TMLfans.ca

Just for Fun => Non-Hockey Chatter => Topic started by: Highlander on February 29, 2016, 01:00:21 PM

Title: Idiocracy
Post by: Highlander on February 29, 2016, 01:00:21 PM
Great video of Trump being bashed by John Oliver in this link:
http://www.torontosun.com/2016/02/29/donald-trump-is-americas-back-mole-john-oliver
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on February 29, 2016, 01:02:43 PM
Without going too far into this, it is astoundingly pathetic that he has any support.  The guy lies constantly, contradicts himself within the same day and is unbelievably dismissive of everything.  He acts like a small child.  Not that the Republican party have a great field of candidates but while Trump isn't "establishment politics", he's considerably worse. 
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on February 29, 2016, 01:29:32 PM
For y'all non-link clickers
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 29, 2016, 01:38:17 PM
Quote from: L K on February 29, 2016, 01:02:43 PM
Without going too far into this, it is astoundingly pathetic that he has any support.  The guy lies constantly, contradicts himself within the same day and is unbelievably dismissive of everything.  He acts like a small child.  Not that the Republican party have a great field of candidates but while Trump isn't "establishment politics", he's considerably worse. 

The people voting for him are 100% more terrifying than Trump actually is. He knows exactly what he's doing and he knows exactly what he has to say to win votes, so even he knows most of what comes out of his mouth is bullcrap.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on February 29, 2016, 03:06:47 PM

I'm sorry. I'll never not think this is straight out funny. There's a legit possibility of a President Trump and it's not even that outlandish. It's just a continuation of everything we've seen from American politics over the years.

Honestly, the funniest thing about it? I can't even sincerely say I think he's the worst Republican nominee. At the very least with Trump I think there's so much cynicism with what he's doing I don't think he's representing deeply held beliefs. I don't think that's true of his opponents.   
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 29, 2016, 03:21:42 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on February 29, 2016, 03:06:47 PM
Honestly, the funniest thing about it? I can't even sincerely say I think he's the worst Republican nominee. At the very least with Trump I think there's so much cynicism with what he's doing I don't think he's representing deeply held beliefs. I don't think that's true of his opponents.   

Yeah, that goes back to what I said a bit. Who knows what Trump will do as a President. He's campaigning on a platform of building walls and banning Muslims, but he's saying those things strictly to get votes. Those aren't actual things he can do if he wins.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: louisstamos on February 29, 2016, 03:30:11 PM
You guys remember the movie Idiocracy?

(http://33hpwq10j9luq8gl43e62q4e.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/images/president-camacho-machine-gun.jpg)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on February 29, 2016, 03:31:41 PM
Quote from: louisstamos on February 29, 2016, 03:30:11 PM
You guys remember the movie Idiocracy?

(http://33hpwq10j9luq8gl43e62q4e.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/images/president-camacho-machine-gun.jpg)

I WAS GOING TO POST THAT THIS MORNING!!!! Then I forgot.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on February 29, 2016, 03:36:13 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on February 29, 2016, 03:21:42 PM
Yeah, that goes back to what I said a bit. Who knows what Trump will do as a President. He's campaigning on a platform of building walls and banning Muslims, but he's saying those things strictly to get votes. Those aren't actual things he can do if he wins.

Right? This discussion barely qualifies as discussing politics. The guy might as well be running on a platform of free moon lasers and sending more men to the Night's Watch.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on February 29, 2016, 03:38:11 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on February 29, 2016, 03:36:13 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on February 29, 2016, 03:21:42 PM
Yeah, that goes back to what I said a bit. Who knows what Trump will do as a President. He's campaigning on a platform of building walls and banning Muslims, but he's saying those things strictly to get votes. Those aren't actual things he can do if he wins.

Right? This discussion barely qualifies as discussing politics. The guy might as well be running on a platform of free moon lasers and sending more men to the Night's Watch.

And stopping the zombie uprising?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Potvin29 on February 29, 2016, 07:33:05 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on February 29, 2016, 03:21:42 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on February 29, 2016, 03:06:47 PM
Honestly, the funniest thing about it? I can't even sincerely say I think he's the worst Republican nominee. At the very least with Trump I think there's so much cynicism with what he's doing I don't think he's representing deeply held beliefs. I don't think that's true of his opponents.   

Yeah, that goes back to what I said a bit. Who knows what Trump will do as a President. He's campaigning on a platform of building walls and banning Muslims, but he's saying those things strictly to get votes. Those aren't actual things he can do if he wins.

He's the American Silvio Berlusconi.

And he was by all accounts terrible for Italy.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Rick Couchman on March 03, 2016, 10:58:17 AM
The thing is there are other politicians and celebrities endorsing the guy.  It's really scaring me that he could be elected.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Frank E on March 03, 2016, 11:21:20 AM
Quote from: Rick on March 03, 2016, 10:58:17 AM
The thing is there are other politicians and celebrities endorsing the guy.  It's really scaring me that he could be elected.

He could get the Rupublican nomination, but even that's looking like it's going to be a problem.  The party is looking like their going to submarine him.

Hillary Clinton would absolutely love to go up against Trump, and I think he'd get trounced by her.

Remember, right now the only people that are actually doing any "voting" are just the delegates of the parties.  Put it to a popular vote, and I think he gets smoked.   
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on March 03, 2016, 11:26:51 AM
Quote from: Frank E on March 03, 2016, 11:21:20 AM
He could get the Rupublican nomination, but even that's looking like it's going to be a problem.  The party is looking like their going to submarine him.

Hillary Clinton would absolutely love to go up against Trump, and I think he'd get trounced by her.

Remember, right now the only people that are actually doing any "voting" are just the delegates of the parties.  Put it to a popular vote, and I think he gets smoked.   

Yeah I feel like there's going to be a decent amount of current Cruz/Rubio supporters who would be ok with voting for Clinton/against Trump in the general election. Whereas if Trump didn't get the Republican nomination their votes would 100% stay on the Republican side, because heaven forbid they have a female president.

On a side-note: how much longer until they've confirmed who gets the nomination on each side? I know Super Tuesday has more or less made it Trump and Clinton, but when does that become official?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on March 03, 2016, 11:32:26 AM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on March 03, 2016, 11:26:51 AM
Quote from: Frank E on March 03, 2016, 11:21:20 AM
He could get the Rupublican nomination, but even that's looking like it's going to be a problem.  The party is looking like their going to submarine him.

Hillary Clinton would absolutely love to go up against Trump, and I think he'd get trounced by her.

Remember, right now the only people that are actually doing any "voting" are just the delegates of the parties.  Put it to a popular vote, and I think he gets smoked.   

Yeah I feel like there's going to be a decent amount of current Cruz/Rubio supporters who would be ok with voting for Clinton/against Trump in the general election. Whereas if Trump didn't get the Republican nomination their votes would 100% stay on the Republican side, because heaven forbid they have a female president.

On a side-note: how much longer until they've confirmed who gets the nomination on each side? I know Super Tuesday has more or less made it Trump and Clinton, but when does that become official?

The Republicans will be nominating their candidate July 18 in Cleveland. http://www.270towin.com/2016-republican-nomination/

The Democrats will be nominating their candidate July 25 in Philadelphia. http://www.270towin.com/2016-democratic-nomination/
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on March 03, 2016, 11:34:43 AM
Quote from: Frank E on March 03, 2016, 11:21:20 AM
Quote from: Rick on March 03, 2016, 10:58:17 AM
The thing is there are other politicians and celebrities endorsing the guy.  It's really scaring me that he could be elected.

