now know it.  Because I firmly believe that NOT worrying about fairness to Obama, and to Bush and to Clinton got us here.   Like a callus building up on your playing fingers, we got numb to the fact that we feel like we can say whatever the fuck we want and slap "OPINION!" on it, and it's all good, and it doesn't work that way.  Because what happens is you get people that disagree just dismissing the other side as "FAKE NEWS" and "LIBERAL PC BULLSHIT" and "CONSERVATIVE CRONISM" and there's no meaningful conversation.

This is a brilliant post.  Seriously, I never considered this perspective, and it is certainly an honorable way to look at things.  I'm being completely sincere here.   :tup

And you don't get to call me a hypocrite until I tell you what I believe.   

I'll assume this was meant to be facetious (or in green font), because I never called you a hypocrite.

Stadler, this is conversation. If conversation required the same amount of proof/evidence/etc as a court of law, we'd all be mute.

Bingo.  If we're only allowed to talk about black and white facts/truths, then sure, tear a strip into me.  However - and we shouldn't have to post this with every/any statement - much of what I post here is OPINION.  Can I prove at this precise moment beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump is a hypocrite?  No.  But, based on what he has publicly stated on this matter, it is MY OPINION that he is.  Stadler... please pump the breaks on everything needing to be factually provable before anyone state their personal viewpoints - hell, you'd think with the way GrabbyTM throws around falsehoods like Bill did with his pecker, you'd offer a little more grace on the issue.   ;D

the facts are important.

I couldn't agree more

*snip - China currency manipulation*
And if you don't know and/or understand the facts that give rise to what is being said, in my opinion, you really have no bidniss pontificating about how much of a "hypocrite" Trump is (and for all his faults and for all he doesn't know, I guaran-fucking-TEE you he knows about China and their currency).   

You're mostly right on the currency topic.  However, what proof do you have that Trump knows about China and their currency?   ;)  What guarantee do you offer me or El Barto?  Now I'm being facetious, but seriously... how can you possibly even think that when A) He didn't know things were so complicated between China and North Korea; and B) "Who knew healthcare was this complicated?".  Compound that with his past public statements (in 2016) about China *devaluing* their currency... it suggests he either doesn't know shit about the topic, or B) knowingly made false statements about it.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: axeman90210 on May 23, 2017, 02:31:22 PM
One could argue that while China was manipulating their currency for much of the 2000s, that effectively stopped a year before Trump even started campaigning.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 23, 2017, 02:57:42 PM
One could argue that while China was manipulating their currency for much of the 2000s, that effectively stopped a year before Trump even started campaigning.

They stopped devaluing, but lately were trying to manipulate their currency upwards - which (as I understand) by the official definition did not make them a "currency manipulator".  :dunno:
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: axeman90210 on May 23, 2017, 03:10:58 PM
One could argue that while China was manipulating their currency for much of the 2000s, that effectively stopped a year before Trump even started campaigning.

They stopped devaluing, but lately were trying to manipulate their currency upwards - which (as I understand) by the official definition did not make them a "currency manipulator".  :dunno:

Yeah, especially since he was particularly calling them out for devaluation (which, again, I would agree they did for a long time, just not in the last couple years).
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 23, 2017, 03:24:33 PM
^^^As is so often the case with Grabby he fell victim to terrible optics. He changed his stance on that at the same time they changed their policy, but also at the same time they gave him a very lucrative concession. If a one-armed man breaks in and murders my wife I'm in the clear once they catch his gimpy ass, but if I had just jacked up the insurance policy on her then people are still going to look at me funny. In some ways Trump isn't entirely to blame for the bad optics. It's not always fair and it's sometimes hard to see coming. In other ways he's completely to blame for simply not caring what people think, or just as often, weaponizing people's ill-will.

And then there's also the fact that he could have avoided a ton of this by actually severing himself from his business like a sane person. The people want him to do it to avoid the possibility of impropriety. A good businessman would want to do it to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: XeRocks81 on May 23, 2017, 10:36:19 PM
this interview was shared in my twitter feed today and I thought of you Stadler. I imagined forcing you to listen to it at high volume Guantanamo Bay style  :biggrin: https://soundcloud.com/primary-concerns/chris-murphy
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 24, 2017, 08:56:57 AM
This is a brilliant post.  Seriously, I never considered this perspective, and it is certainly an honorable way to look at things.  I'm being completely sincere here.   :tup

Everyone hits one now and again.  ;)

Quote
I'll assume this was meant to be facetious (or in green font), because I never called you a hypocrite.

It was very much tongue in cheek, though meant to deliver a bigger point (which you clearly got). 

Quote
Stadler, this is conversation. If conversation required the same amount of proof/evidence/etc as a court of law, we'd all be mute.

Bingo.  If we're only allowed to talk about black and white facts/truths, then sure, tear a strip into me.  However - and we shouldn't have to post this with every/any statement - much of what I post here is OPINION.  Can I prove at this precise moment beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump is a hypocrite?  No.  But, based on what he has publicly stated on this matter, it is MY OPINION that he is.  Stadler... please pump the breaks on everything needing to be factually provable before anyone state their personal viewpoints - hell, you'd think with the way GrabbyTM throws around falsehoods like Bill did with his pecker, you'd offer a little more grace on the issue.   ;D

That's not at all what I'm saying though.  It's the point at which "opinion" crosses over into BEING the factual proof.  Some of this is perhaps semantic, I'll grant you, but - as we've seen with the man himself - words DO matter.   We wouldn't be so careless with "n****r", or f**, or any of a number of words that might convey different meanings, so why here?  I don't at all say you're WRONG for being cavalier and careless in your word choice, but I am saying - respectfully, to be sure - that you need to be aware of that and we should be aware of what (some of the possible) unintended consequences are.  It's one thing to say "I have no proof, but I just don't trust this guy as far as I can throw him".   OPINION.   It's another thing entirely to argue TO OTHERS that "we should not have that Executive Order, because it's a Muslim Ban!", and when I say "whoa, they don't mention "Muslims" anywhere in the document, it's not a ban per se (because it's not permanent) and it doesn't even apply to 90% of the world population of Muslims", you counter with "but I don't trust this guy as far as I can throw him".   Do you see the difference?   The opinion is fine, welcome, and engaging UP TO THE POINT it is offered as proof of the hypothesis. 

Quote
the facts are important.

I couldn't agree more

So why do we - collective, I'm not at all digging at you here - seem to want to ignore so many of them, especially the ones that don't support our precious "opinions"?   


Quote
You're mostly right on the currency topic.  However, what proof do you have that Trump knows about China and their currency?   ;)  What guarantee do you offer me or El Barto?  Now I'm being facetious, but seriously... how can you possibly even think that when A) He didn't know things were so complicated between China and North Korea; and B) "Who knew healthcare was this complicated?".  Compound that with his past public statements (in 2016) about China *devaluing* their currency... it suggests he either doesn't know shit about the topic, or B) knowingly made false statements about it.

You totally lost me on the latter part, starting with "Compound...".  They DID devalue their currency in the way I outlined above.     But generally, it's his very statements that prove it to me, coupled with the fact that - and the irony is not lost on me here at all, and shouldn't be on you, either - all the products he was ridiculed by the Left for having outsourced - his ties, his shirts - he couldn't have done those deals without knowing what the state of the currency is in.   I suppose in a theoretical way, it's possible he didn't know, but not on ANY practical level was it likely that he didn't know that point. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 24, 2017, 09:06:44 AM
One could argue that while China was manipulating their currency for much of the 2000s, that effectively stopped a year before Trump even started campaigning.

They stopped devaluing, but lately were trying to manipulate their currency upwards - which (as I understand) by the official definition did not make them a "currency manipulator".  :dunno:

Yeah, especially since he was particularly calling them out for devaluation (which, again, I would agree they did for a long time, just not in the last couple years).

I don't understand your comments.  Both of you.

At time X, when China was doing A, he called them "A".
At time Y, when China changed to doing B, he called them "no longer A".

He was completely, and utterly factually correct, at least on this ONE point.  Why is it so hard to concede that point, regardless of what you think of the man? 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Adami on May 24, 2017, 09:14:37 AM
Stadler is right.

Trump basically floods us with evidence of being a hypocrite and flip flopping on a whim. We don't need to invent new ones.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 24, 2017, 09:15:24 AM
*takes cover*
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: axeman90210 on May 24, 2017, 09:49:17 AM
One could argue that while China was manipulating their currency for much of the 2000s, that effectively stopped a year before Trump even started campaigning.

They stopped devaluing, but lately were trying to manipulate their currency upwards - which (as I understand) by the official definition did not make them a "currency manipulator".  :dunno:

Yeah, especially since he was particularly calling them out for devaluation (which, again, I would agree they did for a long time, just not in the last couple years).

I don't understand your comments.  Both of you.

At time X, when China was doing A, he called them "A".
At time Y, when China changed to doing B, he called them "no longer A".

He was completely, and utterly factually correct, at least on this ONE point.  Why is it so hard to concede that point, regardless of what you think of the man? 

Since 2014 China has net sold about $1 trillion in USD to buy (and increase the value of) their own currency. While they were certainly devaluing their currency for a large chunk of the 2000s, they generally haven't been doing so over the last couple of years.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jammindude on May 24, 2017, 10:02:03 AM
"The President in particular is very much a figurehead—he wields no real power whatsoever. […] His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it." - Douglas Adams from Hutchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 25, 2017, 09:54:28 AM
The Spicer thing is interesting. I was unaware but he's apparently a raging Catholic, very devout, and had been excited for months about getting to me the pope. It was going to be the greatest achievement in his life and a dream come true. Yet he was inexplicably excluded. Naturally the supposition is that it was Grabby being mean and vindictive, and I won't make that assumption. I am very interested in hearing why he was left out, though. The thing was essentially a photo-op anyway so allowing a guy to live out his dream in the process seems a pretty simple thing to do. This is coming out because the press corps, who generally hate the guy, are very sympathetic to him right now. It was apparently pretty hurtful to him.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/05/25/sean-spicer-didnt-get-to-meet-the-pope-even-reporters-feel-badly-for-him/
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 25, 2017, 10:10:10 AM
Wow. I almost feel bad for him.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 25, 2017, 10:15:10 AM
it is interesting, but in a different way.  I'm fascinated by the mechanics of all this.   It sort of exposes the hierarchy of "hate".  We hate Spicer, but we hate Trump more, so any chance to take sides, let's hop right on it.  It wasn't that long ago that The Washington Post (and others) gave voice to the Twitterverse for making fun of Spicer's beliefs when he appeared in public with the sacramental on his forehead.   

In a general sense, in a perfect world, this would have been a nice thing; but there are so many variables that to speculate, and to comment on the "cruelness" of Trump by mere assumption, is I think a little much.    It'll be more interesting what Spicer's response is to this.  If he leaves, abruptly, it probably says a lot more than anything we can surmise. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 25, 2017, 10:21:57 AM
I don't hate Spicer.  He has the hardest job in America and the stupid crap he says is more likely due to the stupid crap he is hearing and dealing with on a daly basis in the white house.  I know he has put his foot in his own mouth before, but I find it really hard to hate this guy.   I definitely feel bad for him for missing out on something that probably was more important to him than anyone else in that room.  Not that it means you get the right to be in there though so I don't know if this is Trump being a dick (very possible) or just circumstances, but it's also not much of a real news story either imo.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 25, 2017, 10:28:57 AM
it is interesting, but in a different way.  I'm fascinated by the mechanics of all this.   It sort of exposes the hierarchy of "hate".  We hate Spicer, but we hate Trump more, so any chance to take sides, let's hop right on it.  It wasn't that long ago that The Washington Post (and others) gave voice to the Twitterverse for making fun of Spicer's beliefs when he appeared in public with the sacramental on his forehead.   

In a general sense, in a perfect world, this would have been a nice thing; but there are so many variables that to speculate, and to comment on the "cruelness" of Trump by mere assumption, is I think a little much.    It'll be more interesting what Spicer's response is to this.  If he leaves, abruptly, it probably says a lot more than anything we can surmise.
As do I, which I made clear in my post. At the same time these things do not exist in a vacuum. This is a puzzle piece of a bigger picture. You will say that the individual pieces don't amount to proof of anything, and I'll agree with you. At the same time I won't fully disregard the appearance of the piece and it's logical placement in the bigger picture. There have been signs and reports of a falling out between Spicer and Grabby. There's also a fair amount of precedence. Non-Catholics routinely offer up their spots to Catholics merely as an act of courtesy. This thing can be telling even if it's not damning proof.

And Spicer abruptly quitting would be extreme. There are obvious reasons why he wouldn't even if he were "fuming" as the reports suggest.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 25, 2017, 11:01:11 AM
I don't hate Spicer.  He has the hardest job in America and the stupid crap he says is more likely due to the stupid crap he is hearing and dealing with on a daly basis in the white house.

When the restaurant gets a good deal on bullshit and stocks up on it, not even Lonestar could turn it into filet mignon.  Similar circumstances for Spicer.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 25, 2017, 11:22:35 AM
Sure, Spicer has a tough job that involves publicly debasing himself multiple times per week. But unless POTUS is holding his family hostage in the White House basement there's no reason he needs to keep doing it. He doesn't need to be White House Press Secretary.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 25, 2017, 11:49:13 AM
Sure, Spicer has a tough job that involves publicly debasing himself multiple times per week. But unless POTUS is holding his family hostage in the White House basement there's no reason he needs to keep doing it. He doesn't need to be White House Press Secretary.

Of course not, maybe he will get fed up. But it is a prestigious position.  I certainly wouldn't want it, but you can't fault someone for wanting to work a top public speaking position in the world even if it's a terrible job.  If not Spicer, someone else would line up for that job.  I thought I've seen headlines (never read an article though) about the WH looking to replace Spicer anyway with Kimberly Guilfoyle from Fox News being a top choice.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 25, 2017, 12:01:09 PM
(https://puu.sh/w0Uwk/dd6b0a4c7b.png)

who wants to give slandering the fourth circuit a try?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 25, 2017, 03:23:17 PM
"drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination"

First, thank god for the use of the Oxford comma.

Second, awaits Stadler to remind us all it's NOT a 'muslim ban'.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 25, 2017, 03:31:21 PM
You do understand that the 4th circuit makes no claims whatsoever here about it being a Moslem ban, right? The essence of the decision is simply that we have the right to sue to find out if it is or is not. In all likelihood it will be deemed to not be, but process dictates that we find out before implementing it.


edit: actually, that's not exactly correct. Whether or not it's a Moslem ban probably won't be relevant. Only whether or not the president has the authority to implement whatever it is.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 25, 2017, 04:11:49 PM
I'm aware that the ruling wasn't whether or not it's a "Muslim Ban".  Bu the ruling certainly insinuates that the subtext of the EO is that it is targeted in some level to prevent certain religions from entering the US.

There's no need to re-hash all of this.  I'm well aware that it is not literally a "muslim ban" (ie, banning any/all people of Muslim faith from entry into the US).  It is pretty easy to see however that it is a ban targeted at (countries whose majority is) people of Muslim faith.

Either way, multiple sub-courts have rendered this unconstitutional.  Invariably, Grabby's next move will be the Supreme Court.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 25, 2017, 04:49:31 PM
I'm aware that the ruling wasn't whether or not it's a "Muslim Ban".  Bu the ruling certainly insinuates that the subtext of the EO is that it is targeted in some level to prevent certain religions from entering the US.

There's no need to re-hash all of this.  I'm well aware that it is not literally a "muslim ban" (ie, banning any/all people of Muslim faith from entry into the US).  It is pretty easy to see however that it is a ban targeted at (countries whose majority is) people of Muslim faith.

Either way, multiple sub-courts have rendered this unconstitutional.  Invariably, Grabby's next move will be the Supreme Court.
I was right there with you until the final sentence. In fact no courts have ruled this unconstitutional. Several have ruled that temporary injunctions are warranted and two have upheld those rulings. Granting the injunction required finding that the plaintiffs stand a good chance of winning and are suffering harm while the order is in place, and Trump's appeals are based on proving necessity. The constitutionality has not been litigated.

I might be completely off base here, but this is my take on the whole thing and there are enough lawyers here to set me right if I'm talking out of my ass.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: chknptpie on May 25, 2017, 05:17:18 PM
Jared Kushner now?  :corn
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: bosk1 on May 25, 2017, 05:18:40 PM
I'm aware that the ruling wasn't whether or not it's a "Muslim Ban".  Bu the ruling certainly insinuates that the subtext of the EO is that it is targeted in some level to prevent certain religions from entering the US.

There's no need to re-hash all of this.  I'm well aware that it is not literally a "muslim ban" (ie, banning any/all people of Muslim faith from entry into the US).  It is pretty easy to see however that it is a ban targeted at (countries whose majority is) people of Muslim faith.

Either way, multiple sub-courts have rendered this unconstitutional.  Invariably, Grabby's next move will be the Supreme Court.
I was right there with you until the final sentence. In fact no courts have ruled this unconstitutional. Several have ruled that temporary injunctions are warranted and two have upheld those rulings. Granting the injunction required finding that the plaintiffs stand a good chance of winning and are suffering harm while the order is in place, and Trump's appeals are based on proving necessity. The constitutionality has not been litigated.

I might be completely off base here, but this is my take on the whole thing and there are enough lawyers here to set me right if I'm talking out of my ass.

That is my understanding as well.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 25, 2017, 05:20:50 PM
I'm aware that the ruling wasn't whether or not it's a "Muslim Ban".  Bu the ruling certainly insinuates that the subtext of the EO is that it is targeted in some level to prevent certain religions from entering the US.

There's no need to re-hash all of this.  I'm well aware that it is not literally a "muslim ban" (ie, banning any/all people of Muslim faith from entry into the US).  It is pretty easy to see however that it is a ban targeted at (countries whose majority is) people of Muslim faith.

Either way, multiple sub-courts have rendered this unconstitutional.  Invariably, Grabby's next move will be the Supreme Court.
I was right there with you until the final sentence. In fact no courts have ruled this unconstitutional. Several have ruled that temporary injunctions are warranted and two have upheld those rulings. Granting the injunction required finding that the plaintiffs stand a good chance of winning and are suffering harm while the order is in place, and Trump's appeals are based on proving necessity. The constitutionality has not been litigated.

I might be completely off base here, but this is my take on the whole thing and there are enough lawyers here to set me right if I'm talking out of my ass.

That is my understanding as well.

As is mine.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 26, 2017, 07:03:17 AM
Poor choice of words on my part. I guess?  I thought the injunction - and it being upheld - largely revolved around the "Establishment Clause of the First Amendment", making it a constitutional decision. If not, my bad.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 26, 2017, 07:43:32 AM
I'm aware that the ruling wasn't whether or not it's a "Muslim Ban".  Bu the ruling certainly insinuates that the subtext of the EO is that it is targeted in some level to prevent certain religions from entering the US.

There's no need to re-hash all of this.  I'm well aware that it is not literally a "muslim ban" (ie, banning any/all people of Muslim faith from entry into the US).  It is pretty easy to see however that it is a ban targeted at (countries whose majority is) people of Muslim faith.

Either way, multiple sub-courts have rendered this unconstitutional.  Invariably, Grabby's next move will be the Supreme Court.

No, it's pretty clear that it is a ban targeted at countries who intelligence (including intelligence collected and analyzed by the previous administration) deemed a potential threat to the United States.  It just so happens that the six, very much like tens of countries that are NOT subject to the ban, happen to be majority Muslim.

The press, the haters and activist judges are the ones making the (false) connection.     But thankfully, the judge's subjective commentary notwithstanding, that is NOT the subject of the decision itself.   As to that decision, el Barto is right as rain as far as I am concerned.   And under normal circumstances, we would ordinarily rely on our press to be objective and make this clarification known to us, but that doesn't serve the agenda, now, does it?     
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 26, 2017, 07:47:17 AM
Poor choice of words on my part. I guess?  I thought the injunction - and it being upheld - largely revolved around the "Establishment Clause of the First Amendment", making it a constitutional decision. If not, my bad.

Not at all disparaging you here, but isn't this part of the bigger problem?   We're not all Constitutional experts, and while as a sidebar, I think there ought to be no need for lawyers and that we all, as citizens, ought to know more about the laws that govern us, we rely on those "smarter" (read:  more in tune with the specific issue) than us to give us the context and clarifications we need to arrive at intelligent informed conclusions.  Where is the media on this?   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: XeRocks81 on May 26, 2017, 08:16:20 AM
The Trump campaign talked about banning muslims from entering the country to work up their base.   While they obviously can't do that and get away with it,  people like Steve Bannon looked at the next best thing,  if we can't ban all muslims, wich ones CAN we ban?  They had this intel lying around from previous administration (who had not used it to institute travel bans)  and just went with that.  It's fairly transparent in my opinion.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 26, 2017, 08:26:41 AM
I agree. It just doesn't make it illegal. Or, necessarily a bad thing, IMO. The way it was handled was staggeringly inept because so is our president. Banning people from entering the country from places where they can't be properly vetted isn't such a stupid idea, even if it is almost entirely pointless.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 26, 2017, 09:57:06 AM
Not at all disparaging you here, but isn't this part of the bigger problem?   We're not all Constitutional experts, and while as a sidebar, I think there ought to be no need for lawyers and that we all, as citizens, ought to know more about the laws that govern us, we rely on those "smarter" (read:  more in tune with the specific issue) than us to give us the context and clarifications we need to arrive at intelligent informed conclusions.  Where is the media on this?   