He could get the Rupublican nomination, but even that's looking like it's going to be a problem.  The party is looking like their going to submarine him.

Hillary Clinton would absolutely love to go up against Trump, and I think he'd get trounced by her.

Remember, right now the only people that are actually doing any "voting" are just the delegates of the parties.  Put it to a popular vote, and I think he gets smoked.   

Up until 24 hours ago polls had Hillary losing to Trump in the General.

Sanders has had a close to double-digit lead over him.

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Peter D. on March 03, 2016, 11:40:14 AM
I have no clue how U.S. elections work with primaries and whatever else.

But when I see on the news any of these candidates speak, I can't help but wonder how one of those flakes will be leading the most powerful country in the world. 
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on March 03, 2016, 11:41:02 AM
It's interesting watching this election cycle, it just speaks to how completely broken the political system is. Corporations that own the media dictate the media narrative. These same corporations decide which candidate is in their best interest.

There is one candidate talking about the only meaningful issue there is, campaign finance reform and he has been written off from day one as a socialist/communist nut.

In the words of George Carlin, it's all bull#$#% folks and it's bad for you.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on March 03, 2016, 12:11:25 PM
Quote from: Peter D. on March 03, 2016, 11:40:14 AM
I have no clue how U.S. elections work with primaries and whatever else.

But when I see on the news any of these candidates speak, I can't help but wonder how one of those flakes will be leading the most powerful country in the world. 

Each party has its members vote for which candidate they want to nominate to run for the Presidential election during the run-up year.

So right now, each state's party delegates are voting on which candidate to back. Super Tuesday is the first major chunk of delegate voting; historically, the candidates who claim the most wins on Super Tuesday go on to represent their parties at the Presidential election.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on March 03, 2016, 12:17:04 PM
Quote from: Rick on March 03, 2016, 10:58:17 AM
The thing is there are other politicians and celebrities endorsing the guy.  It's really scaring me that he could be elected.

Christie backed him entirely for selfish reasons.  He's unpopular in New Jersey now and he's angling for the Attorney General position with a Republican President.  There really isn't an awesome candidate among the Democrats/Republicans this year.  But the bottom line is their broken political system is going to make whoever is in charge largely irrelevant if they dont' have a majority in the house and senate.  Disastrous from an international relations standpoint but domestic policy will be stagnant.  Unfortunately we are going to suffer for those poor decisions too.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Rick Couchman on March 03, 2016, 12:26:00 PM
The Donald show kinda reminds me how Rob Ford still is in City of Toronto politics.  The guy is a train wreck, but everyone likes to watch a train wreck.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on March 03, 2016, 01:48:34 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on March 03, 2016, 11:26:51 AM
Yeah I feel like there's going to be a decent amount of current Cruz/Rubio supporters who would be ok with voting for Clinton/against Trump in the general election. Whereas if Trump didn't get the Republican nomination their votes would 100% stay on the Republican side, because heaven forbid they have a female president.

It could be very interesting to see what happens to the Republicans if Trump is their nominee. They've been a fractured party for a while now, and Trump winning their nomination could be enough to really drive the wedge into those cracks, and drive the more moderate "establishment" Republicans away from the party in this election. In the short-term, it could be really damaging, but in the long-run, it could be exactly what they need to bring the party back to a place where they're united and on the same page.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on March 03, 2016, 01:51:07 PM
I lol'd.

This is from 2012.
http://www.theonion.com/video/after-obama-victory-shrieking-white-hot-sphere-of--30284
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on March 03, 2016, 11:31:19 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcrHnY_WoAA7N-n.jpg)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on March 03, 2016, 11:33:01 PM

Watching this election is like watching your neighbour try to install his own below-ground pool. Sure there's a chance he hits a gas line and takes out the whole neighbourhood but it's still too funny to look away.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on March 05, 2016, 04:14:39 AM
Quote from: Patrick on March 03, 2016, 11:41:02 AM
It's interesting watching this election cycle, it just speaks to how completely broken the political system is. Corporations that own the media dictate the media narrative. These same corporations decide which candidate is in their best interest.

There is one candidate talking about the only meaningful issue there is, campaign finance reform and he has been written off from day one as a socialist/communist nut.

In the words of George Carlin, it's all bull#$#% folks and it's bad for you.


You couldn't have said it better.  Spot on!
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on March 06, 2016, 03:56:40 PM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfjaQe_7T1Q
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on March 14, 2016, 01:25:39 PM
Bigotry and racism aside, the reason Donald Trump resonates with a segment of the U.S. populace:

Trade is an issue that polarizes Americans by socio-economic status. To the professional class, which encompasses the vast majority of our media figures, economists, Washington officials and Democratic powerbrokers, what they call "free trade" is something so obviously good and noble it doesn't require explanation or inquiry or even thought. Republican and Democratic leaders alike agree on this, and no amount of facts can move them from their Econ 101 dream.

To the remaining 80 or 90% of America, trade means something very different. There's a video going around on the internet these days that shows a room full of workers at a Carrier air conditioning plant in Indiana being told by an officer of the company that the factory is being moved to Monterrey, Mexico, and that they're all going to lose their jobs.

As I watched it, I thought of all the arguments over trade that we've had in this country since the early 1990s, all the sweet words from our economists about the scientifically proven benevolence of free trade, all the ways in which our newspapers mock people who say that treaties like the North American Free Trade Agreement allow companies to move jobs to Mexico.

Well, here is a video of a company moving its jobs to Mexico, courtesy of Nafta. This is what it looks like. The Carrier executive talks in that familiar and highly professional HR language about the need to "stay competitive" and "the extremely price-sensitive marketplace". A worker shouts (edited)"F*#" you!" at the executive. The executive asks people to please be quiet so he can "share" his "information". His information about all of them losing their jobs.

                                      -----------

A map of his support may coordinate with racist Google searches, but it coordinates even better with deindustrialization and despair, with the zones of economic misery that 30 years of Washington's free-market consensus have brought the rest of America...

...a study just published by Working America, a political-action auxiliary of the AFL-CIO, which interviewed some 1,600 white working-class voters in the suburbs of Cleveland and Pittsburgh in December and January.

Support for Donald Trump, the group found, ran strong among these people, even among self-identified Democrats, but not because they are all pining for a racist in the White House. Their favorite aspect of Trump was his "attitude", the blunt and forthright way he talks. As far as issues are concerned, "immigration" placed third among the matters such voters care about, far behind their number one concern: "good jobs / the economy".

"People are much more frightened than they are bigoted," is how the findings were described to me by Karen Nussbaum, the executive director of Working America. The survey "confirmed what we heard all the time: people are fed up, people are hurting, they are very distressed about the fact that their kids don't have a future" and that "there still hasn't been a recovery from the recession, that every family still suffers from it in one way or another."

Tom Lewandowski, the president of the Northeast Indiana Central Labor Council in Fort Wayne, puts it even more bluntly when I asked him about working-class Trump fans. "These people aren't racist, not any more than anybody else is," he says of Trump supporters he knows. "When Trump talks about trade, we think about the Clinton administration, first with Nafta and then with [Permanent Normal Trade Relations] China, and here in Northeast Indiana, we hemorrhaged jobs."

"They look at that, and here's Trump talking about trade, in a ham-handed way, but at least he's representing emotionally. We've had all the political establishment standing behind every trade deal, and we endorsed some of these people, and then we've had to fight them to get them to represent us. As Trump says, "we have rebuilt China and yet our country is falling apart. Our infrastructure is falling apart ... Our airports are, like, Third World."

Trump's words articulate the populist backlash against liberalism that has been building slowly for decades and may very well occupy the White House itself..."

Read the rest here:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/07/donald-trump-why-americans-support (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/07/donald-trump-why-americans-support)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Highlander on March 17, 2016, 02:07:27 PM
When Bernie loses they are giving him a consolation job as Mayor of Havana
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Boston Leaf on March 17, 2016, 02:11:18 PM
as an American Donald Trump sickens me to the core
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: crazyperfectdevil on March 17, 2016, 04:30:33 PM
Quote from: Boston Leaf on March 17, 2016, 02:11:18 PM
as an American Donald Trump sickens me to the core

let's hope you're not alone
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on March 21, 2016, 04:22:47 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/21/donald-trump-my-hands-are-normal-hands/

Quote"Normal," the Republican presidential front-runner insisted. "Strong." "Good size." "Great." "Fine." "Slightly large, actually."

...

"My hands are normal hands," he said. Recounting the feedback he was getting in the aftermath of Rubio's jibe, Trump said, "I was on line shaking hands with supporters and one of the supporters said, 'Mr. Trump, you have strong hands, you have good size hands.' And then another one would say, 'Oh, you have great hands, Mr. Trump. I had no idea.'"

...

"I mean, people were writing, 'How are Mr. Trump's hands?' My hands are fine," Trump said. "My hands are normal. Slightly large, actually. In fact, I buy a slightly smaller than large-size glove, okay? But I did this because everybody was saying to me, 'Oh, your hands are very nice, they're normal.'"

I absolutely love that this is a topic of conversation for a potential POTUS. I mean I don't... but I do.

He described them as "good size", "slightly large", "slightly smaller than large" and "normal".

If I was campaigning against Trump I'd just keep hitting him with questions about his hands until he explodes.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on March 21, 2016, 04:53:21 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on March 21, 2016, 04:22:47 PM
I absolutely love that this is a topic of conversation for a potential POTUS. I mean I don't... but I do.

He described them as "good size", "slightly large", "slightly smaller than large" and "normal".

If I was campaigning against Trump I'd just keep hitting him with questions about his hands until he explodes.

My favourite part of all of this is that the whole thing traces back to a 30 year old joke insult from Spy magazine - which was essentially a high-minded version of National Lampoon. It was never portrayed as fact, and, yet, it's one of those things that just stuck.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on March 21, 2016, 07:03:14 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on March 21, 2016, 04:53:21 PM
My favourite part of all of this is that the whole thing traces back to a 30 year old joke insult from Spy magazine - which was essentially a high-minded version of National Lampoon. It was never portrayed as fact, and, yet, it's one of those things that just stuck.

I didn't know that's where it came from. Thought it was original material. There goes all the respect that I had for Rubio.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: McGarnagle on March 21, 2016, 07:19:48 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ

I can't imagine too many people haven't seen John Oliver's analysis of Trump, but its pretty priceless.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Highlander on March 21, 2016, 07:49:49 PM
Just read Rob Ford is sedated for his pain, I guess Dear Rob is on his way to the happy hunting grounds. Kind of makes me feel sad. All the laughes he provided were priceless.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: McGarnagle on March 21, 2016, 09:38:57 PM
Seriously dude? C'mon, edit or delete your post.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on March 21, 2016, 10:10:13 PM
Quote from: McGarnagle on March 21, 2016, 09:38:57 PM
Seriously dude? C'mon, edit or delete your post.

Agreed. No matter what your opinions of him as a mayor (or even as a person), he's still a human being. Have some respect for that.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bullfrog on March 21, 2016, 10:27:46 PM
John Oliver analyzes Trump's proposition for a giant wall.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU8dCYocuyI
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on May 04, 2016, 06:32:41 AM

So, yeah, Donald Trump is going to be the Republican Nominee for the Presidency.

And good things are happening to the Maple Leafs. I'm not saying the two are somehow cosmically linked but I wouldn't rule it out either.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on May 04, 2016, 08:06:04 AM
Too bad, a contested convention sounded fun (at least for those watching from the outside).
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: princedpw on May 04, 2016, 10:10:38 AM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on May 04, 2016, 08:06:04 AM
Too bad, a contested convention sounded fun (at least for those watching from the outside).

It sounded fun for those watching from the inside too.

The republican primary has just lost a bunch of its entertainment value.  Now they are just a bunch of a**holes.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on May 05, 2016, 03:23:40 PM
[tweet]728297587418247168[/tweet]

I'm genuinely surprised that he's not wearing a sombrero.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Frank E on May 05, 2016, 03:27:57 PM
How do people take this guy seriously?

It's like a big practical joke.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: crazyperfectdevil on May 05, 2016, 05:42:13 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on May 05, 2016, 03:23:40 PM
[tweet]728297587418247168[/tweet]

I'm genuinely surprised that he's not wearing a sombrero.

he would..but they make his hands look tiny
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on May 05, 2016, 08:29:19 PM
I like Grant Brisbee's tweet:

[tweet]728299985654013952[/tweet]
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on May 05, 2016, 09:34:23 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on May 05, 2016, 03:23:40 PM
[tweet]728297587418247168[/tweet]

I'm genuinely surprised that he's not wearing a sombrero.

Funny thing was someone called up Trump Tower Grill and found how they don't have taco bowls. It was the Trump Cafe.

Also:
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on May 26, 2016, 02:44:31 PM
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on May 26, 2016, 02:51:48 PM

That does ring a little false though. While I have no doubt that Trump's particular bluster is shocking and the prevalence of America's position in the world makes the idea of Trump actually being elected an especially concerning thing Right-Wing nationalism is on the rise in all sorts of places in Europe. World leaders can't be that surprised that the US has their own version of Marie LePen or Nigel Farage.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on May 27, 2016, 10:52:02 AM
Saw this floating around as a comment on Obama's remarks:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cja9gfTWEAIdEQg.jpg:large)

Obama saying that world leaders are rattled by Trump are just going to make more idiots want to vote for him.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on May 27, 2016, 12:41:55 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on May 27, 2016, 10:52:02 AM
Saw this floating around as a comment on Obama's remarks:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cja9gfTWEAIdEQg.jpg:large)

Obama saying that world leaders are rattled by Trump are just going to make more idiots want to vote for him.

Like so:


I wondered why she didn't run.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Dappleganger on May 27, 2016, 12:58:11 PM
I would vote for Warren over Trump or Clinton.

I'm actually worried that Hillary will be such an unappealing candidate Trump might win this.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on May 27, 2016, 01:00:48 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on May 27, 2016, 10:52:02 AM
Saw this floating around as a comment on Obama's remarks:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cja9gfTWEAIdEQg.jpg:large)

Obama saying that world leaders are rattled by Trump are just going to make more idiots want to vote for him.

Sad but true. As much as I hate advocating stooping to his level, the only criticisms that seem to phase him are those of a personal nature. He focuses on them, and that's how you derail him. Meanwhile, he completely brushes off any criticisms of his "policies" or anything about his impact internationally, his lack of qualifications, etc.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on May 27, 2016, 01:07:07 PM
Quote from: Dappleganger on May 27, 2016, 12:58:11 PM
I'm actually worried that Hillary will be such an unappealing candidate Trump might win this.