Well, as a Canadian, I'm not overly concerned about knowing US laws to that extent.  I just made an quick (and improper) connection and chose my words incorrectly.

The Trump campaign talked about banning muslims from entering the country to work up their base.   While they obviously can't do that and get away with it,  people like Steve Bannon looked at the next best thing,  if we can't ban all muslims, wich ones CAN we ban?  They had this intel lying around from previous administration (who had not used it to institute travel bans)  and just went with that.  It's fairly transparent in my opinion.

Bingo.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 26, 2017, 10:20:22 AM
The Trump campaign talked about banning muslims from entering the country to work up their base.   While they obviously can't do that and get away with it,  people like Steve Bannon looked at the next best thing,  if we can't ban all muslims, wich ones CAN we ban?  They had this intel lying around from previous administration (who had not used it to institute travel bans)  and just went with that.  It's fairly transparent in my opinion.

Not so sure I agree with that.  Trump campaigned about restricting the muslims from terrorist countries, not all Muslims.  It's easy to miss that if you listen to the same mainstream media that mischaracterizes these rulings (which by the way, I totally thought as Jingle did by reading the headlines, I would have had no idea of what El Barto and others have said if I didn't read this thread).
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: mikeyd23 on May 26, 2017, 10:24:35 AM
The Trump campaign talked about banning muslims from entering the country to work up their base.   While they obviously can't do that and get away with it,  people like Steve Bannon looked at the next best thing,  if we can't ban all muslims, wich ones CAN we ban?  They had this intel lying around from previous administration (who had not used it to institute travel bans)  and just went with that.  It's fairly transparent in my opinion.

Not so sure I agree with that.  Trump campaigned about restricting the muslims from terrorist countries, not all Muslims.  It's easy to miss that if you listen to the same mainstream media that mischaracterizes these rulings (which by the way, I totally thought as Jingle did by reading the headlines, I would have had no idea of what El Barto and others have said if I didn't read this thread).

Agreed, I get it was easy to think that when he was campaigning as most headlines and even articles told you that, but if you actually listened to what he said in it's entirety when he spoke at rallies, it had more to do with restricting travel from terrorist countries than anything else. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: RuRoRul on May 26, 2017, 11:00:35 AM
Quote
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/01/31/is-this-a-muslim-ban-look-at-the-history-and-at-trumps-own-words/?utm_term=.b8ac3b18e8bd
That was the Donald Trump campaign's official statement when he first proposed his "Muslim ban", in December 2015.

"Total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States". Those aren't the mainstream media's words - those are the exact words put out by the Trump campaign themselves.

Over time that evolved into the temporary ban on travel from specific territories, so it is correct that by the end of his campaign the official proposed policy wasn't a complete ban on Muslims. But it's not correct to say that he never talked about it or campaigned on it, or it is only the media and headlines that are to blame for people believing Trump ever proposed a Muslim ban.

If the Clinton campaign had put out a statement calling for a "complete and total ban on firearms in the US", then later updated it to merely a very restrictive policy in particular areas, then it wouldn't be correct to say that "Hillary never talked about banning all guns", even if it wasn't her official proposal by the end of the campaign.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 26, 2017, 12:12:29 PM
I was gonna post pretty much that.  And that was not the ONLY time he specifically called for a total/complete Muslim ban.

Agreed, I get it was easy to think that when he was campaigning as most headlines and even articles told you that, but if you actually listened to what he said in it's entirety when he spoke at rallies, it had more to do with restricting travel from terrorist countries than anything else. 

And yet the countries that were 'banned' have no such history or terrorism against the United States, while countries that did (eg, Saudi Arabia) were left off the EO.

Words and actions don't match.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: mikeyd23 on May 26, 2017, 12:51:11 PM
I was gonna post pretty much that.  And that was not the ONLY time he specifically called for a total/complete Muslim ban.

Agreed, I get it was easy to think that when he was campaigning as most headlines and even articles told you that, but if you actually listened to what he said in it's entirety when he spoke at rallies, it had more to do with restricting travel from terrorist countries than anything else. 

And yet the countries that were 'banned' have no such history or terrorism against the United States, while countries that did (eg, Saudi Arabia) were left off the EO.

Words and actions don't match.

I can't remember if it was this thread or one of the others, but Stadler went over this in more detail. Because if it is a Muslim ban, it's a pretty terrible one, since it misses a lot of Muslims in different areas of the world. Words and actions don't match? Same principle applies right?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm for this or against it, just commenting the media took a then candidate with no regards for his words and a team that can't handle optics to save their lives and made it worse. There's a good portion of blame to spread around both sides IMO.

Regardless, that's all been discussed a lot previously, at this point I'm curious to see where this EO heads now. To my very un-expert eyes, it looks like Trumpy has the authority to do what he did, regardless of whether me, you, or a judge wanted him to.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 26, 2017, 02:29:01 PM
The Trump campaign talked about banning muslims from entering the country to work up their base.   While they obviously can't do that and get away with it,  people like Steve Bannon looked at the next best thing,  if we can't ban all muslims, wich ones CAN we ban?  They had this intel lying around from previous administration (who had not used it to institute travel bans)  and just went with that.  It's fairly transparent in my opinion.

Before I got married I talked about going out, getting drunk and banging whores.  Now that I am married, does that mean that EVERT TIME I go to a bar and have a drink that I am committing an infidelity?  Can my now wife just assume that, without any scrutiny, any due diligence, any facts to the contrary, just assume I am banging whores?

The review is of the document.  The Executive Order.  And, largely, the review STARTS with what is called the "four corners" of the document, i.e. the words on the page.  ONLY when the words are ambiguous (here, they are not) or are in conflict (again, here, they are not) or the document is silent on that issue (it is patently not) do you go outside the document to intent.   

We don't have to do any of that here, and even when you do, you have to account for the process in between, in terms of how those what are called "extemporaneous sources" are used. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 26, 2017, 02:33:57 PM
Not at all disparaging you here, but isn't this part of the bigger problem?   We're not all Constitutional experts, and while as a sidebar, I think there ought to be no need for lawyers and that we all, as citizens, ought to know more about the laws that govern us, we rely on those "smarter" (read:  more in tune with the specific issue) than us to give us the context and clarifications we need to arrive at intelligent informed conclusions.  Where is the media on this?   

Well, as a Canadian, I'm not overly concerned about knowing US laws to that extent.  I just made an quick (and improper) connection and chose my words incorrectly.

The Trump campaign talked about banning muslims from entering the country to work up their base.   While they obviously can't do that and get away with it,  people like Steve Bannon looked at the next best thing,  if we can't ban all muslims, wich ones CAN we ban?  They had this intel lying around from previous administration (who had not used it to institute travel bans)  and just went with that.  It's fairly transparent in my opinion.

Bingo.

Here's the thing, though:  your opinion - and mine, it should be said - don't matter.  And while Court documents are called "opinions", they're not, in the same sense as what we think of as the word.  There are processes, and review policies to follow (see what I wrote above).    Judges don't really get to just say "well, I fucking hate Trump, and the lawyer arguing for the plaintiff had a nice rack, so I'm just going to say "IMO, it's a Muslim ban".   They have to look at the language first.   EVEN IF the intent was as you say, it doesn't ACTUALLY do what you say.   90% - that's NINE-OH -of Muslims aren't even touched by the ban, and there are perhaps somewhere from 1 to 5 million (bear with me, doing math in my head from numbers by memory) people that are NON-Muslim that ARE touched by the ban.   At some point, that has to factor in. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 26, 2017, 02:36:20 PM
Quote
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/01/31/is-this-a-muslim-ban-look-at-the-history-and-at-trumps-own-words/?utm_term=.b8ac3b18e8bd
That was the Donald Trump campaign's official statement when he first proposed his "Muslim ban", in December 2015.

"Total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States". Those aren't the mainstream media's words - those are the exact words put out by the Trump campaign themselves.

Over time that evolved into the temporary ban on travel from specific territories, so it is correct that by the end of his campaign the official proposed policy wasn't a complete ban on Muslims. But it's not correct to say that he never talked about it or campaigned on it, or it is only the media and headlines that are to blame for people believing Trump ever proposed a Muslim ban.

If the Clinton campaign had put out a statement calling for a "complete and total ban on firearms in the US", then later updated it to merely a very restrictive policy in particular areas, then it wouldn't be correct to say that "Hillary never talked about banning all guns", even if it wasn't her official proposal by the end of the campaign.

Given that you're right -and I have no reason to doubt you - why does the ONE statement carry weight, and the twelve months, twelve debates, and untold rallies where he tempered his rhetoric not carry ANY mitigating weight? 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 26, 2017, 02:38:25 PM
I was gonna post pretty much that.  And that was not the ONLY time he specifically called for a total/complete Muslim ban.

Agreed, I get it was easy to think that when he was campaigning as most headlines and even articles told you that, but if you actually listened to what he said in it's entirety when he spoke at rallies, it had more to do with restricting travel from terrorist countries than anything else. 

And yet the countries that were 'banned' have no such history or terrorism against the United States, while countries that did (eg, Saudi Arabia) were left off the EO.

Words and actions don't match.

I can't remember if it was this thread or one of the others, but Stadler went over this in more detail. Because if it is a Muslim ban, it's a pretty terrible one, since it misses a lot of Muslims in different areas of the world. Words and actions don't match? Same principle applies right?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm for this or against it, just commenting the media took a then candidate with no regards for his words and a team that can't handle optics to save their lives and made it worse. There's a good portion of blame to spread around both sides IMO.

Regardless, that's all been discussed a lot previously, at this point I'm curious to see where this EO heads now. To my very un-expert eyes, it looks like Trumpy has the authority to do what he did, regardless of whether me, you, or a judge wanted him to.

And it's well possible that the Supreme Court is going to say just that.  They're not going to be very interest in scrutinizing a year of campaign speeches in order to decide what is essentially self-contained on two pieces of paper (the EO and the Constitution). 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: ariich on May 26, 2017, 03:31:58 PM
The Trump campaign talked about banning muslims from entering the country to work up their base.   While they obviously can't do that and get away with it,  people like Steve Bannon looked at the next best thing,  if we can't ban all muslims, wich ones CAN we ban?  They had this intel lying around from previous administration (who had not used it to institute travel bans)  and just went with that.  It's fairly transparent in my opinion.

Before I got married I talked about going out, getting drunk and banging whores.  Now that I am married, does that mean that EVERT TIME I go to a bar and have a drink that I am committing an infidelity?  Can my now wife just assume that, without any scrutiny, any due diligence, any facts to the contrary, just assume I am banging whores?
If you really want to go with a marriage analogy, Trump was using this as a specific part of his campaign on what he would do as president. So the equivalent wouldn't just be that you talked about it, but that you made it quite clear to your wife-to-be that you planned to do it after you were married.

He didn't only say this once; even vaguely following the election from across the pond, I remember it coming up a number of times.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: ariich on May 26, 2017, 03:34:46 PM
I was gonna post pretty much that.  And that was not the ONLY time he specifically called for a total/complete Muslim ban.

Agreed, I get it was easy to think that when he was campaigning as most headlines and even articles told you that, but if you actually listened to what he said in it's entirety when he spoke at rallies, it had more to do with restricting travel from terrorist countries than anything else. 

And yet the countries that were 'banned' have no such history or terrorism against the United States, while countries that did (eg, Saudi Arabia) were left off the EO.

Words and actions don't match.
Chad, are you doubting the "intelligence" that the six banned countries pose the greatest threat? Saudi Arabia's oil definitely has nothing to do with anything.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 26, 2017, 03:57:12 PM
I was gonna post pretty much that.  And that was not the ONLY time he specifically called for a total/complete Muslim ban.

Agreed, I get it was easy to think that when he was campaigning as most headlines and even articles told you that, but if you actually listened to what he said in it's entirety when he spoke at rallies, it had more to do with restricting travel from terrorist countries than anything else. 

And yet the countries that were 'banned' have no such history or terrorism against the United States, while countries that did (eg, Saudi Arabia) were left off the EO.

Words and actions don't match.
Chad, are you doubting the "intelligence" that the six banned countries pose the greatest threat? Saudi Arabia's oil definitely has nothing to do with anything.

It doesn't.   

Saudi is not our largest supplier - not by a long shot - and we're not really bending over backward to appease the others in the top five or so of foreign suppliers (and if I'm not mistaken, one of our top five suppliers WAS in the Executive Order). 

Mexico?  Iraq? Venezuela?  Hell, even Canada (because of the tariffs). 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 26, 2017, 03:58:03 PM
Saudi Arabia has the ability to vet its citizens. Whether or not we should trust them to do so is a different matter. Sudan most certainly does not have that capability. Five of the six countries make perfect sense. Iran is just there because it's a popular bogeyman.

And I want to make clear that even though I'm defending the thing against ignorance and dubious indictments, I think it's fucking stupid. We were turning away people who we personally had spent years investigating and already offered to accept, only to slam the door in their face for the sake of political grandstanding. The whole thing is political masturbation. While we're sending home refugees people born in US suburbs are building bombs and buying guns to try and add significance to their otherwise pathetic lives.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 26, 2017, 04:42:55 PM
And I want to make clear that even though I'm defending the thing against ignorance and dubious indictments, I think it's fucking stupid. We were turning away people who we personally had spent years investigating and already offered to accept, only to slam the door in their face for the sake of political grandstanding. The whole thing is political masturbation. While we're sending home refugees people born in US suburbs are building bombs and buying guns to try and add significance to their otherwise pathetic lives.

I also do not personally favor the travel ban.  My reasons are that I simply think people are smarter than this.  Not our politicians, but terrorists.  As in, if they want to get in this country, they will, regardless of bans.  Therefore, my opinion is that a travel ban doesn't work.  However, I am not totally against it either.  The reason being is simply that if the American people want this (and that I'm not so sure of) and/or it does make America safer in even the slightest amount then I'm not going to attack it either.  I'm totally cool with the lawful challenges of it, let's see if it sticks and what sort of precedent it might make. 

Quote
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/01/31/is-this-a-muslim-ban-look-at-the-history-and-at-trumps-own-words/?utm_term=.b8ac3b18e8bd
That was the Donald Trump campaign's official statement when he first proposed his "Muslim ban", in December 2015.

"Total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States". Those aren't the mainstream media's words - those are the exact words put out by the Trump campaign themselves.

Over time that evolved into the temporary ban on travel from specific territories, so it is correct that by the end of his campaign the official proposed policy wasn't a complete ban on Muslims. But it's not correct to say that he never talked about it or campaigned on it, or it is only the media and headlines that are to blame for people believing Trump ever proposed a Muslim ban.

If the Clinton campaign had put out a statement calling for a "complete and total ban on firearms in the US", then later updated it to merely a very restrictive policy in particular areas, then it wouldn't be correct to say that "Hillary never talked about banning all guns", even if it wasn't her official proposal by the end of the campaign.

Given that you're right -and I have no reason to doubt you - why does the ONE statement carry weight, and the twelve months, twelve debates, and untold rallies where he tempered his rhetoric not carry ANY mitigating weight? 

I still would say his campaign was not about banning all of Muslims, but being that he did mention that early on in his campaign, I could see why the thought of "work(ing) up the base" could be valid.  I do think there are racist people who do get rallied up by things like this.  I personally do not believe that Trump himself is a racist, but can see how his remarks would have gotten some racist people to get worked up for him (and I don't think this is how or why he won either).
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Cool Chris on May 26, 2017, 08:56:51 PM
How does this EO "cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation?"
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: RuRoRul on May 27, 2017, 08:57:27 AM
Quote
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/01/31/is-this-a-muslim-ban-look-at-the-history-and-at-trumps-own-words/?utm_term=.b8ac3b18e8bd
That was the Donald Trump campaign's official statement when he first proposed his "Muslim ban", in December 2015.

"Total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States". Those aren't the mainstream media's words - those are the exact words put out by the Trump campaign themselves.

Over time that evolved into the temporary ban on travel from specific territories, so it is correct that by the end of his campaign the official proposed policy wasn't a complete ban on Muslims. But it's not correct to say that he never talked about it or campaigned on it, or it is only the media and headlines that are to blame for people believing Trump ever proposed a Muslim ban.

If the Clinton campaign had put out a statement calling for a "complete and total ban on firearms in the US", then later updated it to merely a very restrictive policy in particular areas, then it wouldn't be correct to say that "Hillary never talked about banning all guns", even if it wasn't her official proposal by the end of the campaign.

Given that you're right -and I have no reason to doubt you - why does the ONE statement carry weight, and the twelve months, twelve debates, and untold rallies where he tempered his rhetoric not carry ANY mitigating weight?
Sure, the fact that they changed their stance away from a complete Muslim ban mitigates that original statement - after all if they were still proposing a complete and total Muslim ban right now then there wouldn't be that much of a question about whether it was constitutional (as far as I understand). But I mentioned that because it means that it's wrong to say that "Trump never talked about a total Muslim ban, that was all just the media", and because from what I've seen each time a ruling has come down on this current travel ban it has referred to the wider context, and that context includes the fact that Trump once said he aimed to implement a ban on Muslims entering the country. It also includes the fact that even when he tempered his rhetoric, as you say, he still fell for his impulses when asked if he had "gone back on his Muslim ban" and said "no I haven't gone back on that" even as he described the new territory based ban ( http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-july-24-2016-n615706 ) - so in his own words he links the new proposal back to the original, and after he took office he and his surrogates continued to do similar things with their public statements. 

In any case, I wasn't trying to use that as justification for the current ban being illegal / not illegal - I don't know enough to have an opinion on that so as far as that goes I'm pretty much just waiting to see what the courts final decision on it is (and I am not even really familiar enough with it to know how many more stages it will have to go through). It was just to point out that Trump did indeed introduce the idea of a complete Muslim ban (rather than it being the media misinterpreting him), and the judges that have ruled on the travel ban have referred to the wider context indicating that it is religiously motivated. To paraphrase the previous ruling, if the intent is to target Muslims then it doesn't matter how inefficiently it does it.

Quote
A reasonable, objective observer — enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance — would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion in spite of its stated, religiously-neutral purpose.

Quote
The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise. See Aziz, 2017 WL 580855, at *9 (rejecting the argument that “the Court cannot infer an anti-Muslim animus because [Executive Order No. 13,769] does not affect all, or even most, Muslims,” because “the Supreme Court has never reduced its Establishment Clause jurisprudence to a mathematical exercise. It is a discriminatory purpose that matters, no matter how inefficient the execution”
http://www.11alive.com/news/politics/national-politics/full-text-of-temporary-restraining-order-blocking-trumps-travel-ban/422908738
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 27, 2017, 11:38:16 AM
How does this EO "cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation?"
In this case I believe it's the states, rather than the citizens who are suing. States have a need for the best labor pool they can get, and also the best student applicants. The states that have sued have demonstrated a loss of employment opportunities and student enrollment. And before anybody says "that's no big deal" or  "that's really a very minor thing," it doesn't have to be a bid deal. It only needs to be a deal.

And in a roundabout sort of way Trump's numbskullery made their case for them. The bumbling manner of the original order that caused all that chaos kept specific people out of the country. People who had already been given jobs or granted enrollment or post-grad work. Your state was able to argue "hey, we had three highly qualified engineers coming to work for Boeing get sent back despite meeting every criteria for employment."
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Cool Chris on May 27, 2017, 08:50:18 PM
In this case I believe it's the states, rather than the citizens who are suing. States have a need for the best labor pool they can get, and also the best student applicants. The states that have sued have demonstrated a loss of employment opportunities and student enrollment.

By "the best labor pool" you mean "a labor pool that they can pay substantially less, and keep on a much shorter leash" right?

That may cause harm to a corporation, but not individuals. Oh wait.... corporations are individuals. But regardless, even if that causes irreparable harm to your P/L statement, I don't that it should warrant a law suit.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on May 28, 2017, 10:35:16 AM
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/335391-state-department-quietly-drops-refugee-admission-quotas-report

Quote
The State Department quietly lifted its restriction this week on how many refugees are allowed to enter the U.S. despite efforts by the Trump administration to scale back refugee resettlements, The New York Times reported Friday.

Jennifer Smith, a department official, reportedly notified refugee groups of the decision Thursday in an email stating that they could begin bringing refugees to the U.S. “unconstrained by the weekly quotas that were in place.”

Many of the organizations that received the email are private agencies that help guide individuals hoping to enter the country through the two-year U.S. application process.

The number of refugees entering the U.S. could double as a result of the lifted restrictions, refugee advocates told the newspaper. The leap could go from 830 a week for the first three weeks of May to over 1,500 a week by next month.

While the lifted restriction occurred on the same day that a Richmond, Va.-based federal appeals court handed down a ruling that blocked President Trump’s travel ban targeting six-majority Muslim countries, the decision is not related to the ruling, the Times said.

Congress passed a spending bill last fall that tightly constrained the budget for the State Department’s refugee resettlement program. The spending bill passed earlier this month, however, does not impose any limits on refugee admissions.

A State Department spokeswoman told the Times that State consulted with the Justice Department about its refugee quotes before making the decision to adjust them.

enocuraging development :)

Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 30, 2017, 09:11:46 AM
In this case I believe it's the states, rather than the citizens who are suing. States have a need for the best labor pool they can get, and also the best student applicants. The states that have sued have demonstrated a loss of employment opportunities and student enrollment.

By "the best labor pool" you mean "a labor pool that they can pay substantially less, and keep on a much shorter leash" right?

That may cause harm to a corporation, but not individuals. Oh wait.... corporations are individuals. But regardless, even if that causes irreparable harm to your P/L statement, I don't that it should warrant a law suit.

Usually I'm with you, but don't use the "corporations are individuals" thing out of context.  If they weren't viewed as such, they couldn't be sued.  I would think we would want that opportunity if and when corporations do run afoul of our sensibilities. 

Look, I rarely if ever question whether someone can ask the question or not; I prefer to have a wide, open door to the courts for people to have their cases heard, so that we can understand how the laws are applied on the ground, and to get definitive understanding of whether they are just or not.   My beef is the politicization of this.    I get that intent is an element, but it is but one element among many.  And to point to one speech 18 months prior to the EO - and ignoring the years before and the months after - is not what we are relying on our judges to do.    We are relying on them to be apolitical.  To look FIRST at the document and the intent that is stated in that document.  IF and WHEN there is ambiguity, you allow them to look outside that document to gain context.   

I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will be able to maintain that separation (regardless of where the outcome falls; I honestly couldn't care less whether this gets implemented or not; it is but one brick in the immigration problem wall).   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 30, 2017, 09:26:13 AM
In this case I believe it's the states, rather than the citizens who are suing. States have a need for the best labor pool they can get, and also the best student applicants. The states that have sued have demonstrated a loss of employment opportunities and student enrollment.

By "the best labor pool" you mean "a labor pool that they can pay substantially less, and keep on a much shorter leash" right?

That may cause harm to a corporation, but not individuals. Oh wait.... corporations are individuals. But regardless, even if that causes irreparable harm to your P/L statement, I don't that it should warrant a law suit.

Usually I'm with you, but don't use the "corporations are individuals" thing out of context.  If they weren't viewed as such, they couldn't be sued.  I would think we would want that opportunity if and when corporations do run afoul of our sensibilities. 
People have been suing corporations for ages. Isn't that the entire reason Delaware isn't the most worthless state in the union? In any case, the argument now isn't about whether or not they can be sued but whether or not they can bankroll politicians, which I'm pretty sure you already know.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 30, 2017, 09:31:56 AM
In this case I believe it's the states, rather than the citizens who are suing. States have a need for the best labor pool they can get, and also the best student applicants. The states that have sued have demonstrated a loss of employment opportunities and student enrollment.

By "the best labor pool" you mean "a labor pool that they can pay substantially less, and keep on a much shorter leash" right?

That may cause harm to a corporation, but not individuals. Oh wait.... corporations are individuals. But regardless, even if that causes irreparable harm to your P/L statement, I don't that it should warrant a law suit.

Usually I'm with you, but don't use the "corporations are individuals" thing out of context.  If they weren't viewed as such, they couldn't be sued.  I would think we would want that opportunity if and when corporations do run afoul of our sensibilities. 
People have been suing corporations for ages. Isn't that the entire reason Delaware isn't the most worthless state in the union? In any case, the argument now isn't about whether or not they can be sued but whether or not they can bankroll politicians, which I'm pretty sure you already know.

Of course, I don't argue at all but it requires us to be clear and precise on what the argument is. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jammindude on May 31, 2017, 05:37:32 AM
Well obviously the argument is covfefe....
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 31, 2017, 07:34:31 AM
Trump expected to withdraw from Paris climate deal:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/31/trump-paris-climate-change-agreement-238974?cmpid=sf

Quote
The upcoming decision is a victory for hardliners such as senior White House adviser Stephen Bannon, who argued that the deal would hobble the U.S. economy and Trump’s energy agenda, and a defeat for moderates like Trump’s daughter Ivanka, who feared that withdrawing would damage U.S. relations abroad. Trump had promised during the campaign to “cancel” the nearly 200-nation agreement, the most comprehensive climate pact ever negotiated.

(https://media.makeameme.org/created/ya-think.jpg)
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Elite on May 31, 2017, 07:39:13 AM
Well, since he already made an idiot out of himself on the G7-summit, this doesn't really come as a surprise. I think governments in Europe are more than willing or ready to move beyond politics with the USA - having Trump in the White House is not making matters any easier, but the way the US is handling foreign policy lately is a clear sign of unwillingness to cooperate with other nations.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 31, 2017, 07:41:28 AM
In reading the article, it's fascinating that the US now joins Syria and Nicaragua as the countries not interested participating in this.  And yes, I know it'll take years to formally get out of the agreement, but the intent is clear.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 31, 2017, 07:46:13 AM
You all are assuming that what happened over the past eight years was "cooperation".    If I'm in high school, and the senior bully has taken my lunch money every day for the past three years, and finally I stand up and say "Piss off, junior", and introduce my 6'4", 245 pound cousin who just moved to town, that's not exactly "showing a lack of willingness to cooperate".

I'm not saying you're abjectly wrong, here - my jury is out on Paris; better than Kyoto, but hard to enforce, and I don't at all trust the Chinese on this, not even a little bit - but some of you are writing as if this is so bald-faced as to be beyond debate.   On that, you're wrong.   That YOU think him an "idiot" or "in the right" on this one doesn't make it so.   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Elite on May 31, 2017, 08:09:49 AM
In using the word 'idiot' I'm basically referring to how politicians and press all over Europe have responded to Trump's visit these past weeks. He hasn't made a good impression in Europe at all and chose to use twitter to sneer to Germany (and Germans are, by the way 'very, very bad' for exporting cars to the US) for their NATO budget (and while I do believe Trump has a point here, the way he handles it is, frankly, ridiculous).
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 31, 2017, 08:48:10 AM
It's interesting to me that so many people preferred Trump because they didn't like the way Obama made us look weak to the rest of the world. Now we just look crazed and dumb.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 31, 2017, 08:53:05 AM
It's interesting to me that so many people preferred Trump because they didn't like the way Obama made us look weak to the rest of the world. Now we just look crazed and dumb.

Crazed, dumb, yet strong sounds like America to me.  Reminds me of the people I see at the Jersey shore.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 31, 2017, 08:54:50 AM
Well, some of us would prefer if it was somewhere in between, but, you know, CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN.  ;) 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 31, 2017, 09:17:46 AM
It's interesting to me that so many people preferred Trump because they didn't like the way Obama made us look weak to the rest of the world. Now we just look crazed and dumb.

Crazed, dumb, yet strong sounds like America to me.  Reminds me of the people I see at the Jersey shore.

When we come off looking like Jersey Shore to the rest of the world, then that's a problem.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 31, 2017, 09:18:52 AM
It's interesting to me that so many people preferred Trump because they didn't like the way Obama made us look weak to the rest of the world. Now we just look crazed and dumb.

Crazed, dumb, yet strong sounds like America to me.  Reminds me of the people I see at the Jersey shore.

When we come off looking like Jersey Shore to the rest of the world, then that's a problem.

I think we've come off that way a lot longer than Trump was playing politics
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 31, 2017, 09:36:43 AM
Just so you all know, it would be hard to make the argument (outside of the US) that POTUS is the "leader of the free world".  He is far from a "leader", and it's clear his foreign policy direction is no longer acting in the best interests of the "free world".
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Adami on May 31, 2017, 09:45:43 AM
There's also a huge difference between fear and respect.

This isn't a comment on Obama whatsoever, just Trump and in general.

I'm pretty scared of Russell Crowe, but that's because that dude could, at any moment, beat me to death with a kangaroo, but I have 0 respect for him in the slightest bit.

I want a president that people respect and listen to out of respect, not because we're strong and might hurt them if they don't do what we want.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: mikeyd23 on May 31, 2017, 09:47:10 AM
Just so you all know, it would be hard to make the argument (outside of the US) that POTUS is the "leader of the free world".  He is far from a "leader", and it's clear his foreign policy direction is no longer acting in the best interests of the "free world".

There are a lot of things about Trump I don't like, there are a lot of things I disagree with him on, but this isn't one of them. I'm okay with the President of the US acting in the best interest of the US and not worrying as much about the interests of the "free world" (to a reasonable degree, understanding that decisions made elsewhere affect the US in different ways).

IMO, the problem with Trump is the way he goes about doing that. There's a way that he could go about foreign policy to make certain things focused back on prioritizing American issues over the issues other countries or groups of countries are facing and not totally piss off allies and the international community at large. Unfortunately, that requires a level of tact that I haven't seen from him.

So for me, on this one, I don't necessarily disagree with the notion at large, just how he's going about it, or as Stadler would say, I agree on the what just not the how.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 31, 2017, 10:07:03 AM
It's interesting to me that so many people preferred Trump because they didn't like the way Obama made us look weak to the rest of the world. Now we just look crazed and dumb.

Crazed, dumb, yet strong sounds like America to me.  Reminds me of the people I see at the Jersey shore.

When we come off looking like Jersey Shore to the rest of the world, then that's a problem.

I think we've come off that way a lot longer than Trump was playing politics
In some ways we certainly do. But you have to differentiate between what foreign nationals and foreign politicians think, as well as whether they're thinking about American people, American politicians and America as an entity. While I find it slightly embarassing I don't think it's a big deal if the German people think we're the Jersey Shore guys. It doesn't bother me if they think our president is Snooki. Politicians generally know better, though. They understand the game. When Angela Merkel thinks the POTUS is Snooki and that America is an MTV reality show I think it's a very bad thing.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: ariich on May 31, 2017, 10:07:39 AM
It's interesting to me that so many people preferred Trump because they didn't like the way Obama made us look weak to the rest of the world. Now we just look crazed and dumb.

Crazed, dumb, yet strong sounds like America to me.  Reminds me of the people I see at the Jersey shore.
Trump does not come across as remotely strong here in Europe. He comes across as a stupid child throwing his toys out of the pram.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: bosk1 on May 31, 2017, 10:36:34 AM
It's interesting to me that so many people preferred Trump because they didn't like the way Obama made us look weak to the rest of the world. Now we just look crazed and dumb.

Crazed, dumb, yet strong sounds like America to me.  Reminds me of the people I see at the Jersey shore.
Trump does not come across as remotely strong here in Europe. He comes across as a stupid child throwing his toys out of the pram.
Maybe he just has a hard time taking anyone seriously who uses the word "pram."  :P
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 31, 2017, 10:46:49 AM
It's interesting to me that so many people preferred Trump because they didn't like the way Obama made us look weak to the rest of the world. Now we just look crazed and dumb.

Crazed, dumb, yet strong sounds like America to me.  Reminds me of the people I see at the Jersey shore.

When we come off looking like Jersey Shore to the rest of the world, then that's a problem.

I think we've come off that way a lot longer than Trump was playing politics
In some ways we certainly do. But you have to differentiate between what foreign nationals and foreign politicians think, as well as whether they're thinking about American people, American politicians and America as an entity. While I find it slightly embarassing I don't think it's a big deal if the German people think we're the Jersey Shore guys. It doesn't bother me if they think our president is Snooki. Politicians generally know better, though. They understand the game. When Angela Merkel thinks the POTUS is Snooki and that America is an MTV reality show I think it's a very bad thing.

Yea and I agree too about all of this.  And pretty much what Adami said about wanting a President that people respect.  Trump hasn't earned that respect from most people and given the things he says and ways he acts, he is more likely earning disrespect from leaders.
 
It's interesting to me that so many people preferred Trump because they didn't like the way Obama made us look weak to the rest of the world. Now we just look crazed and dumb.

Crazed, dumb, yet strong sounds like America to me.  Reminds me of the people I see at the Jersey shore.
Trump does not come across as remotely strong here in Europe. He comes across as a stupid child throwing his toys out of the pram.

I think Trump was at one point much stronger than he is now (at least perceived strength) but he kind of showed the world a lot of his weaknesses.  Which to me, is pretty poor of a leader to do.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: BlobVanDam on May 31, 2017, 10:53:07 AM
Anyone seen the Twilight Zone episode "It's a Good Life"? If you imagine Trump is the kid, that's pretty much exactly how I figure the world views Trump.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on May 31, 2017, 10:58:49 AM
Anyone seen the Twilight Zone episode "It's a Good Life"? If you imagine Trump is the kid, that's pretty much exactly how I figure the world views Trump.

While I am sure there are plenty out there that do.  Not everyone/every country hates Trump.  Seems the Saudis liked him a lot.  I'm not sure that's necessarily a positive though.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: BlobVanDam on May 31, 2017, 11:06:16 AM
Anyone seen the Twilight Zone episode "It's a Good Life"? If you imagine Trump is the kid, that's pretty much exactly how I figure the world views Trump.

While I am sure there are plenty out there that do.  Not everyone/every country hates Trump.  Seems the Saudis liked him a lot.  I'm not sure that's necessarily a positive though.

Yeah, I mean more from the western countries. The strong vibe from our politicians when Trump was elected was basically "this is a joke, but we'll try to suck it up for the sake of diplomacy".

To get back to my bigger point though, everyone should watch the Twilight Zone just because it's awesome.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 31, 2017, 11:11:30 AM
Anyone seen the Twilight Zone episode "It's a Good Life"? If you imagine Trump is the kid, that's pretty much exactly how I figure the world views Trump.

While I am sure there are plenty out there that do.  Not everyone/every country hates Trump.  Seems the Saudis liked him a lot.  I'm not sure that's necessarily a positive though.

Yeah, I mean more from the western countries. The strong vibe from our politicians when Trump was elected was basically "this is a joke, but we'll try to suck it up for the sake of diplomacy".

To get back to my bigger point though, everyone should watch the Twilight Zone just because it's awesome.
Just emailed myself a reminder to DL it when I get home. Just wrapping up Dragnet and that's a fine follow-up. I've probably seen them all, but you never know.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 31, 2017, 11:17:05 AM
Just so you all know, it would be hard to make the argument (outside of the US) that POTUS is the "leader of the free world".  He is far from a "leader", and it's clear his foreign policy direction is no longer acting in the best interests of the "free world".

This from where?   

I'm not at all sure when/where this nameless, faceless "rest of the world" became the arbiter of what our President should do, and how they should act.   I can remember sitting in a pub in Ireland - not Dublin; it was either Cork or Killarney - and right after the bartender asked me if I wanted "the usual" - Coors Light - started to make fun of my wife and I for the "ludicrousness" of our President, and how much of a "joke" he was.    Of course, we all know Bill Clinton is no joke, and as history progresses, he is regarded as one of our better Presidents in our history. 

Not literally, as we are conversing, but if I thought about it more, and if I was having a worse day, I'd be a little offended at the notion that we are somehow a bunch of illiterates stepping on our dicks, whereas the Brits - you know, the same ones that voted for "Brexit" and foisted both Simon Cowell and One Direction on us - are somehow political geniuses, and the rest of Europe are even smarter.   Please. 

Every President since the aforementioned Clinton - and it extends further back than that - have stated, both on the record and off, that the amounts paid into NATO and the benefits incurred from NATO are disproportionate.  Some of this reads - to me, anyway - less about "Oh, the U.S. clown car is leaving the circus" and more "uh, oh, we don't get our way anymore; let's throw him under the bus".    The U.S. and Europe have LONG been at odds with respect to environmental issues; I can recall back in the 2000's  the EU passing environmental regulations regarding the use of materials in manufacturing that would have effectively shut down our (I was Environmental Counsel for a global Fortune 5 manufacturer in the electronics space at that time) operations in about 12 countries.   They ultimately backed off on much of the regulation, but not all of it, and not at all because of "economic reasons".   It's easier for France, for example, to buy into making the US and China limit emissions from energy generation, because they (rightly; I'm jealous of this) get over 50% of their energy from nuclear.   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on May 31, 2017, 11:28:06 AM
Anyone seen the Twilight Zone episode "It's a Good Life"? If you imagine Trump is the kid, that's pretty much exactly how I figure the world views Trump.

While I am sure there are plenty out there that do.  Not everyone/every country hates Trump.  Seems the Saudis liked him a lot.  I'm not sure that's necessarily a positive though.

Yeah, I mean more from the western countries. The strong vibe from our politicians when Trump was elected was basically "this is a joke, but we'll try to suck it up for the sake of diplomacy".

To get back to my bigger point though, everyone should watch the Twilight Zone just because it's awesome.
Just emailed myself a reminder to DL it when I get home. Just wrapping up Dragnet and that's a fine follow-up. I've probably seen them all, but you never know.


It's been a while now - I mean decades, since it was before I married the first time - but I went through a hardcore Twilight Zone and Mission: Impossible (the good one, with the excellent Martin Landau, Peter Graves, and, in later episodes, the luscious Lynda Day George) binge.  I might have to revisit them, too.  What engaging television (though I have a DVD of The Prisoner that I have to watch too.   Anyone familiar with Spectreman?).
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: BlobVanDam on May 31, 2017, 11:30:11 AM
Anyone seen the Twilight Zone episode "It's a Good Life"? If you imagine Trump is the kid, that's pretty much exactly how I figure the world views Trump.

While I am sure there are plenty out there that do.  Not everyone/every country hates Trump.  Seems the Saudis liked him a lot.  I'm not sure that's necessarily a positive though.

Yeah, I mean more from the western countries. The strong vibe from our politicians when Trump was elected was basically "this is a joke, but we'll try to suck it up for the sake of diplomacy".

To get back to my bigger point though, everyone should watch the Twilight Zone just because it's awesome.
Just emailed myself a reminder to DL it when I get home. Just wrapping up Dragnet and that's a fine follow-up. I've probably seen them all, but you never know.

:tup Then my job here is done.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on May 31, 2017, 11:36:41 AM
Anyone familiar with Spectreman?

I watched that show when I was in kindergarten, in Minot, ND.  It was my favorite show.  That said, I remember very little about it.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on May 31, 2017, 11:41:45 AM
Anyone seen the Twilight Zone episode "It's a Good Life"? If you imagine Trump is the kid, that's pretty much exactly how I figure the world views Trump.

While I am sure there are plenty out there that do.  Not everyone/every country hates Trump.  Seems the Saudis liked him a lot.  I'm not sure that's necessarily a positive though.

Yeah, I mean more from the western countries. The strong vibe from our politicians when Trump was elected was basically "this is a joke, but we'll try to suck it up for the sake of diplomacy".

To get back to my bigger point though, everyone should watch the Twilight Zone just because it's awesome.
Just emailed myself a reminder to DL it when I get home. Just wrapping up Dragnet and that's a fine follow-up. I've probably seen them all, but you never know.


It's been a while now - I mean decades, since it was before I married the first time - but I went through a hardcore Twilight Zone and Mission: Impossible (the good one, with the excellent Martin Landau, Peter Graves, and, in later episodes, the luscious Lynda Day George) binge.  I might have to revisit them, too.  What engaging television (though I have a DVD of The Prisoner that I have to watch too.   Anyone familiar with Spectreman?).
I was always partial to Leslie Ann Warren and those teenincy 60's skirts. I really dug the show, but the structure was so formulaic that it doesn't work well for binge watching. You always know that when Barney is fixing to be discovered before the commercial break it won't actually amount to anything.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: ariich on May 31, 2017, 12:21:10 PM
I think Trump was at one point much stronger than he is now (at least perceived strength) but he kind of showed the world a lot of his weaknesses.  Which to me, is pretty poor of a leader to do.
That may well have been the case in the US, but in Europe definitely not and I would imagine same in Canada.

Just so you all know, it would be hard to make the argument (outside of the US) that POTUS is the "leader of the free world".  He is far from a "leader", and it's clear his foreign policy direction is no longer acting in the best interests of the "free world".

This from where?   

I'm not at all sure when/where this nameless, faceless "rest of the world" became the arbiter of what our President should do, and how they should act.   I can remember sitting in a pub in Ireland - not Dublin; it was either Cork or Killarney - and right after the bartender asked me if I wanted "the usual" - Coors Light - started to make fun of my wife and I for the "ludicrousness" of our President, and how much of a "joke" he was.    Of course, we all know Bill Clinton is no joke, and as history progresses, he is regarded as one of our better Presidents in our history.
Sure there's always been a bit of that among regular folk, under GWB especially, but America has always been incredibly influential on the world stage. The whole "leader of the free world" term came about because of the leadership that the US has provided. That's not currently the case, politicians will pander to Trump of course but nobody is taking him seriously anymore, and the status of the US is diminishing as a result. It may well recover once he's gone, but right now the US is losing a lot of the influence it once had.

This isn't limited to the US of course, which brings us to your next point:

Quote
Not literally, as we are conversing, but if I thought about it more, and if I was having a worse day, I'd be a little offended at the notion that we are somehow a bunch of illiterates stepping on our dicks, whereas the Brits - you know, the same ones that voted for "Brexit" and foisted both Simon Cowell and One Direction on us - are somehow political geniuses, and the rest of Europe are even smarter.   Please.
Nobody apart from a few nationalist groups around the world think the UK is in any way politically astute since the referendum last year. Most of the developed world is laughing at us nearly as much as Trump's America. Similarly, we have lost a huge amount of diplomatic goodwill and influence.

My own views aren't nearly as strong as this, by the way, just stating what I see in terms of world press, social media etc.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: bosk1 on May 31, 2017, 01:50:25 PM
...but America has always been incredibly influential on the world stage. The whole "leader of the free world" term came about because of the leadership that the US has provided. That's not currently the case, politicians will pander to Trump of course but nobody is taking him seriously anymore, and the status of the US is diminishing as a result. It may well recover once he's gone, but right now the US is losing a lot of the influence it once had.

Some good points.  Two thoughts come to mind.  And these aren't rebuttals to anything you said, but more just ideas that are related.

First, maybe the leader of the U.S. shouldn't be considered "the leader of the free world."  I say this as an American: maybe it's not only in our own best interest, and in the best interest of the "free world" as a whole to let somebody else take on that mantle, at least for awhile, or maybe for it to not exist anymore in the first place. 