I honestly don't know. I'm concerned about that, but, at the same time, I also see a very real possibility that Trump has alienated a significant enough portion of Republican voters to even things out. I also think the mere possibility that Trump could win might mobilize enough people to vote for Clinton solely to keep him out of office. And, while I don't think Hillary will be a particularly inspiring president, I don't think she'll be a particularly detrimental one, either. In fact, other than being the first female president, I expect she'll fit nicely into this group:

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on May 27, 2016, 01:47:19 PM

I think you guys are maybe confusing the reaction of his supporters, or the people who will go to his rallies, with the actual electorate. If he's on a debate stage getting grilled on actual policy and the crowd isn't made up of people who'll cheer anything he says he's going to be exposed.

BTW, If anyone's interested in some really smart, level-headed analysis of the election I can't recommend the Keepin' It 1600 Podcast enough.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on May 27, 2016, 07:07:37 PM
If you ever played Dungeons and Dragons, you'll probably enjoy the "Dungeons and Donalds" Twitter account:

https://twitter.com/dungeonsdonald

It's pretty much Donald Trump the D&D enthusiast.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on June 04, 2016, 10:22:15 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on May 27, 2016, 01:07:07 PM
Quote from: Dappleganger on May 27, 2016, 12:58:11 PM
I'm actually worried that Hillary will be such an unappealing candidate Trump might win this.

I honestly don't know. I'm concerned about that, but, at the same time, I also see a very real possibility that Trump has alienated a significant enough portion of Republican voters to even things out. I also think the mere possibility that Trump could win might mobilize enough people to vote for Clinton solely to keep him out of office. And, while I don't think Hillary will be a particularly inspiring president, I don't think she'll be a particularly detrimental one, either. In fact, other than being the first female president, I expect she'll fit nicely into this group:

Republicans seem to be falling into line. Might be a feature of that party, or maybe it's because the Democrats nominated the one name in national party that unites the opposing party into a ball of fury. 

I'm most concerned that the race will play out as a repeat of Martha Coakley vs. Scott Brown in 2010. For non-Americans: a special Senate election wherein a competent but uncharismatic and message-less neoliberal technocrat lost to a faux populist bully who offered nothing tangible to the electorate but, by speaking to (stoking) their cultural resentment of elites, managed to win Ted freaking Kennedy's seat! It Can't Happen Here, we all thought. And then it did.

Brown wasn't nearly the buffoon that Trump is, but he also didn't hit the right-wing nationalist notes as effectively.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on June 04, 2016, 10:45:52 PM
Quote from: mr grieves on June 04, 2016, 10:22:15 PM
Republicans seem to be falling into line. Might be a feature of that party, or maybe it's because the Democrats nominated the one name in national party that unites the opposing party into a ball of fury. 

I'm most concerned that the race will play out as a repeat of Martha Coakley vs. Scott Brown in 2010. For non-Americans: a special Senate election wherein a competent but uncharismatic and message-less neoliberal technocrat lost to a faux populist bully who offered nothing tangible to the electorate but, by speaking to (stoking) their cultural resentment of elites, managed to win Ted freaking Kennedy's seat! It Can't Happen Here, we all thought. And then it did.

Brown wasn't nearly the buffoon that Trump is, but he also didn't hit the right-wing nationalist notes as effectively.

I think the problem with that on a national level is that the demographics are just so bad for Republicans that a nation-wide appeal to populism can't be based on the sort of old divides that Trump is looking to exploit.

To win a national election Republicans almost certainly have to win Florida, a state that is now 37% black or hispanic. They also probably have to flip Virginia which is also only about 60% white. Even then they'd have to flip two of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

If Trump were just an economic populist that'd be one thing and it would have some sway in a relatively ethnically homogeneous state like Mass. but to also be as unappealing to Black and Hispanic voters as he is?

Real Clear Politics just put up a new Florida poll that has Clinton up on Trump by 3 and Libertarian Gary Johnson polling at 6%. I wouldn't say this with 100% certainty but I would not be surprised if we never saw another poll with Trump ahead in a crucial state.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on June 04, 2016, 11:48:21 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on June 04, 2016, 10:45:52 PM
Quote from: mr grieves on June 04, 2016, 10:22:15 PM
Republicans seem to be falling into line. Might be a feature of that party, or maybe it's because the Democrats nominated the one name in national party that unites the opposing party into a ball of fury. 

I'm most concerned that the race will play out as a repeat of Martha Coakley vs. Scott Brown in 2010. For non-Americans: a special Senate election wherein a competent but uncharismatic and message-less neoliberal technocrat lost to a faux populist bully who offered nothing tangible to the electorate but, by speaking to (stoking) their cultural resentment of elites, managed to win Ted freaking Kennedy's seat! It Can't Happen Here, we all thought. And then it did.

Brown wasn't nearly the buffoon that Trump is, but he also didn't hit the right-wing nationalist notes as effectively.

I think the problem with that on a national level is that the demographics are just so bad for Republicans that a nation-wide appeal to populism can't be based on the sort of old divides that Trump is looking to exploit.

To win a national election Republicans almost certainly have to win Florida, a state that is now 37% black or hispanic. They also probably have to flip Virginia which is also only about 60% white. Even then they'd have to flip two of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

If Trump were just an economic populist that'd be one thing and it would have some sway in a relatively ethnically homogeneous state like Mass. but to also be as unappealing to Black and Hispanic voters as he is?

Real Clear Politics just put up a new Florida poll that has Clinton up on Trump by 3 and Libertarian Gary Johnson polling at 6%. I wouldn't say this with 100% certainty but I would not be surprised if we never saw another poll with Trump ahead in a crucial state.

Yeah, that's certainly the hope. That Trump has gone on down the list of ethnic groups in the country and insulted them in turn should make him DOA once he gets out of the swamp that is the Republican primary electorate. His is a sort of right-wing nationalism that is pretty frank about its race-baiting, and that's a whole lot to walk back, talented a huckster as Trump is.

If this could be settled with a quick structural analysis of the demographics of the electorate, I'd guess the Republicans won't elect a president for the next generation, though they'll continue to dominate in state elections, giving them plenty of control in Congress.

But, after watching the party's complete bumbling when they don't have a natural politician to run with, I've so little faith in Democrats, and am so disturbed by their complacency in the face of the basic social fact of the day (globalization and its consequences, roughly) which is the oxygen for these right-wing populist movements, that I can see them screwing this thing up.
 
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on June 07, 2016, 10:27:41 PM
 
Well, it's more or less official. The 2016 election is Hillary Clinton vs. a two month old Halloween pumpkin stuffed with strip club dollar bills.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on June 07, 2016, 11:38:53 PM
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Boston Leaf on June 08, 2016, 07:43:39 AM
As an American I cannot believe we have to choose between Hillary and Trump.. I find them both repulsive.. Not a fan of either.. I cannot put a check mark next to either name. It will be interesting to see who the running mates are... I find Trump much scarier though.. He hasn't a clue about the issues for the most part and defects all questions on them..The whole thing is frustrating to me
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on June 08, 2016, 08:38:34 AM
Quote from: Boston Leaf on June 08, 2016, 07:43:39 AM
As an American I cannot believe we have to choose between Hillary and Trump.. I find them both repulsive.. Not a fan of either.. I cannot put a check mark next to either name. It will be interesting to see who the running mates are... I find Trump much scarier though.. He hasn't a clue about the issues for the most part and defects all questions on them..The whole thing is frustrating to me

While I agree that Hilary is not exactly a great candidate, I think this is one of those cases where a lot of people are going to have to hold their nose and vote for an unappealing candidate to prevent a potential disaster. One of the two is going to be president, so, every vote that Clinton doesn't get is one less Trump needs to win. Don't think of it as voting for Clinton. Think of it as voting against Trump.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on June 08, 2016, 11:48:55 AM
Quote from: bustaheims on June 08, 2016, 08:38:34 AM
Quote from: Boston Leaf on June 08, 2016, 07:43:39 AM
As an American I cannot believe we have to choose between Hillary and Trump.. I find them both repulsive.. Not a fan of either.. I cannot put a check mark next to either name. It will be interesting to see who the running mates are... I find Trump much scarier though.. He hasn't a clue about the issues for the most part and defects all questions on them..The whole thing is frustrating to me

While I agree that Hilary is not exactly a great candidate, I think this is one of those cases where a lot of people are going to have to hold their nose and vote for an unappealing candidate to prevent a potential disaster. One of the two is going to be president, so, every vote that Clinton doesn't get is one less Trump needs to win. Don't think of it as voting for Clinton. Think of it as voting against Trump.

Tinfoil hat time...longtime Clinton "friend" Trump runs as an elaborate rouse to make that odious old shrew seem palatable?

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on June 08, 2016, 12:10:06 PM
Quote from: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on June 08, 2016, 11:48:55 AM
Tinfoil hat time...longtime Clinton "friend" Trump runs as an elaborate rouse to make that odious old shrew seem palatable?

I'm not sure he'd be comfortable nuking his reputation in the way he has to help a "friend."
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on June 12, 2016, 11:42:05 PM
Oh, does Ken Burns nail it:



For 216 years, our elections, though bitterly contested, have featured the philosophies and character of candidates who were clearly qualified. That is not the case this year. One is glaringly not qualified. So before you do anything with your well-earned degree, you must do everything you can to defeat the retrograde forces that have invaded our democratic process, divided our house, to fight against, no matter your political persuasion, the dictatorial tendencies of the candidate with zero experience in the much maligned but subtle art of governance; who is against lots of things, but doesn't seem to be for anything, offering only bombastic and contradictory promises, and terrifying Orwellian statements; a person who easily lies, creating an environment where the truth doesn't seem to matter; who has never demonstrated any interest in anyone or anything but himself and his own enrichment; who insults veterans, threatens a free press, mocks the handicapped, denigrates women, immigrants and all Muslims; a man who took more than a day to remember to disavow a supporter who advocates white supremacy and the Ku Klux Klan; an infantile, bullying man who, depending on his mood, is willing to discard old and established alliances, treaties and long-standing relationships. I feel genuine sorrow for the understandably scared and—they feel—powerless people who have flocked to his campaign in the mistaken belief that—as often happens on TV—a wand can be waved and every complicated problem can be solved with the simplest of solutions. They can't. It is a political Ponzi scheme. And asking this man to assume the highest office in the land would be like asking a newly minted car driver to fly a 747.

As a student of history, I recognize this type. He emerges everywhere and in all eras. We see nurtured in his campaign an incipient Proto-fascism, a nativist anti-immigrant Know Nothing-ism, a disrespect for the judiciary, the prospect of women losing authority over their own bodies, African Americans again asked to go to the back of the line, voter suppression gleefully promoted, jingoistic saber rattling, a total lack of historical awareness, a political paranoia that, predictably, points fingers, always making the other wrong. These are all virulent strains that have at times infected us in the past. But they now loom in front of us again—all happening at once. We know from our history books that these are the diseases of ancient and now fallen empires. The sense of commonwealth, of shared sacrifice, of trust, so much a part of American life, is eroding fast, spurred along and amplified by an amoral Internet that permits a lie to circle the globe three times before the truth can get started.

We no longer have the luxury of neutrality or "balance," or even of bemused disdain. Many of our media institutions have largely failed to expose this charlatan, torn between a nagging responsibility to good journalism and the big ratings a media circus always delivers. In fact, they have given him the abundant airtime he so desperately craves, so much so that it has actually worn down our natural human revulsion to this kind of behavior. Hey, he's rich; he must be doing something right. He is not. Edward R. Murrow would have exposed this naked emperor months ago. He is an insult to our history. Do not be deceived by his momentary "good behavior." It is only a spoiled, misbehaving child hoping somehow to still have dessert.

And do not think that the tragedy in Orlando underscores his points. It does not. We must "disenthrall ourselves," as Abraham Lincoln said, from the culture of violence and guns. And then "we shall save our country."

This is not a liberal or conservative issue, a red state, blue state divide. This is an American issue. Many honorable people, including the last two Republican presidents, members of the party of Abraham Lincoln, have declined to support him. And I implore those "Vichy Republicans" who have endorsed him to please, please reconsider. We must remain committed to the kindness and community that are the hallmarks of civilization and reject the troubling, unfiltered Tourettes of his tribalism.

The next few months of your "commencement," that is to say, your future, will be critical to the survival of our Republic. "The occasion is piled high with difficulty." Let us pledge here today that we will not let this happen to the exquisite, yet deeply flawed, land we all love and cherish—and hope to leave intact to our posterity. Let us "nobly save," not "meanly lose, the last best hope of earth."
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: KGB on June 13, 2016, 08:23:37 AM
What did any of that have to do with the accomplishment of graduation? 

"Many of our media institutions have largely failed to expose this charlatan."  I'll give him credit for nailing Hillary with that one, though.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on June 13, 2016, 01:53:53 PM
Quote from: KGB on June 13, 2016, 08:23:37 AM
What did any of that have to do with the accomplishment of graduation? 

"Many of our media institutions have largely failed to expose this charlatan."  I'll give him credit for nailing Hillary with that one, though.

It's a pretty short list of both Republican and Democrat candidates I've seen in my lifetime that I wouldn't vote for over Hilary Clinton.  And yet if, I had a vote, I wouldn't hesitate to vote for her over Trump, and it's not even close.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: KGB on June 13, 2016, 02:11:23 PM
Fortunately for those of us that would have to live with a Clinton administration, you don't have that option.  I'm not a fan of Trump but he's made it possible to discuss issues that progressives have done their damndest to make off-limits.  For that alone he edges past Clinton, who has not one redeeming characteristic. 
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on June 13, 2016, 03:04:49 PM


Quote from: KGB on June 13, 2016, 02:11:23 PM
Fortunately for those of us that would have to live with a Clinton administration, you don't have that option.

And fortunately for me in Canada, I don't have to live (directly, anyway) the Trump administration that you would favour.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Potvin29 on June 13, 2016, 04:10:25 PM
Quote from: KGB on June 13, 2016, 02:11:23 PM
I'm not a fan of Trump but he's made it possible to discuss issues that progressives have done their damndest to make off-limits.

Such as?

Also, living in the neighbouring country to the US means we are definitely affected by what goes on there.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Frank E on June 13, 2016, 04:24:31 PM
Quote from: Potvin29 on June 13, 2016, 04:10:25 PM
Quote from: KGB on June 13, 2016, 02:11:23 PM
I'm not a fan of Trump but he's made it possible to discuss issues that progressives have done their damndest to make off-limits.