Second, I think the U.S. was already losing its influence, and has been for some time.  I think it was inevitable, and I think the Trump administration may only have accelerated it a bit more or made it a bit more apparent than otherwise, that's all.  But IMO he is only a symptom, not the disease, so to speak. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on May 31, 2017, 02:31:06 PM
I can agree on that last point bosk, but he's one helluva rash.

The problem with 'giving up' the mantle as you state is that you no longer have any high ground to stand on.  If Trump is going to take his toys and go home, he has no business to stand and berate the other G-6 about their financial contributions to NATO.  The more he tries to be the person in utmost international authority ("Move it, Montenegro"), while distancing himself from consensus on international issues, the more ridiculous he looks.  If he/the US doesn't want to be viewed as the 'leader of the free world', then he shouldn't try to act like it.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: ariich on May 31, 2017, 04:24:53 PM
...but America has always been incredibly influential on the world stage. The whole "leader of the free world" term came about because of the leadership that the US has provided. That's not currently the case, politicians will pander to Trump of course but nobody is taking him seriously anymore, and the status of the US is diminishing as a result. It may well recover once he's gone, but right now the US is losing a lot of the influence it once had.

Some good points.  Two thoughts come to mind.  And these aren't rebuttals to anything you said, but more just ideas that are related.

First, maybe the leader of the U.S. shouldn't be considered "the leader of the free world."  I say this as an American: maybe it's not only in our own best interest, and in the best interest of the "free world" as a whole to let somebody else take on that mantle, at least for awhile, or maybe for it to not exist anymore in the first place. 

Second, I think the U.S. was already losing its influence, and has been for some time.  I think it was inevitable, and I think the Trump administration may only have accelerated it a bit more or made it a bit more apparent than otherwise, that's all.  But IMO he is only a symptom, not the disease, so to speak. 
Both very reasonable points.

As a non-American, I don't know that I agree with the second, though I know a sizeable portion of Brits feel the same about the UK's standing in the world. But what, in my view, it really comes down to is how much the developing world has caught up. America and Britain were once so dominant (which wasn't necessarily a good thing) globally but it was always inevitable that countries like India, China, and the rest of Europe would start catching up politically, economically and socially (which they are doing to varying degrees). And so the US and UK appear diminshed in comparison to what has gone before. So I can understand why people in both countries might feel like they are less influential, and I'm sure that's been a factor in the anti-establishment backlash that led to Trump and Brexit, but I actually think that does both nations a huge discredit. Certainly from what I've seen in Europe, Obama was hugely respected over here and extremely influential.

But you're absolutely right to say that there's no inherent reason that the US President should be leader of the free world, or indeed that the informal title should need to apply to anyone at all. Maybe now that other nations have caught up and there are a number of economies on a more even playing field, maybe no one country needs to be looked to where once that might have had real benefit. Something to ponder.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Cyclopssss on June 01, 2017, 12:23:55 AM
Yeah but look at the alternatives: Putin? no, thank you. Merkel? Maybe. The Brits have more or less vanished from the political playing field. The French just elected a new president. Spain? Italy? Don't even know who rules there. God forbid that Erdogan comes to power. My own country? Rutte? Please. The man's a joke.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on June 01, 2017, 07:24:52 AM
Sure there's always been a bit of that among regular folk, under GWB especially, but America has always been incredibly influential on the world stage. The whole "leader of the free world" term came about because of the leadership that the US has provided. That's not currently the case, politicians will pander to Trump of course but nobody is taking him seriously anymore, and the status of the US is diminishing as a result. It may well recover once he's gone, but right now the US is losing a lot of the influence it once had.

But do you see the trend here (and the impetus for some of my argument here)?  It's not "astute political commentary" that drives this reaction.  It's "how far is the current President from the way I think?"  And if you look at the way the parties have sort of sorted themselves out in an international context, since about Reagan, the further right you tend to go (here in the States) the less European ass-kissing and boot-licking seems to happen, and as a result, the less kind the "international community" is to the US.   I'm sorry; we can debate Obama - the good (and there was good) and the bad (and there was bad) - all day long, but it is UNASSAILABLE that he was weak internationally.  I don't mean "weak" in terms of "it wasn't his strong suit" (though I would argue that as well) but "weak" in terms of lacking assertion.   When John Kerry is your point man, you aren't exactly putting quiet strength out there.  I have no doubt that was it October, 1962, Kerry would have offered to store the Russian missiles on an unused launch pad in Cape Canaveral, and given the Rooskies the 1962 equivalent to $400 million in cash to do it.  He would have shined Kruschev's shoe, too, after Nikita's famous speech. 

Quote
Nobody apart from a few nationalist groups around the world think the UK is in any way politically astute since the referendum last year. Most of the developed world is laughing at us nearly as much as Trump's America. Similarly, we have lost a huge amount of diplomatic goodwill and influence.

My own views aren't nearly as strong as this, by the way, just stating what I see in terms of world press, social media etc.

But my point isn't to disparage the UK; I have a ton of respect for your country and people on almost every level.   The point was to say it's like looking at someone else's marriage/relationship.  How many of you have told your best friend "you need to ditch that broad, she's a psycho!" and as soon as your "ball and chain" calls you, you're all "Yes, honey, no, honey, I'm not in a bar... yes, honey, I'll be right home... no honey, that's not a woman's voice you hear, yes, honey, I'll bring milk.  Love you sweetums!"   

My wife and I were talking with my stepdaughter, who's off again on again with this douchebag who is abusive in every way short of punching her in the face, and in one of her "broken up" periods we were trying to impress on her the notion that drunk texts that say "I'm sorry baby, I love you, I'll never call you that again in front of our friends" is hollow and feeble, and has been sent - at last count - about 2.67 million times by asshole abusers since July of 2016.  And she looked at both of us and said "well, how long did the two of you stay in your shitty marriages?"   And as pissed as I was, she was dead right (though, kids... etc.). It's always easier to see when you're outside looking in.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on June 01, 2017, 07:34:17 AM
I can agree on that last point bosk, but he's one helluva rash.

The problem with 'giving up' the mantle as you state is that you no longer have any high ground to stand on.  If Trump is going to take his toys and go home, he has no business to stand and berate the other G-6 about their financial contributions to NATO.  The more he tries to be the person in utmost international authority ("Move it, Montenegro"), while distancing himself from consensus on international issues, the more ridiculous he looks.  If he/the US doesn't want to be viewed as the 'leader of the free world', then he shouldn't try to act like it.

I can't and won't speak for Bosk, but I don't think TRUMP doesn't want to be viewed as the "leader of the free world", and certainly the #MAGA supporters don't want that either.    Reread my "outside looking in" post.   The people that voted in Trump are not racist, misogynist assholes, as much as Hillary wants you to believe that.   But they are fiercely nationalistic in the sense that they believe that their government is there for one reason and one reason only:  to protect them from the infidels of the world.   I mean that in terms of terrorism, I mean that in terms of job theft, and I mean that in terms of taking what's theirs.  I'm not at all suggesting this is right or just - in fact, I personally believe it is wrong on about five different levels, including practically and economically.   But that's what the mindset is.   So the guy in Michigan who believes that but for the Japs he'd still be turning the SAME fucking rivet in the SAME model car for the SAME manufacturer in the SAME plant in the SAME home town that his dad did - but, of course, for ever increasing wages!!! is wanting us to assert our power (notwithstanding that the "Jap car" he's lamenting is being built in Tennessee, and he'd have his job if he was willing to make the commitment to it).   

Watching Obama and Kerry throw money at the Iranians, and kowtow to the Chinese on climate bills is not sending that message, right or wrong (I happen to agree for the most part with the #MAGAs on these). 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on June 01, 2017, 08:51:36 AM

But do you see the trend here (and the impetus for some of my argument here)?  It's not "astute political commentary" that drives this reaction.  It's "how far is the current President from the way I think?"
There's no reason it can't be both, and my opinion it is. Jared Loughner is miles and miles away from where I think, but that doesn't invalidate my astute commentary when I call him a sick fuck that needs to be locked away for all of our benefits. Grabby is clearly as far removed from the European political mindset as you can get (at this time), but that doesn't negate their belief that he's a spoiled child with far more power than emotional or mental maturity. A fact you most likely agree with. I didn't infer from Rich's post that the Brits hate him because he's not the sort of president they like. I think they hate him because he's an idiot.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: ariich on June 01, 2017, 09:05:54 AM

But do you see the trend here (and the impetus for some of my argument here)?  It's not "astute political commentary" that drives this reaction.  It's "how far is the current President from the way I think?"
There's no reason it can't be both, and my opinion it is. Jared Loughner is miles and miles away from where I think, but that doesn't invalidate my astute commentary when I call him a sick fuck that needs to be locked away for all of our benefits. Grabby is clearly as far removed from the European political mindset as you can get (at this time), but that doesn't negate their belief that he's a spoiled child with far more power than emotional or mental maturity. A fact you most likely agree with. I didn't infer from Rich's post that the Brits hate him because he's not the sort of president they like. I think they hate him because he's an idiot.
Correct. In terms of politics, he should be popular in the UK. We voted for Brexit, a majority seem to agree that we need to reduce immigration (based on polls), and the Tories and UKIP between them are now getting around half the vote share (again based on current polls - we'll find out in a week).

And yet he is very strongly disliked in the UK. The problem is him, not his broad political stance.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on June 01, 2017, 09:18:37 AM

But do you see the trend here (and the impetus for some of my argument here)?  It's not "astute political commentary" that drives this reaction.  It's "how far is the current President from the way I think?"
There's no reason it can't be both, and my opinion it is. Jared Loughner is miles and miles away from where I think, but that doesn't invalidate my astute commentary when I call him a sick fuck that needs to be locked away for all of our benefits. Grabby is clearly as far removed from the European political mindset as you can get (at this time), but that doesn't negate their belief that he's a spoiled child with far more power than emotional or mental maturity. A fact you most likely agree with. I didn't infer from Rich's post that the Brits hate him because he's not the sort of president they like. I think they hate him because he's an idiot.

No, no, of course they can be the same.  BUT - and I hesitate to use Trump here, because he is SO polarizing at this point - the arguments have to support that and the arguments have to be reasonable enough to separate the two.   We're at a point now where literally EVERYTHING that Trump does is subject to ridicule.  EVERYTHING.    Someone here posted a still photo of Trump shaking hands - and not even one of his macho, arm-wrestling, I-will-crush-your-hand-into-submission ones - and it was supposed to be, by definition, funny and worthy of our scorn.  That's fucking ridiculous.   

You can say a lot  about Bush, but "sick fuck" isn't one of them.   And yet...
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on June 01, 2017, 09:28:52 AM
Is a US president using the handshaking tactic of car salesmen not a reasonable thing to discuss? He does it to demonstrate dominance, and I think that's something that can be explored. If it's not, his constantly demonstrating the demeanor of a spoiled brat certainly must be.

And for the record, I could put forth a compelling argument for W being a sick fuck, but that would be a pretty wild tangent.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: ariich on June 01, 2017, 09:34:43 AM

But do you see the trend here (and the impetus for some of my argument here)?  It's not "astute political commentary" that drives this reaction.  It's "how far is the current President from the way I think?"
There's no reason it can't be both, and my opinion it is. Jared Loughner is miles and miles away from where I think, but that doesn't invalidate my astute commentary when I call him a sick fuck that needs to be locked away for all of our benefits. Grabby is clearly as far removed from the European political mindset as you can get (at this time), but that doesn't negate their belief that he's a spoiled child with far more power than emotional or mental maturity. A fact you most likely agree with. I didn't infer from Rich's post that the Brits hate him because he's not the sort of president they like. I think they hate him because he's an idiot.

No, no, of course they can be the same.  BUT - and I hesitate to use Trump here, because he is SO polarizing at this point - the arguments have to support that and the arguments have to be reasonable enough to separate the two.   We're at a point now where literally EVERYTHING that Trump does is subject to ridicule.  EVERYTHING.    Someone here posted a still photo of Trump shaking hands - and not even one of his macho, arm-wrestling, I-will-crush-your-hand-into-submission ones - and it was supposed to be, by definition, funny and worthy of our scorn.  That's fucking ridiculous.   

You can say a lot  about Bush, but "sick fuck" isn't one of them.   And yet...
Unfair, over-the-top or simply irrelevant ridicule doesn't, or certainly shouldn't, invalidate all the legitimate criticism, of which there is plenty. Reading through your comments on this issue, I think perhaps you and I are of the same view, which is that so much noise gets made that the real, often very serious, inadequacies get lost.

We have a similar problem in the UK. The main campaign of the two big parties, or at least their supporters, are designed to discredit the leader of the other. Social media, and actually mainstream media for that matter, is awash with completely unfair and often inaccurate attacks on one or the other of them (or sometimes both) as people.

But this doesn't change the fact that they are genuinely both very incompetent and unable to listen to logic or evidence. But if you try to make valid points to supporters of one or the other, they write it off as Corbyn-bashing or May-bashing instead of engaging in any kind of intelligent discussion.

EDIT That said, my own view is that Trump's inadequacies are so extensive and pervasive that the exaggerated attacks on him don't even seem that unreasonable to me. :lol
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on June 01, 2017, 09:42:03 AM

But do you see the trend here (and the impetus for some of my argument here)?  It's not "astute political commentary" that drives this reaction.  It's "how far is the current President from the way I think?"
There's no reason it can't be both, and my opinion it is. Jared Loughner is miles and miles away from where I think, but that doesn't invalidate my astute commentary when I call him a sick fuck that needs to be locked away for all of our benefits. Grabby is clearly as far removed from the European political mindset as you can get (at this time), but that doesn't negate their belief that he's a spoiled child with far more power than emotional or mental maturity. A fact you most likely agree with. I didn't infer from Rich's post that the Brits hate him because he's not the sort of president they like. I think they hate him because he's an idiot.

No, no, of course they can be the same.  BUT - and I hesitate to use Trump here, because he is SO polarizing at this point - the arguments have to support that and the arguments have to be reasonable enough to separate the two.   We're at a point now where literally EVERYTHING that Trump does is subject to ridicule.  EVERYTHING.    Someone here posted a still photo of Trump shaking hands - and not even one of his macho, arm-wrestling, I-will-crush-your-hand-into-submission ones - and it was supposed to be, by definition, funny and worthy of our scorn.  That's fucking ridiculous.   

You can say a lot  about Bush, but "sick fuck" isn't one of them.   And yet...

I'm pretty sure you're talking about me, so: first of all, the 'worthy of our scorn part' is all you. Second, it was funny because if you looked closely, mr macho handshake was getting his hand crushed by the new french president, who continued his hard grip after Trump tried to let go. It was an amusing role reversal.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on June 01, 2017, 01:33:49 PM
We knew it was coming but this is probably the most upset I've been since November 9th.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-to-announce-us-will-exit-paris-climate-deal/2017/06/01/fbcb0196-46da-11e7-bcde-624ad94170ab_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-high_parisexit-3pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.27c3f012c6d2
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on June 01, 2017, 01:49:44 PM
No, no, of course they can be the same.  BUT - and I hesitate to use Trump here, because he is SO polarizing at this point - the arguments have to support that and the arguments have to be reasonable enough to separate the two.   We're at a point now where literally EVERYTHING that Trump does is subject to ridicule.  EVERYTHING.    Someone here posted a still photo of Trump shaking hands - and not even one of his macho, arm-wrestling, I-will-crush-your-hand-into-submission ones - and it was supposed to be, by definition, funny and worthy of our scorn.  That's fucking ridiculous.   

You can say a lot  about Bush, but "sick fuck" isn't one of them.   And yet...

A) He gets the ridicule/criticism he deserves, because virtually everything he does is ridicul-able.  I don't even have to list the micro or macro topics... we all know them.
B) If you watch the video of the Macron handshake, the moment of the still-frame that was posted here was Trump trying to pull back, and essentially Macron saying "no you don't big boy; now France is going to show who's in control"  Trump got a little of his own medicine in the form of an awkward handshake.  THAT is what was humourous.  It's like the asshole friend that is constantly doing something to piss his friends off... and then someone gives that back to him in spades.  It's funny.

We knew it was coming but this is probably the most upset I've been since November 9th.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-to-announce-us-will-exit-paris-climate-deal/2017/06/01/fbcb0196-46da-11e7-bcde-624ad94170ab_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-high_parisexit-3pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.27c3f012c6d2

Loved his countdown tweets with all the fanfare and promotion worthy of an upcoming episode of The Celebrity President.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on June 01, 2017, 01:56:21 PM
I can't believe Ivanka couldn't change his mind  ::)
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: DragonAttack on June 01, 2017, 02:08:30 PM
So, we side with Nicaragua, Syria, and......well, that's it as far as the environment is concerned.

And then, the anti-EPA chief spews his BS, saying 'economy' about a dozen times, and 'environment' once.  For someone who worked in environmental activities for 15 years, it is truly a day of mourning.  Let the overuse of 'clean coal' and days of 'drill, baby, drill' begin. :tdwn

covfefed again
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on June 01, 2017, 02:12:32 PM
I'm not for or against the deal (I never read it).  I just hate the politicizing of taking care of our earth.  Shouldn't need a deal for that to happen. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Cable on June 01, 2017, 02:25:39 PM
I'm not for or against the deal (I never read it).  I just hate the politicizing of taking care of our earth.  Shouldn't need a deal for that to happen.


Agreed 100%. I listened to a portion of President Trump's speech from beginning to when I stopped. I never heard anything about climate change and the environment. I heard about our abundant natural fossil fuel resources,  and then many points along those lines and about economy jobs and so on, and so on. He cited a report from a NERC entity, and I won't even go there. And that was it; more points about good deals, great jobs, fantastic money. 

So what about the climate changing President Trump?

Oh, that's right. A g(G)od will take care of this one. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/06/01/tim-walberg-climate-change-trump-paris-agreement/102389286/ .  Because we can totally prove that a god is present, just like we can prove the world is mostly round.  We should not mess with god's will either on climate anyway; "'He said that, because 'God's still up there,' the arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous." http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/james-inhofe-says-the-bible-refutes-climate-change/
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on June 01, 2017, 02:27:20 PM

But do you see the trend here (and the impetus for some of my argument here)?  It's not "astute political commentary" that drives this reaction.  It's "how far is the current President from the way I think?"
There's no reason it can't be both, and my opinion it is. Jared Loughner is miles and miles away from where I think, but that doesn't invalidate my astute commentary when I call him a sick fuck that needs to be locked away for all of our benefits. Grabby is clearly as far removed from the European political mindset as you can get (at this time), but that doesn't negate their belief that he's a spoiled child with far more power than emotional or mental maturity. A fact you most likely agree with. I didn't infer from Rich's post that the Brits hate him because he's not the sort of president they like. I think they hate him because he's an idiot.

No, no, of course they can be the same.  BUT - and I hesitate to use Trump here, because he is SO polarizing at this point - the arguments have to support that and the arguments have to be reasonable enough to separate the two.   We're at a point now where literally EVERYTHING that Trump does is subject to ridicule.  EVERYTHING.    Someone here posted a still photo of Trump shaking hands - and not even one of his macho, arm-wrestling, I-will-crush-your-hand-into-submission ones - and it was supposed to be, by definition, funny and worthy of our scorn.  That's fucking ridiculous.   

You can say a lot  about Bush, but "sick fuck" isn't one of them.   And yet...
Unfair, over-the-top or simply irrelevant ridicule doesn't, or certainly shouldn't, invalidate all the legitimate criticism, of which there is plenty. Reading through your comments on this issue, I think perhaps you and I are of the same view, which is that so much noise gets made that the real, often very serious, inadequacies get lost.

We are EXACTLY of the same view.  There is SO much legit to criticize about Trump that to waste time on the psychology of a handshake is almost demeaning to the bigger issues.   I have it on good authority - the man himself - that Jor Biden would game-plan EVERY meeting with another politician or dignitary, right down to the... you guessed it, handshake.   The advance man for Biden was quoted as saying "There is no question that... every single detail is discussed in terms of where the shake is going to happen, what is the backdrop and all of these things".   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-handshake_us_592adb83e4b0df57cbfc23fd  (from what is otherwise a hatchet job on our President). 

Quote
But this doesn't change the fact that they are genuinely both very incompetent and unable to listen to logic or evidence. But if you try to make valid points to supporters of one or the other, they write it off as Corbyn-bashing or May-bashing instead of engaging in any kind of intelligent discussion.

EDIT That said, my own view is that Trump's inadequacies are so extensive and pervasive that the exaggerated attacks on him don't even seem that unreasonable to me. :lol

Well, it's certainly an odd occasion when your best apologist hates you, didn't vote for you, and wouldn't vote for you except under the most exigent of circumstances.  I can't stand Trump.   I really can't.   I want to shove that fucking phone up his ass.    But as much as I abhor "tweeting", it doesn't make you "incompetent".   But I don't accept that "my hate" translates into license for "ANYTHING GOES!" in terms of analysis, personal attacks, ad hominem analyses, etc.   I have an obligation to still be right, still account for ALL the facts, and supplant my personal feelings with the truth (or as close to it as I can get).   I don't get to wildly speculate and I don't get to be judge and jury all in one. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on June 01, 2017, 02:31:35 PM

But do you see the trend here (and the impetus for some of my argument here)?  It's not "astute political commentary" that drives this reaction.  It's "how far is the current President from the way I think?"
There's no reason it can't be both, and my opinion it is. Jared Loughner is miles and miles away from where I think, but that doesn't invalidate my astute commentary when I call him a sick fuck that needs to be locked away for all of our benefits. Grabby is clearly as far removed from the European political mindset as you can get (at this time), but that doesn't negate their belief that he's a spoiled child with far more power than emotional or mental maturity. A fact you most likely agree with. I didn't infer from Rich's post that the Brits hate him because he's not the sort of president they like. I think they hate him because he's an idiot.