Such as?

Also, living in the neighbouring country to the US means we are definitely affected by what goes on there.

Immigration is one.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on June 13, 2016, 04:26:58 PM
Quote from: Frank E on June 13, 2016, 04:24:31 PM
Immigration is one.

Immigration is a topic that comes up in every election. It's hardly off limits. The difference is candidates have generally taken measured positions on it, rather than spewing falsehoods and xenophobic rhetoric, as Trump has.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Potvin29 on June 13, 2016, 04:28:13 PM
Quote from: Frank E on June 13, 2016, 04:24:31 PM
Quote from: Potvin29 on June 13, 2016, 04:10:25 PM
Quote from: KGB on June 13, 2016, 02:11:23 PM
I'm not a fan of Trump but he's made it possible to discuss issues that progressives have done their damndest to make off-limits.

Such as?

Also, living in the neighbouring country to the US means we are definitely affected by what goes on there.

Immigration is one.

Yeah he's sure opened up a great discourse there.  How was that ever off-limits?  If anything it's made discussing the issue far worse and much scarier/dangerous with the rhetoric.

Is him making racist comments making it possible to discuss race issues?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on June 13, 2016, 04:43:57 PM
Honestly, there isn't a single issue Trump has raised that hasn't been brought up in previous elections. The difference is in the specific "policies" he's talked about enacting - most of which are poorly thought out, completely impractical, or downright racist/sexist/xenophobic/homophobic/etc.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Frank E on June 13, 2016, 04:55:35 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on June 13, 2016, 04:43:57 PM
Honestly, there isn't a single issue Trump has raised that hasn't been brought up in previous elections. The difference is in the specific "policies" he's talked about enacting - most of which are poorly thought out, completely impractical, or downright racist/sexist/xenophobic/homophobic/etc.

Yeah, I don't agree at all.  Trump has caused so much backlash with his "policies" and statements, and that backlash has really forced people to consider where they stand on subjects, like immigration, that no-one really discusses publicly.

I don't much care for most of what he says, but I do think that he's certainly made for a lot of conversation...those conversations I think are healthy.   
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on June 13, 2016, 06:41:24 PM
Quote from: Frank E on June 13, 2016, 04:55:35 PM
Yeah, I don't agree at all.  Trump has caused so much backlash with his "policies" and statements, and that backlash has really forced people to consider where they stand on subjects, like immigration, that no-one really discusses publicly.

The idea that immigration wasn't publicly discussed in previous elections just isn't true. This is a transcript from a 2012 presidential debate:

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/obama-romney-immigration-presidential-debate/story?id=17495837 (http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/obama-romney-immigration-presidential-debate/story?id=17495837)

Likewise, his two other main points seem to be "jobs" and vague issues of national security, two issues that have been at the forefront of every election this century. Trump isn't introducing anything substantive on those issues but rather he's taking what are important issues like immigration reform, income inequality and National Security and reframing them into nonsensical platitudes with impractical ideas that immigration will be solved by building a big wall, the economy can be improved by "negotiation" and you can somehow test people for their religion before they enter a country.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Frank E on June 13, 2016, 07:05:04 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on June 13, 2016, 06:41:24 PM
Quote from: Frank E on June 13, 2016, 04:55:35 PM
Yeah, I don't agree at all.  Trump has caused so much backlash with his "policies" and statements, and that backlash has really forced people to consider where they stand on subjects, like immigration, that no-one really discusses publicly.

The idea that immigration wasn't publicly discussed in previous elections just isn't true. This is a transcript from a 2012 presidential debate:

Likewise, his two other main points seem to be "jobs" and vague issues of national security, two issues that have been at the forefront of every election this century. Trump isn't introducing anything substantive on those issues but rather he's taking what are important issues like immigration reform, income inequality and National Security and reframing them into nonsensical platitudes with impractical ideas that immigration will be solved by building a big wall, the economy can be improved by "negotiation" and you can somehow test people for their religion before they enter a country.

But I'm not really talking about politicians having a very careful talk about immigration.  I'm talking about regular people and the press.  He's forcing people to discuss what they don't like about what he says because of his exaggerated positions.  I agree that he's wrong as F about most of what he says, but it still seems to get people talking.  It's the getting people talking about stuff that I think is valuable, not his bananas positions on the subjects. 
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on June 13, 2016, 07:15:48 PM
Quote from: Frank E on June 13, 2016, 07:05:04 PM
But I'm not really talking about politicians having a very careful talk about immigration.  I'm talking about regular people and the press.

But I don't want regular people talking about the merits of mass forced deportation as opposed to substantive debates about realistic policy. I don't want the press debating the merits of Mexico paying for a multi-billion dollar wall along their northern border when they could be doing real investigative journalism about things that are actually affecting the world.

Those are abdications of responsibilities, not fulfilling them.

Quote from: Frank E on June 13, 2016, 07:05:04 PMHe's forcing people to discuss what they don't like about what he says because of his exaggerated positions.

I don't think that's true at all. I think what he says is being constantly and casually dismissed as being bonkers crazy/racist/impractical and as a result people aren't talking about actual issues of import like political gridlock or effective policy solutions for pressing problems.

As a result of this even the Democratic party is almost certainly going to be less focused on the actual schism there that the Sanders campaign exposed and only talking about how you can't let a dangerously unqualified dope win the presidency.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on June 13, 2016, 08:29:54 PM

In 2012 Romney won Utah by almost 50 points. In 2008, McCain won it by almost 30.

The latest Salt Lake Tribune poll has Trump and Hillary tied:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/3993058-155/poll-trumps-unpopularity-could-swing-utahns (http://www.sltrib.com/news/3993058-155/poll-trumps-unpopularity-could-swing-utahns)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on June 14, 2016, 12:31:28 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on June 13, 2016, 04:43:57 PM
Honestly, there isn't a single issue Trump has raised that hasn't been brought up in previous elections. The difference is in the specific "policies" he's talked about enacting - most of which are poorly thought out, completely impractical, or downright racist/sexist/xenophobic/homophobic/etc.

True, but in a way that sort of misses what's so effective/terrifying about Trump. At the core of campaign and appeal are issues that haven't featured so prominently in national politics for a long time. For one, the racist appeals and baiting of polite culture are so much more direct, unvarnished. Secondly, the fixation with trade. To say he's just a crank offering stupid solutions  for stupid people is to underestimate him. Which seems dangerous.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Potvin29 on June 14, 2016, 02:18:26 PM
I mean, he's just a straight up, pathological liar.

QuoteRelying on a prepared script and trying to read from a teleprompter, Trump relied on a combination of demagoguery, ignorance, and lies to present a platform that assaults American values in ways that should be disqualifying.

The falsehoods in his remarks came so often and so quickly, it was enough to push professional fact-checkers into retirement. Trump said the Orlando shooter was "born in Afghan," for example, which is both untrue – the gunman was born in New York, not far from where Trump was born – and bizarre given that "Afghan" is not a place.

Then again, for a presidential candidate who believes people born in Indiana are "Mexican," perhaps this wasn't too surprising.