No, no, of course they can be the same.  BUT - and I hesitate to use Trump here, because he is SO polarizing at this point - the arguments have to support that and the arguments have to be reasonable enough to separate the two.   We're at a point now where literally EVERYTHING that Trump does is subject to ridicule.  EVERYTHING.    Someone here posted a still photo of Trump shaking hands - and not even one of his macho, arm-wrestling, I-will-crush-your-hand-into-submission ones - and it was supposed to be, by definition, funny and worthy of our scorn.  That's fucking ridiculous.   

You can say a lot  about Bush, but "sick fuck" isn't one of them.   And yet...

I'm pretty sure you're talking about me, so: first of all, the 'worthy of our scorn part' is all you. Second, it was funny because if you looked closely, mr macho handshake was getting his hand crushed by the new french president, who continued his hard grip after Trump tried to let go. It was an amusing role reversal.

One, that's not how it was pitched, and two, it's only amusing if you're interested and invested in making him look bad as a PERSON, as opposed to critiquing his policies or his decisions.   Let me ask you:  would you trade a dipshit handshake for a President that put in all your pet policies?   Would you accept a President that was perfect in every way shape or form when it came to handshakes, but closed our borders, started a nuclear war, and, I don't know, dismantled the EPA entirely?   I think you would and would not, respectively...
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on June 01, 2017, 02:42:54 PM

But do you see the trend here (and the impetus for some of my argument here)?  It's not "astute political commentary" that drives this reaction.  It's "how far is the current President from the way I think?"
There's no reason it can't be both, and my opinion it is. Jared Loughner is miles and miles away from where I think, but that doesn't invalidate my astute commentary when I call him a sick fuck that needs to be locked away for all of our benefits. Grabby is clearly as far removed from the European political mindset as you can get (at this time), but that doesn't negate their belief that he's a spoiled child with far more power than emotional or mental maturity. A fact you most likely agree with. I didn't infer from Rich's post that the Brits hate him because he's not the sort of president they like. I think they hate him because he's an idiot.

No, no, of course they can be the same.  BUT - and I hesitate to use Trump here, because he is SO polarizing at this point - the arguments have to support that and the arguments have to be reasonable enough to separate the two.   We're at a point now where literally EVERYTHING that Trump does is subject to ridicule.  EVERYTHING.    Someone here posted a still photo of Trump shaking hands - and not even one of his macho, arm-wrestling, I-will-crush-your-hand-into-submission ones - and it was supposed to be, by definition, funny and worthy of our scorn.  That's fucking ridiculous.   

You can say a lot  about Bush, but "sick fuck" isn't one of them.   And yet...

I'm pretty sure you're talking about me, so: first of all, the 'worthy of our scorn part' is all you. Second, it was funny because if you looked closely, mr macho handshake was getting his hand crushed by the new french president, who continued his hard grip after Trump tried to let go. It was an amusing role reversal.

One, that's not how it was pitched, and two, it's only amusing if you're interested and invested in making him look bad as a PERSON, as opposed to critiquing his policies or his decisions.   Let me ask you:  would you trade a dipshit handshake for a President that put in all your pet policies?   Would you accept a President that was perfect in every way shape or form when it came to handshakes, but closed our borders, started a nuclear war, and, I don't know, dismantled the EPA entirely?   I think you would and would not, respectively...

It was pitched without comment, actually, because I thought it was simple enough to speak for itself. And I completely reject your framing here. To me, It's amusing because of the reasons I already laid out. There are about a thousand ways you could make Trump look bad as a person before you got to his handshake routine. This really isn't that complicated and I don't understand why you insist on turning it into something it's not. We may have heated disagreements about policy X or statement Y, but in the humor thread, we can (or I thought we could) all have a laugh about Trump's silly handshakes that don't really matter to anything one way or another. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on June 01, 2017, 02:51:10 PM
No, no, of course they can be the same.  BUT - and I hesitate to use Trump here, because he is SO polarizing at this point - the arguments have to support that and the arguments have to be reasonable enough to separate the two.   We're at a point now where literally EVERYTHING that Trump does is subject to ridicule.  EVERYTHING.    Someone here posted a still photo of Trump shaking hands - and not even one of his macho, arm-wrestling, I-will-crush-your-hand-into-submission ones - and it was supposed to be, by definition, funny and worthy of our scorn.  That's fucking ridiculous.   

You can say a lot  about Bush, but "sick fuck" isn't one of them.   And yet...

A) He gets the ridicule/criticism he deserves, because virtually everything he does is ridicul-able.  I don't even have to list the micro or macro topics... we all know them.
B) If you watch the video of the Macron handshake, the moment of the still-frame that was posted here was Trump trying to pull back, and essentially Macron saying "no you don't big boy; now France is going to show who's in control"  Trump got a little of his own medicine in the form of an awkward handshake.  THAT is what was humourous.  It's like the asshole friend that is constantly doing something to piss his friends off... and then someone gives that back to him in spades.  It's funny.

Yeah, sorry boss, but I don't buy into that attitude.  It's fifth grade, and it doesn't do anything but promote the process that got us Trump to begin with.   There is no "deserve" when it comes to one persons' subjective decision like this.   YOU think he's ridicule-able because you don't like him.  SO WHAT?   Jimmy Carter was one of the most likeable Presidents we've ever had (and one of our greatest Americans in his post-Presidential role).   He was one of our worst Presidents, by a long shot.   LBJ passed some of the most advanced Civil Rights legislation this country has ever seen, and the tapes of him talking about "them n*****s" in the Oval Office are legend. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on June 01, 2017, 02:55:28 PM

But do you see the trend here (and the impetus for some of my argument here)?  It's not "astute political commentary" that drives this reaction.  It's "how far is the current President from the way I think?"
There's no reason it can't be both, and my opinion it is. Jared Loughner is miles and miles away from where I think, but that doesn't invalidate my astute commentary when I call him a sick fuck that needs to be locked away for all of our benefits. Grabby is clearly as far removed from the European political mindset as you can get (at this time), but that doesn't negate their belief that he's a spoiled child with far more power than emotional or mental maturity. A fact you most likely agree with. I didn't infer from Rich's post that the Brits hate him because he's not the sort of president they like. I think they hate him because he's an idiot.

No, no, of course they can be the same.  BUT - and I hesitate to use Trump here, because he is SO polarizing at this point - the arguments have to support that and the arguments have to be reasonable enough to separate the two.   We're at a point now where literally EVERYTHING that Trump does is subject to ridicule.  EVERYTHING.    Someone here posted a still photo of Trump shaking hands - and not even one of his macho, arm-wrestling, I-will-crush-your-hand-into-submission ones - and it was supposed to be, by definition, funny and worthy of our scorn.  That's fucking ridiculous.   

You can say a lot  about Bush, but "sick fuck" isn't one of them.   And yet...

I'm pretty sure you're talking about me, so: first of all, the 'worthy of our scorn part' is all you. Second, it was funny because if you looked closely, mr macho handshake was getting his hand crushed by the new french president, who continued his hard grip after Trump tried to let go. It was an amusing role reversal.

One, that's not how it was pitched, and two, it's only amusing if you're interested and invested in making him look bad as a PERSON, as opposed to critiquing his policies or his decisions.   Let me ask you:  would you trade a dipshit handshake for a President that put in all your pet policies?   Would you accept a President that was perfect in every way shape or form when it came to handshakes, but closed our borders, started a nuclear war, and, I don't know, dismantled the EPA entirely?   I think you would and would not, respectively...

It was pitched without comment, actually, because I thought it was simple enough to speak for itself. And I completely reject your framing here. To me, It's amusing because of the reasons I already laid out. There are about a thousand ways you could make Trump look bad as a person before you got to his handshake routine. This really isn't that complicated and I don't understand why you insist on turning it into something it's not. We may have heated disagreements about policy X or statement Y, but in the humor thread, we can (or I thought we could) all have a laugh about Trump's silly handshakes that don't really matter to anything one way or another.

My bitch isn't about what you think is funny (though it's a head scratcher, :)) but rather that you felt SO secure in your opinion that it "spoke for itself".  Don't you see that?   Don't you see that that's the problem, and not just with Trump, but all politics?    Hillary got LAMBASTED - to the point that it might have cost her the election - by people that felt her actions "spoke for itself".    For those of us that aren't interested in making someone we don't like "look bad" (i.e. BULLYING), it's problematic.   You can't tell me that in a straight up, issue-for-issue discussion we wouldn't have had EITHER Hillary or Trump as our choices in November.   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on June 01, 2017, 03:02:56 PM
Okay. I'm not interested in continuing this meta-discussion, especially in this thread, which I do not want to derail. You brought it up so I felt the need to respond, but I hardly even know what you're talking about anymore or how it has any relation to what I originally posted, which were a couple pictures of a handshake I thought was funny.     
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on June 01, 2017, 03:57:44 PM
I have an obligation to still be right, still account for ALL the facts, and supplant my personal feelings with the truth (or as close to it as I can get).   I don't get to wildly speculate and I don't get to be judge and jury all in one.

Does POTUS not have those obligations as well?  Does Joe American not have a right to be furious that POTUS spits in the face of those obligations (pretty much every single day), and speak his/her mind about it?  By and large, I think that's all that many of us are doing here.

Yeah, sorry boss, but I don't buy into that attitude.  It's fifth grade, and it doesn't do anything but promote the process that got us Trump to begin with.   There is no "deserve" when it comes to one persons' subjective decision like this.   YOU think he's ridicule-able because you don't like him.  SO WHAT?

Remember, words matter   ;D. I didn't say "he's ridicul-able", I said what he does is ridicul-able.  I (and a lot of the population - US or otherwise) most certainly think what he does is ridicul-able - not because I don't like *him*.  I think - as POTUS - his actions, statements and behaviours make him look like a caricature (at best) ... *as POTUS*.  But your point remains... "SO WHAT?".  To which I answer, "so nothing".  I'm not going to change him, the attitudes of his supporters, or his detractors-yet-apologists.  I only post my thoughts, observations, and opinions.  Your penchant for lots of back-and-forth seems to make many of us see that it is you who is making something out of nothing.

Jimmy Carter was one of the most likeable Presidents we've ever had (and one of our greatest Americans in his post-Presidential role).   He was one of our worst Presidents, by a long shot.   LBJ passed some of the most advanced Civil Rights legislation this country has ever seen, and the tapes of him talking about "them n*****s" in the Oval Office are legend. 

SO WHAT?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Cool Chris on June 01, 2017, 04:50:18 PM
We really need individual threads for each major political topic, especially as it relates to Trump's presidency. Whenever I want to contribute something, I feel there are 3+ independent topics floating around the main Trump thread.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: XeRocks81 on June 01, 2017, 05:05:14 PM
We really need individual threads for each major political topic, especially as it relates to Trump's presidency. Whenever I want to contribute something, I feel there are 3+ independent topics floating around the main Trump thread.

this is called the 'just thinkin' syndrome...
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on June 01, 2017, 05:07:25 PM
I have an obligation to still be right, still account for ALL the facts, and supplant my personal feelings with the truth (or as close to it as I can get).   I don't get to wildly speculate and I don't get to be judge and jury all in one.

Does POTUS not have those obligations as well?  Does Joe American not have a right to be furious that POTUS spits in the face of those obligations (pretty much every single day), and speak his/her mind about it?  By and large, I think that's all that many of us are doing here.

Of COURSE he does.  In spades.  But that's not at all what many people are doing.   They're furious because he's not doing things the way THEY would do them.   And that misses the whole point of his Presidency.   THIS is the swamp drain.   I don't know what people expected from him, but this is it.   We're NOT going to accept deals just because Obama agreed to them (and the track record on the deals he agreed to is not great, so there's that).   I don't quite understand what "furious" gets you.



Quote
Yeah, sorry boss, but I don't buy into that attitude.  It's fifth grade, and it doesn't do anything but promote the process that got us Trump to begin with.   There is no "deserve" when it comes to one persons' subjective decision like this.   YOU think he's ridicule-able because you don't like him.  SO WHAT?

Remember, words matter   ;D. I didn't say "he's ridicul-able", I said what he does is ridicul-able.  I (and a lot of the population - US or otherwise) most certainly think what he does is ridicul-able - not because I don't like *him*.  I think - as POTUS - his actions, statements and behaviours make him look like a caricature (at best) ... *as POTUS*.  But your point remains... "SO WHAT?".  To which I answer, "so nothing".  I'm not going to change him, the attitudes of his supporters, or his detractors-yet-apologists.  I only post my thoughts, observations, and opinions.  Your penchant for lots of back-and-forth seems to make many of us see that it is you who is making something out of nothing.

I may be guilty of conflating discussions here, but ridiculing his hands, his hair, his skin palor, the way he shakes hands... that's ridiculing HIM, not "what he does".   

And you can dismiss it as "my thing" all you want - I can take it, I'm a Yorkshireman - but I think you're being disingenuous.  As I said to Anti-goon, it's not that you disagree with a President - we all do (or should; no one is perfect) but this is something different.  This isn't a reasoned debate on the pluses and minuses of the Paris Agreement as written.  How many people rejected the EO as "MUSLIM BAN!" and never even bothered to read the order itself?  How many people saw the headline "Travel EO stayed in court" and IMMEDIATELY jumped to the conclusion that "Trump's Muslim Ban is unconstitutional" then added some nonsense about his orange hair.

Quote
Jimmy Carter was one of the most likeable Presidents we've ever had (and one of our greatest Americans in his post-Presidential role).   He was one of our worst Presidents, by a long shot.   LBJ passed some of the most advanced Civil Rights legislation this country has ever seen, and the tapes of him talking about "them n*****s" in the Oval Office are legend. 

SO WHAT?

I just shot a gaping hole in your argument, that's what. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on June 01, 2017, 05:36:53 PM
Of COURSE he does.  In spades.  But that's not at all what many people are doing.

Yes, it is what many people (layperson and media alike) are doing.  It's not the only thing, but it is a big part of what is being 'done to him' - maniacally holding him responsible and accountable for his actions, statements, and behaviours.  Certainly, their is childish/comical "ridicule", but if you don't honestly believe that he hasn't opened himself up to it via his constant penchant for falsehoods, repeated scenarios where he demonstrates his overall lack of political knowledge, immature behaviour, and general un-Presidential demeanour, then we'll simply have to agree to disagree.

And you can dismiss it as "my thing" all you want - I can take it, I'm a Yorkshireman - but I think you're being disingenuous.   

A) I'm not sure what I'm dismissing as 'your thing'?
B) What am I being disingenuous about?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: RuRoRul on June 01, 2017, 07:01:15 PM
As far as I understand, the Paris Climate Agreement isn't even really an enforceable thing. It's basically a pledge for countries to say "Look, this climate change thing could be bad for all of us, but if I try to change my ways to help mitigate it, it won't do much on my own, and it might put me at a disadvantage if I work on it while you don't, so let's all commit to doing a bit to work on it - what do you say?" And every country bar Nicaragua, Syria and the United States of America has said "Ok."

Climate change is one or those issues that requires international, global cooperation to deal with it best. There's no pretending that just because a country is in the Paris agreement then they would be doing all they could, or that the Paris agreement is the best agreement possible, or even enough. But as far as a symbol of global cooperation on the issue, it's the best we have right now.

To have one of the biggest economies in the world not only not be a part of it, but actively withdraw from it citing "We need to look out for number one!" as the principal reason, it is a spit in the face to the global community and a sign that that country is not to be relied on for cooperation on the issue.

People have discussed in this thread the idea of USA being a "global leader", and questioned whether that is actually important or a good thing for the US. I wouldn't know the answer to that. But if you don't want to be seen as a "leader of the free world", then congratulations - you are not.

If you don't care whether your leader is respected in other western nations, then congratulations - he is not.

I think it will take a long time to fully comprehend the impact of Donald Trump becoming POTUS on the perception and standing of the USA around the globe. Maybe it won't make too much of a difference, and if it does maybe the people of the USA will be better off or happier with the  new paradigm. But if your country doesn't consider it important to vote for a leader that won't alienate longstanding allies, that isn't considered a laughing stock as a public figure to many people in other countries, and who won't lead America in the opposite direction on climate change and force the rest of the world to try to 'move on' without USA... well, don't complain when the attitude of people in other countries changes because of those things. You get to say "I don't care what random people in other countries think of our government or our leader". You don't get to say "other countries should respect our government and our leader no matter who they are or what they do."
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: portnoy311 on June 01, 2017, 11:49:12 PM
Totally agreed, Ru. Frankly I'm so angry at this I'm having a hard time putting it all into words. It has nothing to do with it being Trump being Trump, I'd be just as upset if Obama, W, Clinton, GHWB, Reagan, etc. did this. Absolutely destroys all credibility we have with our allies, denies science for the sake of the #MAGA crowd at his rallies, and tangibly impacts the future of the entire world.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on June 02, 2017, 12:43:33 AM
As far as I understand, the Paris Climate Agreement isn't even really an enforceable thing. It's basically a pledge for countries to say "Look, this climate change thing could be bad for all of us, but if I try to change my ways to help mitigate it, it won't do much on my own, and it might put me at a disadvantage if I work on it while you don't, so let's all commit to doing a bit to work on it - what do you say?" And every country bar Nicaragua, Syria and the United States of America has said "Ok."

Climate change is one or those issues that requires international, global cooperation to deal with it best. There's no pretending that just because a country is in the Paris agreement then they would be doing all they could, or that the Paris agreement is the best agreement possible, or even enough. But as far as a symbol of global cooperation on the issue, it's the best we have right now.

To have one of the biggest economies in the world not only not be a part of it, but actively withdraw from it citing "We need to look out for number one!" as the principal reason, it is a spit in the face to the global community and a sign that that country is not to be relied on for cooperation on the issue.

People have discussed in this thread the idea of USA being a "global leader", and questioned whether that is actually important or a good thing for the US. I wouldn't know the answer to that. But if you don't want to be seen as a "leader of the free world", then congratulations - you are not.

If you don't care whether your leader is respected in other western nations, then congratulations - he is not.

I think it will take a long time to fully comprehend the impact of Donald Trump becoming POTUS on the perception and standing of the USA around the globe. Maybe it won't make too much of a difference, and if it does maybe the people of the USA will be better off or happier with the  new paradigm. But if your country doesn't consider it important to vote for a leader that won't alienate longstanding allies, that isn't considered a laughing stock as a public figure to many people in other countries, and who won't lead America in the opposite direction on climate change and force the rest of the world to try to 'move on' without USA... well, don't complain when the attitude of people in other countries changes because of those things. You get to say "I don't care what random people in other countries think of our government or our leader". You don't get to say "other countries should respect our government and our leader no matter who they are or what they do."
Very well said!

Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Mister Gold on June 02, 2017, 03:45:11 AM
As far as I understand, the Paris Climate Agreement isn't even really an enforceable thing. It's basically a pledge for countries to say "Look, this climate change thing could be bad for all of us, but if I try to change my ways to help mitigate it, it won't do much on my own, and it might put me at a disadvantage if I work on it while you don't, so let's all commit to doing a bit to work on it - what do you say?" And every country bar Nicaragua, Syria and the United States of America has said "Ok."

Climate change is one or those issues that requires international, global cooperation to deal with it best. There's no pretending that just because a country is in the Paris agreement then they would be doing all they could, or that the Paris agreement is the best agreement possible, or even enough. But as far as a symbol of global cooperation on the issue, it's the best we have right now.

To have one of the biggest economies in the world not only not be a part of it, but actively withdraw from it citing "We need to look out for number one!" as the principal reason, it is a spit in the face to the global community and a sign that that country is not to be relied on for cooperation on the issue.

People have discussed in this thread the idea of USA being a "global leader", and questioned whether that is actually important or a good thing for the US. I wouldn't know the answer to that. But if you don't want to be seen as a "leader of the free world", then congratulations - you are not.

If you don't care whether your leader is respected in other western nations, then congratulations - he is not.

I think it will take a long time to fully comprehend the impact of Donald Trump becoming POTUS on the perception and standing of the USA around the globe. Maybe it won't make too much of a difference, and if it does maybe the people of the USA will be better off or happier with the  new paradigm. But if your country doesn't consider it important to vote for a leader that won't alienate longstanding allies, that isn't considered a laughing stock as a public figure to many people in other countries, and who won't lead America in the opposite direction on climate change and force the rest of the world to try to 'move on' without USA... well, don't complain when the attitude of people in other countries changes because of those things. You get to say "I don't care what random people in other countries think of our government or our leader". You don't get to say "other countries should respect our government and our leader no matter who they are or what they do."

Nailed it on the head.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on June 02, 2017, 08:04:16 AM
Of COURSE he does.  In spades.  But that's not at all what many people are doing.

Yes, it is what many people (layperson and media alike) are doing.  It's not the only thing, but it is a big part of what is being 'done to him' - maniacally holding him responsible and accountable for his actions, statements, and behaviours.  Certainly, their is childish/comical "ridicule", but if you don't honestly believe that he hasn't opened himself up to it via his constant penchant for falsehoods, repeated scenarios where he demonstrates his overall lack of political knowledge, immature behaviour, and general un-Presidential demeanour, then we'll simply have to agree to disagree.

I honestly "don't", if I'm understanding what you mean by "opening himself up".  I don't believe in that idea that somehow because person A does thing X, they are now fair game for whatever response YOU feel justified in giving.  This the very essense of the identity politic bullying.   Do you think because that guy shot that tiger in Africa, it was "fair game!" that protestors physically and verbally attacked his family?   I do not, and not even close.   People are allowed to be dicks, and people - even the POTUS - is allowed to take a position that is contrary to YOURS (and mine).   

Quote
And you can dismiss it as "my thing" all you want - I can take it, I'm a Yorkshireman - but I think you're being disingenuous.   

A) I'm not sure what I'm dismissing as 'your thing'?
B) What am I being disingenuous about?

My "thing" is my "penchant for back and forth" which apparently "is making something of nothing".

And that's your disingenuousness:  this idea that what you are doing - this anything goes, no holds barred, "He asked for it!" type of attack, is anything but "nothing".   It's dangerous, and it's what got us to Trump in the first place.    It's an escalation of the very "SHE'S NOT LISTENING TO ME!" idea that got many Obama-Democrats to break ranks, vote Trump, and put him in office. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: ariich on June 02, 2017, 08:10:29 AM
People are allowed to be dicks, and people - even the POTUS - is allowed to take a position that is contrary to YOURS (and mine).
The grammar in this sentence hurts my brain. People is allowed to take a position that is contrary to our dicks?

I'm joshing of course, just found it funny. :lol
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on June 02, 2017, 08:17:56 AM
As far as I understand, the Paris Climate Agreement isn't even really an enforceable thing. It's basically a pledge for countries to say "Look, this climate change thing could be bad for all of us, but if I try to change my ways to help mitigate it, it won't do much on my own, and it might put me at a disadvantage if I work on it while you don't, so let's all commit to doing a bit to work on it - what do you say?" And every country bar Nicaragua, Syria and the United States of America has said "Ok."

Climate change is one or those issues that requires international, global cooperation to deal with it best. There's no pretending that just because a country is in the Paris agreement then they would be doing all they could, or that the Paris agreement is the best agreement possible, or even enough. But as far as a symbol of global cooperation on the issue, it's the best we have right now.

To have one of the biggest economies in the world not only not be a part of it, but actively withdraw from it citing "We need to look out for number one!" as the principal reason, it is a spit in the face to the global community and a sign that that country is not to be relied on for cooperation on the issue.

People have discussed in this thread the idea of USA being a "global leader", and questioned whether that is actually important or a good thing for the US. I wouldn't know the answer to that. But if you don't want to be seen as a "leader of the free world", then congratulations - you are not.

If you don't care whether your leader is respected in other western nations, then congratulations - he is not.

I think it will take a long time to fully comprehend the impact of Donald Trump becoming POTUS on the perception and standing of the USA around the globe. Maybe it won't make too much of a difference, and if it does maybe the people of the USA will be better off or happier with the  new paradigm. But if your country doesn't consider it important to vote for a leader that won't alienate longstanding allies, that isn't considered a laughing stock as a public figure to many people in other countries, and who won't lead America in the opposite direction on climate change and force the rest of the world to try to 'move on' without USA... well, don't complain when the attitude of people in other countries changes because of those things. You get to say "I don't care what random people in other countries think of our government or our leader". You don't get to say "other countries should respect our government and our leader no matter who they are or what they do."

You know, this is awesome as far as it goes... but only as far as it goes. 

What would you have done?   How does one parse the difference between putting someone in office that may - or may not - ruffle feathers versus putting someone in who has basically kowtowed to Europe and Asia for eight years?   Who has freely and apparently without shame, guilt or compunction, lied under oath to government investigators?   

You make it sound like we sat here, decided, "I'm going to vote for the Twatter that is going SHOVE IT UP EUROPE'S ASS, BABAY!"   

I love the after the fact, Monday morning lectures, but they really ring like "I told you so.  I'm smarter than you and I told you so!" and yet seems to completely and utterly miss the 18 months (in terms of the election) and the eight years (in terms of the mood of the country) that led up to this.    I can guarantee you that for the people that swayed this election the "Paris Agreement" was I don't know, maybe a spy movie put out sometime in the 70's, or something?

It's so easy to sit here and say "You Germans.  If you care at all about your standing in the world, if you don't want to be mocked and ridiculed by the rest of the world, you should have told that Adolf guy to go back to painting.  I don't know WHAT you guys were thinking!".   

What do you say to those people that were promised lower healthcare rates - and didn't get them.  What do you say to those people that were promised more jobs - and didn't get them.  What do you say to those that were fed this incredible line of populist pablum - Change!  Change You Can BELIEVE In! - and saw none of it?  What do you say to the people that voted for that, then when perhaps the greatest referendum our country has seen in decades comes along, the symbol of that "Change!" - Hillary - is nowhere to be found and when the tide seems to turn, SHE turns and calls those same people that were BEGGING for her to hear them, "DEPLORABLE".   

If it wasn't "enforceable", and we weren't going to follow it anyway (which would have been the only effective course, since we KNOW China isn't going to follow it; they wouldn't sign the agreement until it became "non-binding".  Duh!), isn't this at least defensible as the more above-board, less political way of doing things? 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on June 02, 2017, 08:19:03 AM
People are allowed to be dicks, and people - even the POTUS - is allowed to take a position that is contrary to YOURS (and mine).
The grammar in this sentence hurts my brain. People is allowed to take a position that is contrary to our dicks?

I'm joshing of course, just found it funny. :lol

HAHA, that's the brain getting too far ahead of the fingers too early in the morning!!!  People is! 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on June 02, 2017, 08:29:57 AM
My dick typically take a position that's contrary to my brain.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Adami on June 02, 2017, 08:48:23 AM
My dick typically take a position that's contrary to my brain.

Left leaning?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on June 02, 2017, 09:09:59 AM
More in the sense that it tries its damndest to override and sort of common sense my bran may have to offer.  Which is fairly minimal in the first place, but still.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: gmillerdrake on June 02, 2017, 09:10:52 AM
As far as I understand, the Paris Climate Agreement isn't even really an enforceable thing. It's basically a pledge for countries to say "Look, this climate change thing could be bad for all of us, but if I try to change my ways to help mitigate it, it won't do much on my own, and it might put me at a disadvantage if I work on it while you don't, so let's all commit to doing a bit to work on it - what do you say?" And every country bar Nicaragua, Syria and the United States of America has said "Ok."

Climate change is one or those issues that requires international, global cooperation to deal with it best. There's no pretending that just because a country is in the Paris agreement then they would be doing all they could, or that the Paris agreement is the best agreement possible, or even enough. But as far as a symbol of global cooperation on the issue, it's the best we have right now.

To have one of the biggest economies in the world not only not be a part of it, but actively withdraw from it citing "We need to look out for number one!" as the principal reason, it is a spit in the face to the global community and a sign that that country is not to be relied on for cooperation on the issue.

People have discussed in this thread the idea of USA being a "global leader", and questioned whether that is actually important or a good thing for the US. I wouldn't know the answer to that. But if you don't want to be seen as a "leader of the free world", then congratulations - you are not.

If you don't care whether your leader is respected in other western nations, then congratulations - he is not.

I think it will take a long time to fully comprehend the impact of Donald Trump becoming POTUS on the perception and standing of the USA around the globe. Maybe it won't make too much of a difference, and if it does maybe the people of the USA will be better off or happier with the  new paradigm. But if your country doesn't consider it important to vote for a leader that won't alienate longstanding allies, that isn't considered a laughing stock as a public figure to many people in other countries, and who won't lead America in the opposite direction on climate change and force the rest of the world to try to 'move on' without USA... well, don't complain when the attitude of people in other countries changes because of those things. You get to say "I don't care what random people in other countries think of our government or our leader". You don't get to say "other countries should respect our government and our leader no matter who they are or what they do."

You know, this is awesome as far as it goes... but only as far as it goes. 

What would you have done?   How does one parse the difference between putting someone in office that may - or may not - ruffle feathers versus putting someone in who has basically kowtowed to Europe and Asia for eight years?   Who has freely and apparently without shame, guilt or compunction, lied under oath to government investigators?   

You make it sound like we sat here, decided, "I'm going to vote for the Twatter that is going SHOVE IT UP EUROPE'S ASS, BABAY!"   

I love the after the fact, Monday morning lectures, but they really ring like "I told you so.  I'm smarter than you and I told you so!" and yet seems to completely and utterly miss the 18 months (in terms of the election) and the eight years (in terms of the mood of the country) that led up to this.    I can guarantee you that for the people that swayed this election the "Paris Agreement" was I don't know, maybe a spy movie put out sometime in the 70's, or something?

It's so easy to sit here and say "You Germans.  If you care at all about your standing in the world, if you don't want to be mocked and ridiculed by the rest of the world, you should have told that Adolf guy to go back to painting.  I don't know WHAT you guys were thinking!".   

What do you say to those people that were promised lower healthcare rates - and didn't get them.  What do you say to those people that were promised more jobs - and didn't get them.  What do you say to those that were fed this incredible line of populist pablum - Change!  Change You Can BELIEVE In! - and saw none of it?  What do you say to the people that voted for that, then when perhaps the greatest referendum our country has seen in decades comes along, the symbol of that "Change!" - Hillary - is nowhere to be found and when the tide seems to turn, SHE turns and calls those same people that were BEGGING for her to hear them, "DEPLORABLE".   

If it wasn't "enforceable", and we weren't going to follow it anyway (which would have been the only effective course, since we KNOW China isn't going to follow it; they wouldn't sign the agreement until it became "non-binding".  Duh!), isn't this at least defensible as the more above-board, less political way of doing things?

Stop making sense Bill.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: ariich on June 02, 2017, 09:26:58 AM
My dick typically take a position that's contrary to my brain.

Left leaning?
More like hard left.

AMIRITE
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on June 02, 2017, 09:30:38 AM
Boom
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: eric42434224 on June 02, 2017, 10:36:36 AM
If people are allowed to be dicks, and take contrary positions, why can't people be dicks and take contrary positions in response?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on June 02, 2017, 01:05:19 PM
If people are allowed to be dicks, and take contrary positions, why can't people be dicks and take contrary positions in response?

Isn't this the circle of life?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on June 02, 2017, 03:26:47 PM
So much of Trump's speech yesterday was baffling - something non-binding is draconian, and puts "draconian financial and economic burdens" on the United States?  And that's just what he opened with.

So, serious question to those that are ok with / support pulling out of Paris.  What does pulling out actually achieve for the United States?  Serious question here, because from all that I've read on it, not only is it non-binding with no penalties, but each member country gets to decide what their targets are and how they are going to achieve them.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on June 02, 2017, 03:32:23 PM
So much of Trump's speech yesterday was baffling - something non-binding is draconian, and puts "draconian financial and economic burdens" on the United States?  And that's just what he opened with.

So, serious question to those that are ok with / support pulling out of Paris.  What does pulling out actually achieve for the United States?  Serious question here, because from all that I've read on it, not only is it non-binding with no penalties, but each member country gets to decide what their targets are and how they are going to achieve them.

I don't know the details, hence why I didn't have an opinion yesterday, but I heard about this non-binding stuff and makes me wonder what was the point of this to begin with?  Just to appear like it's doing something?  That's not necessarily a good reason to leave (because what's the penalty for not following the deal?), but I just wonder why make a deal with no promises needing to be kept?  Maybe my limited understanding is off.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on June 02, 2017, 03:37:45 PM
So much of Trump's speech yesterday was baffling - something non-binding is draconian, and puts "draconian financial and economic burdens" on the United States?  And that's just what he opened with.

So, serious question to those that are ok with / support pulling out of Paris.  What does pulling out actually achieve for the United States?  Serious question here, because from all that I've read on it, not only is it non-binding with no penalties, but each member country gets to decide what their targets are and how they are going to achieve them.

I don't know the details, hence why I didn't have an opinion yesterday, but I heard about this non-binding stuff and makes me wonder what was the point of this to begin with?  Just to appear like it's doing something?  That's not necessarily a good reason to leave (because what's the penalty for not following the deal?), but I just wonder why make a deal with no promises needing to be kept?  Maybe my limited understanding is off.

From what I've read (and I'm copy/pasting this from some recent articles), the point of Paris is to use the power of public commitment and accountability. The idea is that, by publicly stating targets and reporting transparently on progress, participants will be driven by pride, peer pressure, and internal politics to meet those targets. Ultimately, it relies on the only real weapons in the UNFCCC's arsenal: perception and peer pressure. The bet is that nations will behave differently when a) no one is telling them what to do, but b) everyone is watching. Social scientists know that for individuals, making goals public is one of the most effective ways of ensuring they're met.

But the agreement does not impose any legal penalty on participants that fail to meet their targets.  Broadly speaking, it can offer two things: transparency and moral suasion.

Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on June 02, 2017, 03:45:21 PM
Transparency is always good, but I don't even trust my local government to be transparent.  Do we actually trust any of these countries to report properly?  If public scrutiny is the only negative on not meeting the commitment, does anyone care when the country no one heard of (I believe there are like 200 countries involved? I don't think I can name 200 countries) doesn't meet their goals? 

I think you are right in that publicly stating things makes it more likely to follow through, I can see that on a personal level. ("Hey everyone I'm posting my exercise habits and weekly weights on facebook so I am publicly accountable")
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on June 02, 2017, 04:45:30 PM
Transparency is always good, but I don't even trust my local government to be transparent.  Do we actually trust any of these countries to report properly?  If public scrutiny is the only negative on not meeting the commitment, does anyone care when the country no one heard of (I believe there are like 200 countries involved? I don't think I can name 200 countries) doesn't meet their goals? 

I think you are right in that publicly stating things makes it more likely to follow through, I can see that on a personal level. ("Hey everyone I'm posting my exercise habits and weekly weights on facebook so I am publicly accountable")
No more than they expected us to report properly. We were just the first to prove ourselves unreliable. And that is, by the way, the object of the exercise here. Pulling out of Paris was mostly symbolic. Remember, it was just as non-binding for us as it was for China. Unfortunately, the message represented by our symbolism was basically "Hey, rest of the world! Fuck off, losers!"

An interesting secondary message Ole Grabby was pretty keen to harp on yesterday is that a tremendous number of intelligent and wealthy Americans are gullible saps, too dumb to work out a good deal. While he badmouths this thing as a disaster for America, you've got captains of industry, billionaire investors, city and state politicians and major fortune 5 companies openly disagreeing with him.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on June 02, 2017, 04:47:47 PM
Isn't it better than nothing?  But, if you're (the royal 'you' - not you specifically Cram) naturally distrusting, then you're right ... what's the point.  Hopefully, by and large, most of the participating nations want to do the right thing for the environment, and hold themselves accountable to doing it.

Per your example ... if you want to post your habits and weight and bull-shit it, knock yourself out while you gorge on brownies and chicken wings.  Be a fat pig, but try to fool everyone that you're working out and losing weight.  But, if you're sincere about doing the right thing, and are in a 'biggest loser' club, then posting your activities and progress is a good thing, no?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on June 02, 2017, 09:35:29 PM
I don't disagree with any of that, just trying to understand the implications.  I don't think it's a good sign to turn away from something, even if somewhat superficial, that benefits the world.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: axeman90210 on June 03, 2017, 02:29:01 AM
Trying to figure out how issuing roughly as many ethics waivers in four months as Obama did in eight years does anything to drain the swamp.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on June 03, 2017, 04:49:28 AM
Trying to figure out how issuing roughly as many ethics waivers in four months as Obama did in eight years does anything to drain the swamp.

I caught that yesterday too.  But, we shant ridicule EVERYTHING the man does.  It's a good day so far... nothing in my news feed that (politically) alarms me.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: lordxizor on June 03, 2017, 10:45:03 AM
My problem with the whole Paris thing is that yeah, it wasn't a binding resolution, but that's what make backing out of it such a dickhead move. It tells the rest of the world that we're not even going to pretend to try and reduce emissions or help the environment. It bugs me so much that Trump and Republicans in general are so backwards on this. Let's get the US on the forefront of renewal energy to boost our economy and create jobs, not rely on dying energy sources.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: SwedishGoose on June 03, 2017, 12:22:01 PM
With China and the EU probably issuing environmental tarifs on imports from the US... how will this help the American economy?
With the rest of the world investing in green technology, which most consumers want, how will investing in old technology help the US in the long run?

 :facepalm:
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on June 03, 2017, 03:17:23 PM
The US won't be investing in old technology. Honestly, this really changes nothing over here. It was either a symbolic gesture intended to tell Europe to go fuck itself, or Trump really does think this will bring back a resurgence of coal, and he's mistaken.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on June 03, 2017, 06:02:07 PM
Yea, I think things will stay business as usual in the US.  It's good to go green regardless of this deal and giving the complaining from all these CEOs and Bloomberg wanting to pay for things, I think the country for the most part will continue to work towards this even without a deal. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: TL on June 03, 2017, 06:20:27 PM
Here are a few of the results of the US pulling out of the Paris Accord (which isn't an instant thing. It will take several years).

Other countries (including China in a big way) will get a bigger share of the rapidly growing renewable energy market.
More division within the US, as some states and cities opt to pursue more environmentally friendly policies anyway.
Increased distance between the US and its allies (who already viewed Trump as an emotionally unstable toddler).

Canada has a big chunk of its economy tied up in oil, yet Canada signed the accord.
China has benefited by not caring about the climate in the past, yet they signed the accord, and in a handful of years have transitioned their power grid to more than 20% renewable (and are expanding on that number). The US is at about 11-12 %.
A big thing is how Trump is harping on about how this accord was "unfair" for the US, when it isn't even a competitive agreement. It's almost every other country saying, "You know what? Differences aside for a second, we really should do something about this climate change thing".

One of the problems is, Trump doesn't seem to understand the concept of "mutually beneficial". To him, everything has to have a winner and a loser. If the US isn't a clear winner, they must be a loser, and it's unfair. Even if that's nonsense.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on June 03, 2017, 10:05:50 PM
To the people that think that any tafiffs by China are actually about the environment, I have four tickets to see the Beatles this August at Shea Stadium.   It's the four original members, and the stadium is a GREAT place to hear a show.   

PM me with your best offer. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on June 03, 2017, 10:56:34 PM

Other countries (including China in a big way) will get a bigger share of the rapidly growing renewable energy market.
Why? The private sector will still compete in growing markets.

Quote
One of the problems is, Trump doesn't seem to understand the concept of "mutually beneficial". To him, everything has to have a winner and a loser. If the US isn't a clear winner, they must be a loser, and it's unfair. Even if that's nonsense.
Yup.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: SwedishGoose on June 03, 2017, 11:41:32 PM
To the people that think that any tafiffs by China are actually about the environment, I have four tickets to see the Beatles this August at Shea Stadium.   It's the four original members, and the stadium is a GREAT place to hear a show.   

PM me with your best offer.

I guess that is the time that Donald Trump wanrs to go back to....

Going back is not an ootion though you have to look forward and coal is not the future.

Even India have understood this. They have cancelled orders for coal plants and placed orders for solar power instead. They also promise to go beyond the Paris accord...

China are working hard on switching to environmental friendly production. For instance, they produce more than 50% of the electrical cars of the world.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on June 04, 2017, 04:51:44 AM
To the people that think that any tafiffs by China are actually about the environment, I have four tickets to see the Beatles this August at Shea Stadium.   It's the four original members, and the stadium is a GREAT place to hear a show.   

PM me with your best offer.

A) perhaps not, but this gives them a perfectly understandable/justifiable reason to do so.  If not for him pulling out, they would need to come up with some other reason for tariffs that wouldn't immediately result in commensurate retaliation.  At best, all this does is accelerate their ability to tax US goods; at worst, see B
B) what about other countries that will invariably impose environmental tariffs?  How many other members of the Paris Accord might place some kind of "eco fee" on US manufactured products?  Gives Europe a reason to have their population "Buy European".
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on June 04, 2017, 11:02:33 PM
So much of Trump's speech yesterday was baffling - something non-binding is draconian, and puts "draconian financial and economic burdens" on the United States?  And that's just what he opened with.

So, serious question to those that are ok with / support pulling out of Paris.  What does pulling out actually achieve for the United States?  Serious question here, because from all that I've read on it, not only is it non-binding with no penalties, but each member country gets to decide what their targets are and how they are going to achieve them.

It takes a stand on the mockery, the charade, and the politics of it.   As one of the two leading industrialised nations in this, how do we call bullshit on China if we're playing the same shenanigans?   And you don't think the rest of the world wouldn't call us on our bullshit.   If we stay in we almost HAVE to treat it as binding, and while you can argue if everyone is in, it's not economically crippling, it's just propaganda - and bad propaganda at that - to suggest that if one country is full in and one country says "no dice" that they are on equal economic footing.  That's just bad math right there (and we'be had just about enough of that). 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on June 04, 2017, 11:07:17 PM
Isn't it better than nothing?  But, if you're (the royal 'you' - not you specifically Cram) naturally distrusting, then you're right ... what's the point.  Hopefully, by and large, most of the participating nations want to do the right thing for the environment, and hold themselves accountable to doing it.

Per your example ... if you want to post your habits and weight and bull-shit it, knock yourself out while you gorge on brownies and chicken wings.  Be a fat pig, but try to fool everyone that you're working out and losing weight.  But, if you're sincere about doing the right thing, and are in a 'biggest loser' club, then posting your activities and progress is a good thing, no?