But this was just the tip of a mendacious iceberg. Trump lied about the number of refugees coming to the United States. He lied about the vetting process for refugees. He lied about NATO's counter-terrorism efforts. He lied about Clinton's approach to gun reforms. He lied about the Obama administration's policy on intelligence gathering.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/after-massacre-trump-speech-takes-2016-race-scary-direction
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on June 15, 2016, 04:30:07 AM
Good article that attempts to refute Trumps claims and his purported platform on the subject of immigrants/Muslims/etc:

Two major issues in the current presidential campaign are immigration and terrorism. Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, has proposed some solutions. To keep Mexican immigrants out, build a wall. To keep Islamic terrorists out, ban all Muslims from entering the U.S.

Forget that neither of these will ever happen. The wall would be too complex, expensive, and ultimately ineffective. Banning Muslims is unconstitutional. Even if these were allowed, would they keep us safe? Whom should we be excluding from our country to stop attacks by terrorists and others?

In reality, several studies using a variety of methodologies have shown that immigrants are less likely than native-born Americans to commit crimes. Most undocumented people don't commit crimes, since they want to keep a low profile. But that fact won't gain Trump any voters. He has to insist that undocumented immigrants are rapists and murders, in order to keep his followers in a state of constant anger.

How about all those terrorist attacks? Aren't Americans being massacred at record rates by foreign-backed terrorists? Since 9/11, there have been ten terrorist incidents by so-called jihadists, including the Boston bombing, San Bernardino, and Orlando. A total of 95 people were killed, with many injured.

During that same time period, there were over 30 terrorist incidents perpetrated by American born, non-immigrant, non-Muslim white men, with over 100 people killed. There are far too many to list here, but a few examples follow.


http://www.nevadaappeal.com/news/lahontanvalley/22463247-113/murder-mayhem-and-immigrants
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on June 15, 2016, 01:23:44 PM
The orange clown is now claiming that natural born citizens are a threat because their parents are immigrants.   Coming from the clown who's wife is foreign and his Mom is foreign.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on June 15, 2016, 01:33:01 PM
Quote from: L K on June 15, 2016, 01:23:44 PM
The orange clown is now claiming that natural born citizens are a threat because their parents are immigrants.   Coming from the clown who's wife is foreign and his Mom is foreign.

Overgrown Oompa Loompas say the darndest things.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Al14 on June 15, 2016, 03:45:28 PM
Does anyone else think that Trump became a candidate for the Republican party in order to pave the way for Hillary to easily make it to the White House?   ???

He doesn't strike me as a serious candidate IMHO.

Also, I thought Trump and the Clintons were really good friends.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on June 15, 2016, 03:57:37 PM
Quote from: Al14 on June 15, 2016, 03:45:28 PM
Does anyone else think that Trump became a candidate for the Republican party in order to pave the way for Hillary to easily make it to the White House?   ???

He doesn't strike me as a serious candidate IMHO.

Also, I thought Trump and the Clintons were really good friends.

Try reading the thread.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on June 15, 2016, 04:23:53 PM
Quote from: Al14 on June 15, 2016, 03:45:28 PM
Does anyone else think that Trump became a candidate for the Republican party in order to pave the way for Hillary to easily make it to the White House?   ???

He doesn't strike me as a serious candidate IMHO.

Also, I thought Trump and the Clintons were really good friends.

Would someone with an ego as big as Trump's torpedo his reputation like this for a friend?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on June 15, 2016, 04:42:47 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on June 15, 2016, 04:23:53 PM
Quote from: Al14 on June 15, 2016, 03:45:28 PM
Does anyone else think that Trump became a candidate for the Republican party in order to pave the way for Hillary to easily make it to the White House?   ???

He doesn't strike me as a serious candidate IMHO.

Also, I thought Trump and the Clintons were really good friends.

Would someone with an ego as big as Trump's torpedo his reputation like this for a friend?

I don't believe in this conspiracy theory but I think I do believe that he ran for President just for the brand exposure and wasn't running with the intention to win.  Then he started winning and its morphed the original intent.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on June 15, 2016, 04:52:14 PM
Quote from: L K on June 15, 2016, 04:42:47 PM
I don't believe in this conspiracy theory but I think I do believe that he ran for President just for the brand exposure and wasn't running with the intention to win.  Then he started winning and its morphed the original intent.

Oh, that I totally believe. I think a big part of why he ran is that, since he's threatened to so many times in the past, no one believed him - and he doesn't like when people don't believe him. I don't think he or his staffers legitimately thought he'd make out of early primaries - not that he didn't do enough damage to his reputation there. He clearly didn't have a real plan when he decided to do this.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: louisstamos on June 15, 2016, 05:45:36 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on June 15, 2016, 04:52:14 PM
Quote from: L K on June 15, 2016, 04:42:47 PM
I don't believe in this conspiracy theory but I think I do believe that he ran for President just for the brand exposure and wasn't running with the intention to win.  Then he started winning and its morphed the original intent.

Oh, that I totally believe. I think a big part of why he ran is that, since he's threatened to so many times in the past, no one believed him - and he doesn't like when people don't believe him. I don't think he or his staffers legitimately thought he'd make out of early primaries - not that he didn't do enough damage to his reputation there. He clearly didn't have a real plan when he decided to do this.

It's basically been confirmed actually - his former strategist outlined that he originally wanted to be a "protest" vote.

http://www.xojane.com/issues/stephanie-cegielski-donald-trump-campaign-defector
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on June 16, 2016, 12:02:05 AM
Quote from: louisstamos on June 15, 2016, 05:45:36 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on June 15, 2016, 04:52:14 PM
Quote from: L K on June 15, 2016, 04:42:47 PM
I don't believe in this conspiracy theory but I think I do believe that he ran for President just for the brand exposure and wasn't running with the intention to win.  Then he started winning and its morphed the original intent.

Oh, that I totally believe. I think a big part of why he ran is that, since he's threatened to so many times in the past, no one believed him - and he doesn't like when people don't believe him. I don't think he or his staffers legitimately thought he'd make out of early primaries - not that he didn't do enough damage to his reputation there. He clearly didn't have a real plan when he decided to do this.

It's basically been confirmed actually - his former strategist outlined that he originally wanted to be a "protest" vote.

http://www.xojane.com/issues/stephanie-cegielski-donald-trump-campaign-defector

Jeez. Even with the ironic/scare quotes, "'protest' vote" feels like an injustice to all the actual protest candidates who ran doomed campaigns in order to protest or advance, you know, something. Like an issue. Or policy. Or something other than the candidate's own ego.

There was also an article in the NY Times a few months back that traced his run, and his more general desire to be taken seriously in the world of politics, to his humiliation at the Correspondents Dinner in 2011.

Found it: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/us/politics/donald-trump-campaign.html?_r=0

Still, the tougher and probably more important nut to crack isn't what motivates Trump but what's motivated so many folks to vote for him.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on June 16, 2016, 12:07:55 AM
Quote from: mr grieves on June 16, 2016, 12:02:05 AM
Still, the tougher and probably more important nut to crack isn't what motivates Trump but what's motivated so many folks to vote for him.

Eh. It's not really that many all things considered. It was the biggest number of Republican primary votes ever but he still didn't get 50% of the primary votes so he's still someone that more Republican primary voters voted against instead of for.

As to the General each party could run a decapitated head on a stick that would poll at roughly 80-85% of their party's membership. Trump's polling numbers among Republicans are relatively bad for a Presidential candidate.