But here's the thing:  "most countries" is irrelevant, unless "most countries" in your language means "China".     They are the only ones that really matter and they would not join this agreement unless and until it was non-binding.   It is certainly far less of a stretch to say that means they are not interested in meaningful change then it is to say, for example, this handshake means this about our President's psychology.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on June 04, 2017, 11:13:46 PM
To the people that think that any tafiffs by China are actually about the environment, I have four tickets to see the Beatles this August at Shea Stadium.   It's the four original members, and the stadium is a GREAT place to hear a show.   

PM me with your best offer.

I guess that is the time that Donald Trump wanrs to go back to....

Going back is not an ootion though you have to look forward and coal is not the future.

Even India have understood this. They have cancelled orders for coal plants and placed orders for solar power instead. They also promise to go beyond the Paris accord...

China are working hard on switching to environmental friendly production. For instance, they produce more than 50% of the electrical cars of the world.

So?   Almost the entire market is driven by government mandate.   So China orders a Brazilian new electric cars and limits their market TO electric cars and it's not really a meaningful stat.   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on June 04, 2017, 11:17:34 PM
To the people that think that any tafiffs by China are actually about the environment, I have four tickets to see the Beatles this August at Shea Stadium.   It's the four original members, and the stadium is a GREAT place to hear a show.   

PM me with your best offer.

A) perhaps not, but this gives them a perfectly understandable/justifiable reason to do so.  If not for him pulling out, they would need to come up with some other reason for tariffs that wouldn't immediately result in commensurate retaliation.  At best, all this does is accelerate their ability to tax US goods; at worst, see B
B) what about other countries that will invariably impose environmental tariffs?  How many other members of the Paris Accord might place some kind of "eco fee" on US manufactured products?  Gives Europe a reason to have their population "Buy European".

Tariffs do not work.    We - the US - are still paying both monetarily and in foreign goodwill in the world for the tariffs FDR placed on farm imports almost 100 years ago. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: ariich on June 04, 2017, 11:54:26 PM
Isn't it better than nothing?  But, if you're (the royal 'you' - not you specifically Cram) naturally distrusting, then you're right ... what's the point.  Hopefully, by and large, most of the participating nations want to do the right thing for the environment, and hold themselves accountable to doing it.

Per your example ... if you want to post your habits and weight and bull-shit it, knock yourself out while you gorge on brownies and chicken wings.  Be a fat pig, but try to fool everyone that you're working out and losing weight.  But, if you're sincere about doing the right thing, and are in a 'biggest loser' club, then posting your activities and progress is a good thing, no?

But here's the thing:  "most countries" is irrelevant, unless "most countries" in your language means "China".     They are the only ones that really matter and they would not join this agreement unless and until it was non-binding.   It is certainly far less of a stretch to say that means they are not interested in meaningful change then it is to say, for example, this handshake means this about our President's psychology.
America/Obama pushed just as hard on making it non-binding, as I understand it. No need for finger-pointing.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on June 05, 2017, 12:02:49 AM
Isn't it better than nothing?  But, if you're (the royal 'you' - not you specifically Cram) naturally distrusting, then you're right ... what's the point.  Hopefully, by and large, most of the participating nations want to do the right thing for the environment, and hold themselves accountable to doing it.

Per your example ... if you want to post your habits and weight and bull-shit it, knock yourself out while you gorge on brownies and chicken wings.  Be a fat pig, but try to fool everyone that you're working out and losing weight.  But, if you're sincere about doing the right thing, and are in a 'biggest loser' club, then posting your activities and progress is a good thing, no?

But here's the thing:  "most countries" is irrelevant, unless "most countries" in your language means "China".     They are the only ones that really matter and they would not join this agreement unless and until it was non-binding.   It is certainly far less of a stretch to say that means they are not interested in meaningful change then it is to say, for example, this handshake means this about our President's psychology.
America/Obama pushed just as hard on making it non-binding, as I understand it. No need for finger-pointing.

My  opinion only?  Because Kerry was - and is - a weak negotiator and was desperate for a deal, any deal, and he knew it was the only way China would even entertain this.   Rolling Stone Magazine did a great overview of the last days of the negotiation; they are incredibly pro Obama and pro climate change action and even they conceded these points. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on June 05, 2017, 08:16:23 AM
As long as it was non-binding for all, who gives a fuck?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: ariich on June 05, 2017, 08:55:40 AM
Trump's reaction to the couple of recent attacks in the UK have eroded any benefit of the doubt I might have afforded him. The London mayor, absolutely rightly, urged people to stay vigilant but "not be alarmed", and Trump slammed him for it on Twitter as part of his own political point-scoring bullshit, with absolutely no respect for those who died.

Sorry, but he is proving himself to just be a vile, arrogant and ignorant person.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on June 05, 2017, 09:12:10 AM
Trump's reaction to the couple of recent attacks in the UK have eroded any benefit of the doubt I might have afforded him. The London mayor, absolutely rightly, urged people to stay vigilant but "not be alarmed", and Trump slammed him for it on Twitter as part of his own political point-scoring bullshit, with absolutely no respect for those who died.

Sorry, but he is proving himself to just be a vile, arrogant and ignorant person.

This is one area where I still agree with him.  If I lived in London and was told "no reason to be alarmed" after that planned coordinated terrorist attack, I would be offended.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Adami on June 05, 2017, 09:13:24 AM
Trump's reaction to the couple of recent attacks in the UK have eroded any benefit of the doubt I might have afforded him. The London mayor, absolutely rightly, urged people to stay vigilant but "not be alarmed", and Trump slammed him for it on Twitter as part of his own political point-scoring bullshit, with absolutely no respect for those who died.

Sorry, but he is proving himself to just be a vile, arrogant and ignorant person.

This is one area where I still agree with him.  If I lived in London and was told "no reason to be alarmed" after that planned coordinated terrorist attack, I would be offended.

Even if you were being told not to be alarmed at the increase police security and not at the terrorist attack?

Or do you think the mayor should be telling everyone to freak out when they see police/army?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on June 05, 2017, 09:21:50 AM
Trump's reaction to the couple of recent attacks in the UK have eroded any benefit of the doubt I might have afforded him. The London mayor, absolutely rightly, urged people to stay vigilant but "not be alarmed", and Trump slammed him for it on Twitter as part of his own political point-scoring bullshit, with absolutely no respect for those who died.

Sorry, but he is proving himself to just be a vile, arrogant and ignorant person.

This is one area where I still agree with him.  If I lived in London and was told "no reason to be alarmed" after that planned coordinated terrorist attack, I would be offended.

Even if you were being told not to be alarmed at the increase police security and not at the terrorist attack?

Or do you think the mayor should be telling everyone to freak out when they see police/army?

That's all fine, don't tell me not to be alarmed when clearly there is reason to be alarmed.   Alarmed doesn't equal freaking out.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: ariich on June 05, 2017, 09:22:06 AM
Trump's reaction to the couple of recent attacks in the UK have eroded any benefit of the doubt I might have afforded him. The London mayor, absolutely rightly, urged people to stay vigilant but "not be alarmed", and Trump slammed him for it on Twitter as part of his own political point-scoring bullshit, with absolutely no respect for those who died.

Sorry, but he is proving himself to just be a vile, arrogant and ignorant person.

This is one area where I still agree with him.  If I lived in London and was told "no reason to be alarmed" after that planned coordinated terrorist attack, I would be offended.

Even if you were being told not to be alarmed at the increase police security and not at the terrorist attack?

Or do you think the mayor should be telling everyone to freak out when they see police/army?
Seriously, this.

He also tweeted "Do you notice we are not having a gun debate right now? That's because they used knives and a truck!"
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on June 05, 2017, 09:23:27 AM
Trump's reaction to the couple of recent attacks in the UK have eroded any benefit of the doubt I might have afforded him. The London mayor, absolutely rightly, urged people to stay vigilant but "not be alarmed", and Trump slammed him for it on Twitter as part of his own political point-scoring bullshit, with absolutely no respect for those who died.

Sorry, but he is proving himself to just be a vile, arrogant and ignorant person.

This is one area where I still agree with him.  If I lived in London and was told "no reason to be alarmed" after that planned coordinated terrorist attack, I would be offended.

Even if you were being told not to be alarmed at the increase police security and not at the terrorist attack?

Or do you think the mayor should be telling everyone to freak out when they see police/army?
Seriously, this.

He also tweeted "Do you notice we are not having a gun debate right now? That's because they used knives and a truck!"

Thats a different tweet than the alarmed one, and I agree that is furthering his own agenda in the time of crisis.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Adami on June 05, 2017, 09:23:51 AM
Trump's reaction to the couple of recent attacks in the UK have eroded any benefit of the doubt I might have afforded him. The London mayor, absolutely rightly, urged people to stay vigilant but "not be alarmed", and Trump slammed him for it on Twitter as part of his own political point-scoring bullshit, with absolutely no respect for those who died.

Sorry, but he is proving himself to just be a vile, arrogant and ignorant person.

This is one area where I still agree with him.  If I lived in London and was told "no reason to be alarmed" after that planned coordinated terrorist attack, I would be offended.

Even if you were being told not to be alarmed at the increase police security and not at the terrorist attack?

Or do you think the mayor should be telling everyone to freak out when they see police/army?

That's all fine, don't tell me not to be alarmed when clearly there is reason to be alarmed.   Alarmed doesn't equal freaking out.

You would honestly be offended if your mayor told you not be alarmed at the increased security?

Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: ariich on June 05, 2017, 09:26:52 AM
Trump's reaction to the couple of recent attacks in the UK have eroded any benefit of the doubt I might have afforded him. The London mayor, absolutely rightly, urged people to stay vigilant but "not be alarmed", and Trump slammed him for it on Twitter as part of his own political point-scoring bullshit, with absolutely no respect for those who died.

Sorry, but he is proving himself to just be a vile, arrogant and ignorant person.

This is one area where I still agree with him.  If I lived in London and was told "no reason to be alarmed" after that planned coordinated terrorist attack, I would be offended.

Even if you were being told not to be alarmed at the increase police security and not at the terrorist attack?

Or do you think the mayor should be telling everyone to freak out when they see police/army?
Seriously, this.

He also tweeted "Do you notice we are not having a gun debate right now? That's because they used knives and a truck!"

Thats a different tweet than the alarmed one, and I agree that is furthering his own agenda in the time of crisis.
Both are about furthering his agenda.

But that's not the point. I think it's a strange view that the mayor shouldn't seek to reassure people, but whatever. The point is that even if that's what you think, if you're POTUS you don't use this tragedy to try and further your political agenda. It's disgraceful.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Chino on June 05, 2017, 09:29:54 AM
I'm pretty sure the "don't be alarmed" comment wasn't meant to be interpreted as "nothing to see here, there are no other attacks in the works". He was saying that there would be greater police presence and just because you might see more police than normal in a given location, it is not indicative that they are in greater numbers in that moment because of a known threat. Just because there are three cops on a corner instead of one doesn't mean something is about to go down.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: ariich on June 05, 2017, 09:32:46 AM
I'm pretty sure the "don't be alarmed" comment wasn't meant to be interpreted as "nothing to see here, there are no other attacks in the works". He was saying that there would be greater police presence and just because you might see more police than normal in a given location, it is not indicative that they are in greater numbers in that moment because of a known threat. Just because there are three cops on a corner instead of one doesn't mean something is about to go down.
Spot on.

“My message to Londoners and visitors to our great city is to be calm and vigilant today. You will see an increased police presence today, including armed officers and uniformed officers. There is no reason to be alarmed by this. We are the safest global city in the world. You saw last night as a consequence of our planning, our preparation, the rehearsals that take place, the swift response from the emergency services tackling the terrorists and also helping the injured.”

EDIT: I should also add that even though we're in the frantic final stages of one of the fiercest elections for a long time, leaders of all parties have come out in support of the mayor. Only Theresa May stopped short of condemning Trump for his behaviour (she's generally quite weak) but even she said that Khan was doing a job and it was wrong to say otherwise.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on June 05, 2017, 09:52:32 AM
Well this attack was on London's radar

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/04/police-uncover-youtube-link-london-terror-attack/ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/04/police-uncover-youtube-link-london-terror-attack/)

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3723382/attacker-arsenal-kit-kfc-c4-doc-jihadi-flag-radicalise-kids-thrown-out-mosque-quizzed-cops/ (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3723382/attacker-arsenal-kit-kfc-c4-doc-jihadi-flag-radicalise-kids-thrown-out-mosque-quizzed-cops/)

So to think, now there is no reason to be alarmed (regardless of it being about the police after the fact), seems a bit offensive to me personally if I were a local. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Adami on June 05, 2017, 09:55:23 AM
But you're taking the quote out of context and then deciding it's offensive. He's not saying "Terrorist attack? Nothing to be alarmed about there!"

Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on June 05, 2017, 09:57:37 AM
But you're taking the quote out of context and then deciding it's offensive. He's not saying "Terrorist attack? Nothing to be alarmed about there!"

I just gave reason why the quote is still offensive due to the police not even being able to stop something right in front of their own eyes.  Also, how many people were arrested after the attack?  Why should I not be alarmed by that? (Once again, if I am local, from over here I am not personally offended).
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: ariich on June 05, 2017, 10:05:45 AM
But you're taking the quote out of context and then deciding it's offensive. He's not saying "Terrorist attack? Nothing to be alarmed about there!"

I just gave reason why the quote is still offensive due to the police not even being able to stop something right in front of their own eyes.  Also, how many people were arrested after the attack?  Why should I not be alarmed by that? (Once again, if I am local, from over here I am not personally offended).
Firstly, British police has stopped an absolute ton of terrorist plots in recent years.

Secondly, I don't understand your logic at all. A natural reaction for many people in this sort of tragedy is to panic, freak out, especially if they see lots of extra police around. It is absolutely right in every way to seek to reassure people that the extra police does NOT mean that they're expecting another attack imminently (which is what could be implied). I don't understand what it is you would be offended by.

Thirdly, this is still besides the point.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on June 05, 2017, 10:12:12 AM
Im offended by the idea I should not be alarmed by anything going on.  Once again how many were arrested after the fact?  You don't think there is a problem?  You don't think the fact the police were raiding apartments is a reason to be alarmed in your community?   Meanwhile, you are ignoring every point I am making and keep going back to the "we shouldn't panic" which is not at all what I am talking about doing.  No one should panic, but at the same time, don't tell me not to be alarmed by what's going on around me. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on June 05, 2017, 10:21:42 AM
Trump's reaction to the couple of recent attacks in the UK have eroded any benefit of the doubt I might have afforded him. The London mayor, absolutely rightly, urged people to stay vigilant but "not be alarmed", and Trump slammed him for it on Twitter as part of his own political point-scoring bullshit, with absolutely no respect for those who died.

Sorry, but he is proving himself to just be a vile, arrogant and ignorant person.

This is one area where I still agree with him.  If I lived in London and was told "no reason to be alarmed" after that planned coordinated terrorist attack, I would be offended.

Even if you were being told not to be alarmed at the increase police security and not at the terrorist attack?

Or do you think the mayor should be telling everyone to freak out when they see police/army?
Seriously, this.

He also tweeted "Do you notice we are not having a gun debate right now? That's because they used knives and a truck!"

Meanwhile, 6 people died in a workplace shooting this morning in Florida.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: ariich on June 05, 2017, 10:25:58 AM
Im offended by the idea I should not be alarmed by anything going on.  Once again how many were arrested after the fact?  You don't think there is a problem?  You don't think the fact the police were raiding apartments is a reason to be alarmed in your community?   Meanwhile, you are ignoring every point I am making and keep going back to the "we shouldn't panic" which is not at all what I am talking about doing.  No one should panic, but at the same time, don't tell me not to be alarmed by what's going on around me. 
I'm not ignoring anything, but you're ignoring the fact that the only thing he said not to be alarmed by was increased police presence on the streets. He didn't say don't be alarmed by anything going on. I know that's what you think - I'm not ignoring what you're saying, I'm correcting you. As I quoted, he said: "You will see an increased police presence today, including armed officers and uniformed officers. There is no reason to be alarmed by this."

Indeed arrests were made, because the police had information on those suspects. This is probably a large part of why there was no need to believe that another attack was imminent. And so therefore it is right that people shouldn't feel alarmed by extra police presence. If they didn't have such information, or they had reason to believe another attack might come, he wouldn't have said that and the government would have raised the terror threat level as they did after the Manchester attack.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: ariich on June 05, 2017, 10:28:45 AM
Meanwhile, 6 people died in a workplace shooting this morning in Florida.
Just saw that. Horrible news. :(
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on June 05, 2017, 10:33:42 AM
Im offended by the idea I should not be alarmed by anything going on.  Once again how many were arrested after the fact?  You don't think there is a problem?  You don't think the fact the police were raiding apartments is a reason to be alarmed in your community?   Meanwhile, you are ignoring every point I am making and keep going back to the "we shouldn't panic" which is not at all what I am talking about doing.  No one should panic, but at the same time, don't tell me not to be alarmed by what's going on around me. 
I'm not ignoring anything, but you're ignoring the fact that the only thing he said not to be alarmed by was increased police presence on the streets. He didn't say don't be alarmed by anything going on. I know that's what you think - I'm not ignoring what you're saying, I'm correcting you. As I quoted, he said: "You will see an increased police presence today, including armed officers and uniformed officers. There is no reason to be alarmed by this."

Indeed arrests were made, because the police had information on those suspects. This is probably a large part of why there was no need to believe that another attack was imminent. And so therefore it is right that people shouldn't feel alarmed by extra police presence. If they didn't have such information, or they had reason to believe another attack might come, he wouldn't have said that and the government would have raised the terror threat level as they did after the Manchester attack.

That's all fine, just think I would be alarmed (by "an increased police presence today, including armed officers and uniformed officers") if I lived there and wouldn't like it if I was being told not to be.  And I found that one single tweet of Trumps, to not be that bad as you made it out to be (hence the start of this).  Granted, I think a statement is better than a tweet so you can more fully encompass a message including condolences and whatnot.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: kingshmegland on June 05, 2017, 10:40:42 AM
I think the true issue for most is that this isn't a conventional war anymore.  It's not Country A vs. Country B.  We, as humans are fighting an ideology that isn't always in the open.  This is affecting our civil liberties.  To fight a war against ideology, the governments need to be a bit invasive to our lives and then there is racial profiling.

How can we have our liberties taken away to fight this ideology?  It's something I battle with daily.  A small group does not represent a whole race but these small groups are so dangerous right now that we are battling each other on 2 fronts.  There's no easy answer right now.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: ariich on June 05, 2017, 10:42:21 AM
That's all fine, just think I would be alarmed (by "an increased police presence today, including armed officers and uniformed officers") if I lived there and wouldn't like it if I was being told not to be.
Perhaps it depends on what you're used to (I've no idea where you live). London is a huge, bustling city with hundreds of thousands of tourists travelling around as well as the millions of residents and commuters. There is ALWAYS a noticeable police presence, and it makes us feel safer. And yes of course an increased presence might make someone feel more worried, but that's EXACTLY why he said there's no need to feel alarmed - because the increased presence did NOT mean they were expecting anything to happen. That's the whole point. Do you think it would be better to say nothing so that people feel scared, when there's nothing to be scared about?

Quote
And I found that one single tweet of Trumps, to not be that bad as you made it out to be (hence the start of this).  Granted, I think a statement is better than a tweet so you can more fully encompass a message including condolences and whatnot.
But once again, the issue is not even whether Khan was right or not (even though thankfully Brits feel he took exactly the right approach). It was the way Trump didn't even wait a few days to use our tragedy to further his agenda. Even in a statement, the sentiment was a bad one. It was purely for his own agenda, with element of taking a shot at the mayor because he previously spoke out against Trump's travel ban.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on June 05, 2017, 10:43:01 AM
The problem with the tweet is that it's obviously just Grabby looking for an opportunity to continue his twitter war with a guy he doesn't like. It's merely antagonizing a lot of people who are in a bad way for the gratification of his own ego. Whether or not he was right, and he wasn't, doesn't really matter as much as the fact that he's an asshole for doing it.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on June 05, 2017, 11:23:41 AM
That's all fine, just think I would be alarmed (by "an increased police presence today, including armed officers and uniformed officers") if I lived there and wouldn't like it if I was being told not to be.
Perhaps it depends on what you're used to (I've no idea where you live). London is a huge, bustling city with hundreds of thousands of tourists travelling around as well as the millions of residents and commuters. There is ALWAYS a noticeable police presence, and it makes us feel safer. And yes of course an increased presence might make someone feel more worried, but that's EXACTLY why he said there's no need to feel alarmed - because the increased presence did NOT mean they were expecting anything to happen. That's the whole point. Do you think it would be better to say nothing so that people feel scared, when there's nothing to be scared about?

I live in NJ, in a suburb of NYC and sadly am very used to terrorist attacks.  I still remember 9/11 like it was yesterday and the trashcan bombings from last fall were even more local (the Jersey shore one was fairly close to my house and the NYC one was on the block my work office is at).  And I get very alarmed after these attacks because it is unsettling and it bothers me that we are slowly becoming used to it (including myself).  I don't believe that is OK.  I know no one is arguing that, but that is where my frustrations get built up when you see all the signals that this was going to happen (of course we don't know this until after the fact, but local police were warned).  And it seems there's a large amount of "OK don't be worried, we will move forward" and then it happens again and we get the same message.  At what point does the message change (hence why I generally like Trump's hard stance on terrorism)?  Don't tell me not to be alarmed, this is an alarming thing. (and yes, higher police presence is alarming even if I am used to it).
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on June 05, 2017, 07:11:26 PM
As long as it was non-binding for all, who gives a fuck?

I answered that above.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on June 05, 2017, 07:18:37 PM
The problem with the tweet is that it's obviously just Grabby looking for an opportunity to continue his twitter war with a guy he doesn't like. It's merely antagonizing a lot of people who are in a bad way for the gratification of his own ego. Whether or not he was right, and he wasn't, doesn't really matter as much as the fact that he's an asshole for doing it.

At some point while Trump is getting  his two hours of sleep, and while his  phone is resting on his chest, someone - Melania, Ivanka, Jared, the butler - needs to take that phone and hurl it out into the quad.   

If I could change only ONE thing about the Trump presidency, it would be the tweeting.   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on June 05, 2017, 07:40:14 PM
The problem with the tweet is that it's obviously just Grabby looking for an opportunity to continue his twitter war with a guy he doesn't like. It's merely antagonizing a lot of people who are in a bad way for the gratification of his own ego. Whether or not he was right, and he wasn't, doesn't really matter as much as the fact that he's an asshole for doing it.

At some point while Trump is getting  his two hours of sleep, and while his  phone is resting on his chest, someone - Melania, Ivanka, Jared, the butler - needs to take that phone and hurl it out into the quad.   

If I could change only ONE thing about the Trump presidency, it would be the tweeting.   

How then would anyone know what/how POTUS is really thinking/feeling?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on June 06, 2017, 07:56:54 AM
The problem with the tweet is that it's obviously just Grabby looking for an opportunity to continue his twitter war with a guy he doesn't like. It's merely antagonizing a lot of people who are in a bad way for the gratification of his own ego. Whether or not he was right, and he wasn't, doesn't really matter as much as the fact that he's an asshole for doing it.

At some point while Trump is getting  his two hours of sleep, and while his  phone is resting on his chest, someone - Melania, Ivanka, Jared, the butler - needs to take that phone and hurl it out into the quad.   

If I could change only ONE thing about the Trump presidency, it would be the tweeting.   

How then would anyone know what/how POTUS is really thinking/feeling?

One, who cares?   Two, you don't now REALLY know what he's thinking/feeling  (and you're kidding yourself if you think you do).   Three, who cares?   It's a tweet.    It's useless, other than to be misinterpreted, given far too much credence or weight, and serve as a benchmark for everything one says from that point forward.    Leave Twitter to the rock bands promoting their latest album/show, or for rock stars who have a moment and want to answer questions for fans.   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: kaos2900 on June 06, 2017, 08:00:17 AM
The problem with the tweet is that it's obviously just Grabby looking for an opportunity to continue his twitter war with a guy he doesn't like. It's merely antagonizing a lot of people who are in a bad way for the gratification of his own ego. Whether or not he was right, and he wasn't, doesn't really matter as much as the fact that he's an asshole for doing it.

At some point while Trump is getting  his two hours of sleep, and while his  phone is resting on his chest, someone - Melania, Ivanka, Jared, the butler - needs to take that phone and hurl it out into the quad.   

If I could change only ONE thing about the Trump presidency, it would be the tweeting.   

I was talking to a buddy over the weekend about Trumps tweeting. He agreed that most of his tweets are ridiculous but he made an interesting point that I never thought of.  What if Twitter is the only way for Trump to express his thoughts without having them filtered or misconstrued by the media. The guy can't trust 99% of the people in Washington and he sure as shit can't trust the media (which a lot of that is his fault). He could release statements during the press conferences but would be really believe what was in the statements came from him? Not defending his Tweeting just an interesting potential justification.

Also, thoughts on punishment for the leaker?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on June 06, 2017, 08:28:40 AM
If it's not information that IS the leaker's to manage, and it was not intended to be released, there should be some recriminations.   Not to say that if the information itself shows a crime being committed that the criminals shouldn't also be prosecuted - they should - but there has to be a price on that decision to release information that isn't yours and that isn't intended for public consumption.  This idea that "information is free/ownerless" is problematic.  I get it, we all download music for free, and we all have a jailbroken Firestick to get Chinese movies day of release, but we're talking about something more serious and with greater repercussions.   Repercussions that the releaser may not even be aware of.   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Ben_Jamin on June 06, 2017, 08:37:28 AM
The problem with the tweet is that it's obviously just Grabby looking for an opportunity to continue his twitter war with a guy he doesn't like. It's merely antagonizing a lot of people who are in a bad way for the gratification of his own ego. Whether or not he was right, and he wasn't, doesn't really matter as much as the fact that he's an asshole for doing it.

At some point while Trump is getting  his two hours of sleep, and while his  phone is resting on his chest, someone - Melania, Ivanka, Jared, the butler - needs to take that phone and hurl it out into the quad.   

If I could change only ONE thing about the Trump presidency, it would be the tweeting.   

I was talking to a buddy over the weekend about Trumps tweeting. He agreed that most of his tweets are ridiculous but he made an interesting point that I never thought of.  What if Twitter is the only way for Trump to express his thoughts without having them filtered or misconstrued by the media. The guy can't trust 99% of the people in Washington and he sure as shit can't trust the media (which a lot of that is his fault). He could release statements during the press conferences but would be really believe what was in the statements came from him? Not defending his Tweeting just an interesting potential justification.

Also, thoughts on punishment for the leaker?

I was gonna post something akin to this. People wouldn't give two shits about Trump if Twitter didn't exist. They'd only know what the media would want them to know. Which brings to the point you brought up, the media censoring his words.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on June 06, 2017, 08:39:13 AM
The problem with the tweet is that it's obviously just Grabby looking for an opportunity to continue his twitter war with a guy he doesn't like. It's merely antagonizing a lot of people who are in a bad way for the gratification of his own ego. Whether or not he was right, and he wasn't, doesn't really matter as much as the fact that he's an asshole for doing it.

At some point while Trump is getting  his two hours of sleep, and while his  phone is resting on his chest, someone - Melania, Ivanka, Jared, the butler - needs to take that phone and hurl it out into the quad.   

If I could change only ONE thing about the Trump presidency, it would be the tweeting.   

How then would anyone know what/how POTUS is really thinking/feeling?

One, who cares?   Two, you don't now REALLY know what he's thinking/feeling  (and you're kidding yourself if you think you do).   Three, who cares?   It's a tweet.    It's useless, other than to be misinterpreted, given far too much credence or weight, and serve as a benchmark for everything one says from that point forward.    Leave Twitter to the rock bands promoting their latest album/show, or for rock stars who have a moment and want to answer questions for fans.

On your second point, you're right.  NO ONE knows what ANYONE is really thinking/feeling.  But you are kidding yourself if you don't think his twitter activity has any impact (often not a positive one), and/or give some indication as to what his future actions are might be.  On your first and third point, you honestly don't care what POTUS says (types) to his constituents when he has repeatedly proclaimed that Twitter is a wonderful way of reaching his 40M-50M followers, and promoting his message?  He doesn't think it's useless (has stated so, and if he did he wouldn't be using it), so who are you to say whether it's useful/less, and what it is to be used for?

It seems mildly contradictory that you recognize his tweeting is an issue and is the one thing that you'd change, then in your very next post, state that it's useless.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on June 06, 2017, 08:50:48 AM
In a recent interview Kellyanne said twitter is not the preferred method of communications with the public, but that is totally not true.  Twitter is definitely a way for him to communicate directly and given how often he uses it compared to other methods, it totally seems to be his preferred method.  I think Twitter could be used much better if he he was better at communicating his thoughts in an organized professional fashion, but that is not him.  It makes me wonder how future presidents will use social media, because it certainly can be powerful.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: RuRoRul on June 06, 2017, 09:45:32 AM
The problem with the tweet is that it's obviously just Grabby looking for an opportunity to continue his twitter war with a guy he doesn't like. It's merely antagonizing a lot of people who are in a bad way for the gratification of his own ego. Whether or not he was right, and he wasn't, doesn't really matter as much as the fact that he's an asshole for doing it.

At some point while Trump is getting  his two hours of sleep, and while his  phone is resting on his chest, someone - Melania, Ivanka, Jared, the butler - needs to take that phone and hurl it out into the quad.   

If I could change only ONE thing about the Trump presidency, it would be the tweeting.   

How then would anyone know what/how POTUS is really thinking/feeling?
Just go by what's in his heart, not what he says or does :)
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on June 06, 2017, 09:56:53 AM
I have absolutely no idea how to embed a tweet here, but Grabby's last one is great. Terrific.
Quote
The FAKE MSM is working so hard trying to get me not to use Social Media. They hate that I can get the honest and unfiltered message out.
There are very few people or entities in the world that appreciate his tweeting more. They're instant news. Christ, if the duded stopped he'd cease to be such a basket-case, and then where would we be?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: cramx3 on June 06, 2017, 10:13:45 AM
Yea he definitely has a warped sense of reality and a lot of it due to his ego, but social media definitely feeds into that as well.  Getting likes and rewteets is addicting (I believe studies have shown this as well).  Him saying something outrageous like "Obama wire tapped me!" is going to blow up, but at the same time, re-enforce his own ego making him believe that what he is doing is not only OK, but he believes it is right.  The media spinning things (I think he would only need one example of this to believe it is all media doing it) also re-enforces his belief of what he is doing to be right.  He won't listen to anyone saying he should stop, because he is addicted and can't see the bigger picture.  In the meantime, it is the general American public that suffers as usual. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on June 06, 2017, 10:15:23 AM
In a recent interview Kellyanne said twitter is not the preferred method of communications with the public, but that is totally not true.  Twitter is definitely a way for him to communicate directly and given how often he uses it compared to other methods, it totally seems to be his preferred method.  I think Twitter could be used much better if he he was better at communicating his thoughts in an organized professional fashion, but that is not him.  It makes me wonder how future presidents will use social media, because it certainly can be powerful.
Yea she said it herself actually: https://youtu.be/nIRm1rY4nF4?t=5m16s
 :facepalm:
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on June 06, 2017, 10:16:13 AM
I have absolutely no idea how to embed a tweet here, but Grabby's last one is great. Terrific.
Quote
The FAKE MSM is working so hard trying to get me not to use Social Media. They hate that I can get the honest and unfiltered message out.
There are very few people or entities in the world that appreciate his tweeting more. They're instant news. Christ, if the duded stopped he'd cease to be such a basket-case, and then where would we be?
Yeah that's a real headscratcher. If anyone would want him to stop tweeting I'd think it would be the people that work for him who he is constantly undermining 140 characters at a time.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: portnoy311 on June 06, 2017, 11:34:48 AM
If tweets are meaningless why is that the first thing you'd change about his presidency? Aren't you always saying you're not a fan of his policies? But yet something meaningless' is your biggest issue with his presidency?
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Chino on June 06, 2017, 11:50:00 AM
This guy lives in his own bubble. There isn't a single media source that wants him to stop tweeting. The amount of traffic and ad revenue his tweets generate are like a freaking gold mine.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: jingle.boy on June 06, 2017, 05:55:22 PM
To believe POTUS tweets or not to? That is a question,

Sean Spicer - unequivocally said not only do the tweets matter, but they should be "considered official statements by the President of the United States."
Sarah Huckabee Sanders - “They matter in the sense that it gives him a communications tool, again that isn’t filtered through media bias,”

So, on the point of "who cares"... seems like a LOT of people care what POTUS says/types.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on June 08, 2017, 09:04:25 AM
The problem with the tweet is that it's obviously just Grabby looking for an opportunity to continue his twitter war with a guy he doesn't like. It's merely antagonizing a lot of people who are in a bad way for the gratification of his own ego. Whether or not he was right, and he wasn't, doesn't really matter as much as the fact that he's an asshole for doing it.

At some point while Trump is getting  his two hours of sleep, and while his  phone is resting on his chest, someone - Melania, Ivanka, Jared, the butler - needs to take that phone and hurl it out into the quad.   

If I could change only ONE thing about the Trump presidency, it would be the tweeting.   

How then would anyone know what/how POTUS is really thinking/feeling?

One, who cares?   Two, you don't now REALLY know what he's thinking/feeling  (and you're kidding yourself if you think you do).   Three, who cares?   It's a tweet.    It's useless, other than to be misinterpreted, given far too much credence or weight, and serve as a benchmark for everything one says from that point forward.    Leave Twitter to the rock bands promoting their latest album/show, or for rock stars who have a moment and want to answer questions for fans.

On your second point, you're right.  NO ONE knows what ANYONE is really thinking/feeling.  But you are kidding yourself if you don't think his twitter activity has any impact (often not a positive one), and/or give some indication as to what his future actions are might be.  On your first and third point, you honestly don't care what POTUS says (types) to his constituents when he has repeatedly proclaimed that Twitter is a wonderful way of reaching his 40M-50M followers, and promoting his message?  He doesn't think it's useless (has stated so, and if he did he wouldn't be using it), so who are you to say whether it's useful/less, and what it is to be used for?

It seems mildly contradictory that you recognize his tweeting is an issue and is the one thing that you'd change, then in your very next post, state that it's useless.

It is not even a little bit contradictory.   

It is "useless" in the sense that it is not law.  It is not "an Executive Order".  It has no precedent.  It has no legal standing.  It is a throwaway line in a moment in time.  Granted, it can be used to show consistency (or, in the case of Trump, inconsistency) and it certainly has a value in terms of mood of the moment.    But in probative value?   It is useless for the effective governing of the country.

Unfortunately for you, since I'm not on the Trump Hate Bandwagon, I didn't include "another means to express our hate" as part of the "usefulness" of the Tweets.   Which is why I would stop them.    Since they are useless from a probative or administrative perspective, they only serve to impede his potential effectiveness by providing ammunition to those that are already convinced of their position, and for whom no facts of any kind will sway them. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on June 08, 2017, 09:08:53 AM
If tweets are meaningless why is that the first thing you'd change about his presidency? Aren't you always saying you're not a fan of his policies? But yet something meaningless' is your biggest issue with his presidency?

Already answered, but for the benefit of consistency...

They are meaningless in terms of the governance of this country.  They are not laws.  They are not proposed bills.  They are not official platform statements.  They are not Executive Orders.   They are not in any way probative, and in no way further the interests of our country or our people.   I would stop them because their one apparent use is to muddy the water, cloud the issues, and instigate the hate parade.   My defense of Trump is not at all because I like him - he's a fucking joke, if you want it blunt - but because THIS IS GOING TO BE THE STANDARD MOVING FORWARD.  Get used to this ineffectiveness and petty, partisan bullshit - regardless of who is POTUS, how sane they are, or how well-meaning they are (or, for the haters, how much YOU agree with them, because really, that's all that matters), because you cannot put the genie back in the bottle.   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on June 08, 2017, 09:19:21 AM

So, on the point of "who cares"... seems like a LOT of people care what POTUS says/types.

None of whom seem to be at all interested in the bigger picture of the governance of our country, or the interest of the people (as evidenced by the standard that matters, the electoral college).   It's just fodder for more attacks, more hate.   For the life of me, I don't understand why someone who is so interested in how he is perceived, would give so much ammo to those whose perceptions are meaningful to him.    (I am also amazed and - in an odd way - somewhat impressed at how thoroughly someone can filter the data that matters to them from the data that doesn't; he is the epitome of what's wrong with our country in that regard). 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on June 08, 2017, 09:29:35 AM

So, on the point of "who cares"... seems like a LOT of people care what POTUS says/types.

None of whom seem to be at all interested in the bigger picture of the governance of our country, or the interest of the people (as evidenced by the standard that matters, the electoral college).   It's just fodder for more attacks, more hate.   For the life of me, I don't understand why someone who is so interested in how he is perceived, would give so much ammo to those whose perceptions are meaningful to him.    (I am also amazed and - in an odd way - somewhat impressed at how thoroughly someone can filter the data that matters to them from the data that doesn't; he is the epitome of what's wrong with our country in that regard).
I'll take it for granted I'm not included in the group to which you refer, and I care about his tweets. You speak of the big picture, and his tweeting is one of many pieces. A piece which paints a portrait of a man with the emotional maturity of a 9 year old Vince Neil. What was it yesterday, challenging another politician to an IQ showdown? You can't tell me that's not telling and meaningful.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: eric42434224 on June 08, 2017, 09:33:40 AM
Ignoring the tweets as meaningless sets a far worse precedent.  They are public statements from the president and should be taken into consideration
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on June 08, 2017, 10:31:53 AM

So, on the point of "who cares"... seems like a LOT of people care what POTUS says/types.

None of whom seem to be at all interested in the bigger picture of the governance of our country, or the interest of the people (as evidenced by the standard that matters, the electoral college).   It's just fodder for more attacks, more hate.   For the life of me, I don't understand why someone who is so interested in how he is perceived, would give so much ammo to those whose perceptions are meaningful to him.    (I am also amazed and - in an odd way - somewhat impressed at how thoroughly someone can filter the data that matters to them from the data that doesn't; he is the epitome of what's wrong with our country in that regard).
I'll take it for granted I'm not included in the group to which you refer, and I care about his tweets. You speak of the big picture, and his tweeting is one of many pieces. A piece which paints a portrait of a man with the emotional maturity of a 9 year old Vince Neil. What was it yesterday, challenging another politician to an IQ showdown? You can't tell me that's not telling and meaningful.

This is hard, el Barto, and you know it.   You're a bad example, because you clearly are willing to take the body of work and you're clearly willing to hold out your conclusion until you have facts in front of you.    You're also - and this isn't contradictory, though it sounds it - willing to isolate a tweet or two that don't fit the profile, and not shoe-horn it into YOUR conclusions.    Yeah, of course that's meaningful.   And I wouldn't be in favor of a 29 year old Vince Neil, let alone a 9-year-old.   But not all of Trump's tweets are at that level or warrant that level of psychological inquiry.    The problem for me is that the tweet that alludes to the "politicization  of the Circuit Court of Appeals" is actually a legitimate - if not well-defended or well-supported - opinion, and doesn't at all suggest the same psychological issues that "an IQ challenge" does.   And yet, the haters, those that have already made their mind up and aren't at all interested in any semblance of fairness, will use it as their own evidence nonetheless.   Now, I get it, that's the way things work, but that doesn't mean I have to like it, and I still lament that this is taking attention away from the substance of the issues at hand.   
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: lordxizor on June 08, 2017, 10:34:45 AM
What I'm reading of the Comey hearing sounds pretty bad for Trump. I'm far from a legal expert and it may be that he hasn't technically broken any laws, but it makes Trump look pretty awful. I really can't see how there won't be an impeachable offense uncovered sooner or later if we're only a few months in and we're already this close (if not there already, I'm reading conflicting theories on the "I hope" part of Trump's statements to Comey.) Yikes, what a mess.

Edit: I should add that this assumes Comey isn't making this all up as I'm sure Trump's camp will insist.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: RuRoRul on June 08, 2017, 10:48:32 AM
Slightly off-topic from the Comey hearing, but having just witnessed John McCain's questions, I seriously hope he gets checked out by a doctor after the hearing.

Not meaning that in a facetious way at all - it honestly reminded me of someone suffering from dementia or a stroke victim. It was quite bizarre - I suppose I haven't seen him speaking other than very brief Q&As recently so I don't know if that what he's normally like these days, but it was a bit concerning.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Stadler on June 08, 2017, 10:49:22 AM
What I'm reading of the Comey hearing sounds pretty bad for Trump. I'm far from a legal expert and it may be that he hasn't technically broken any laws, but it makes Trump look pretty awful. I really can't see how there won't be an impeachable offense uncovered sooner or later if we're only a few months in and we're already this close (if not there already, I'm reading conflicting theories on the "I hope" part of Trump's statements to Comey.) Yikes, what a mess.

Edit: I should add that this assumes Comey isn't making this all up as I'm sure Trump's camp will insist.

To your edit, they already did.

But I disagree with you.  I think Comey is a smart, smart man, who isn't going to be frivolous in his answers.  He paints Trump as a bad MAN, but not a criminal President, and that is a very significant distinction.    He confirmed that the Russians were not effective in changing the outcome.    He confirmed that Bill Clinton influence Loretta Lynch and that Loretta Lynch acted on that influence (changing "investigation" to "matter" regarding Hillary Clinton's emails).   Isn't that exactly what Trump is being accused of?   

Comey was also REALLY critical of the media too, calling many stories "not true".   That's a black mark for an industry that is predicated on truth. 

If I'm Trump's team (or his lawyer) I'm pretty happy with this. 
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Adami on June 08, 2017, 10:52:03 AM
I'm not 100% up to date on all of this, but I personally am not happy with a president whose main defense is "well it wasn't technically illegal".
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: Chino on June 08, 2017, 10:58:39 AM
What I'm reading of the Comey hearing sounds pretty bad for Trump.

I don't think that hearing could have gone any better for Trump.
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: antigoon on June 08, 2017, 10:58:55 AM
Slightly off-topic from the Comey hearing, but having just witnessed John McCain's questions, I seriously hope he gets checked out by a doctor after the hearing.

Not meaning that in a facetious way at all - it honestly reminded me of someone suffering from dementia or a stroke victim. It was quite bizarre - I suppose I haven't seen him speaking other than very brief Q&As recently so I don't know if that what he's normally like these days, but it was a bit concerning.

you weren't the only one who was confused

(https://puu.sh/wevmv/2ef1145d57.png)
Title: Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
Post by: El Barto on June 08, 2017, 11:03:34 AM