The last two national polls have Hillary up by a bigger margin than Obama beat McCain. There's obviously a long way to go but until he gets a lot of votes in a national election, I wouldn't account his support among Republicans to anything but tribalism.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on June 17, 2016, 12:37:00 PM

Hillary's campaign is building a ground game, sinking money into analytics and concentrating their efforts in the crucial swing states. Trump's campaign is hoping people like Trump and show up to the polls and wasting money trying to flip New York:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/inside-the-swing-state-playbooks-224353 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/inside-the-swing-state-playbooks-224353)

Also, a just released poll of Clinton vs. Trump vs. Johnson vs. Stein has Trump below 30%. 55% of Americans, that's all Americans across any racial or age divide, are saying they'd never vote for him.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on June 28, 2016, 02:50:52 PM

Forget battleground states, Trump is only up by 4 in Arizona and by 8 in Texas.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/ (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on June 28, 2016, 03:33:35 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on June 28, 2016, 02:50:52 PM

Forget battleground states, Trump is only up by 4 in Arizona and by 8 in Texas.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/ (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/)

Be prepared to hear Benghazi uttered 5 billion times all over again.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: McGarnagle on June 28, 2016, 07:04:10 PM
I think the bubble has burst. Expect the balance of Trump's "efforts" to involve more brand building than campaigning.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: TBLeafer on July 05, 2016, 09:08:18 AM
You know, when Trump can't even win over a FOX news poll...
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on July 18, 2016, 07:50:02 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnnNquuUAAA0wfm.jpg)

They're sitting on golden thrones ffs
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on July 18, 2016, 08:57:50 AM
A funny read on the Pence announcement:

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/16/12205878/donald-trump-mike-pence-vp-speech
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on July 18, 2016, 09:18:23 AM
Quote from: Heroic Shrimp on July 18, 2016, 08:57:50 AM
A funny read on the Pence announcement:

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/16/12205878/donald-trump-mike-pence-vp-speech

The 60 Minutes interview that that picture above was taken from was pretty good too:

http://gawker.com/all-the-most-excruciating-moments-from-the-trump-pence-1783831489

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/07/17/trumppence-60-minutes-interview-painful-train-wreck.html

My favourite part:

Lesley Stahl: You're not known to be a humble man, but I wonder...

Trump (interrupting): I think I am actually humble I think I'm much more humble than you would understand.

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on July 18, 2016, 09:58:36 AM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on July 18, 2016, 09:18:23 AM
Lesley Stahl: You're not known to be a humble man, but I wonder...

Trump (interrupting): I think I am actually humble I think I'm much more humble than you would understand.

Only Donald Trump could make that comment.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on July 18, 2016, 10:39:39 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all/amp

If Tony Schwartz, ghostwriter of the Art of the Deal (Trump memoir) were to re-write the book today, he would title it The Sociopath.

The pathology at work here certainly is interesting.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on July 19, 2016, 07:49:18 AM
https://twitter.com/mikehearn/status/755260215021432832

www.twitter.com/mikehearn/status/755260215021432832

http://gawker.com/melania-trump-apparently-plagiarized-a-section-of-miche-1783889522

Video of Melania Trump's speech last night over Michelle Obama's speech at the DNC in 2008. A part of Melania's speech matched hers almost word-for-word.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: lamajama on July 19, 2016, 01:01:48 PM
We are witnessing the devolving of the most powerful nation on earth right before our eyes.

This is some scary chit. As self-serving as they can be, the world does need a stable USA.

There is enough crackpot regimes in the world without adding another one.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: TBLeafer on July 19, 2016, 01:48:59 PM
Thing is every World world leading superpower has fallen.

The Greeks... the Romans... the British... soon to be the Americans...

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on July 19, 2016, 02:20:06 PM
Quote from: lamajama on July 19, 2016, 01:01:48 PM
We are witnessing the devolving of the most powerful nation on earth right before our eyes.

This is some scary chit. As self-serving as they can be, the world does need a stable USA.

That's true, and it's been a slow progressing for the last 15-20 years now. That being said, the US could certainly do with somewhat of a reset in terms of the political climate, and, while I don't expect it to come down soon or necessarily as a result of this election cycle specifically, it won't shock me to see some of the necessary changes start to take place once the "old guard" of American politics loses their grip on the seats of power - which, to an extent, the rise of Trump has played a part in.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on July 20, 2016, 02:43:41 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on July 18, 2016, 07:50:02 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnnNquuUAAA0wfm.jpg)

They're sitting on golden thrones ffs


I actually like that white piano in the background. :)

As for the chairs, they match nicely with the Donald's hair.  :D
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bullfrog on July 20, 2016, 03:49:56 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on July 19, 2016, 02:20:06 PM
Quote from: lamajama on July 19, 2016, 01:01:48 PM
We are witnessing the devolving of the most powerful nation on earth right before our eyes.

This is some scary chit. As self-serving as they can be, the world does need a stable USA.

That's true, and it's been a slow progressing for the last 15-20 years now. That being said, the US could certainly do with somewhat of a reset in terms of the political climate, and, while I don't expect it to come down soon or necessarily as a result of this election cycle specifically, it won't shock me to see some of the necessary changes start to take place once the "old guard" of American politics loses their grip on the seats of power - which, to an extent, the rise of Trump has played a part in.

Does anyone think Trump will actually win? I know the polls are disturbingly close in terms of projected votes, but almost every poll has her winning rather handily.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Omallley on July 20, 2016, 04:08:44 PM
Quote from: Bullfrog on July 20, 2016, 03:49:56 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on July 19, 2016, 02:20:06 PM
Quote from: lamajama on July 19, 2016, 01:01:48 PM
We are witnessing the devolving of the most powerful nation on earth right before our eyes.

This is some scary chit. As self-serving as they can be, the world does need a stable USA.

That's true, and it's been a slow progressing for the last 15-20 years now. That being said, the US could certainly do with somewhat of a reset in terms of the political climate, and, while I don't expect it to come down soon or necessarily as a result of this election cycle specifically, it won't shock me to see some of the necessary changes start to take place once the "old guard" of American politics loses their grip on the seats of power - which, to an extent, the rise of Trump has played a part in.

Does anyone think Trump will actually win? I know the polls are disturbingly close in terms of projected votes, but almost every poll has her winning rather handily.

I don't, but there's a ton of time until the election, so who knows?

Also - a really great look at what it would take for Trump to win: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html?_r=0 (see the bottom of the page).
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on July 20, 2016, 04:54:39 PM
Quote from: Bullfrog on July 20, 2016, 03:49:56 PM
Does anyone think Trump will actually win? I know the polls are disturbingly close in terms of projected votes, but almost every poll has her winning rather handily.

I don't, but I also didn't think he'd get this far, so, I really just don't know. The American political landscape is . . . well, dumb.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on July 20, 2016, 06:01:37 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on July 20, 2016, 04:54:39 PM
Quote from: Bullfrog on July 20, 2016, 03:49:56 PM
Does anyone think Trump will actually win? I know the polls are disturbingly close in terms of projected votes, but almost every poll has her winning rather handily.

I don't, but I also didn't think he'd get this far, so, I really just don't know. The American political landscape is . . . well, dumb.

I live in what is considered a "tea-party stronghold" and is it painful any time I am exposed to some minimum wage mouth breather championing Trump and his ability to make #Murica great again. What's worse though is the number of middle-class college-educated morons who are buying his filth.

Truth is large parts of the country are still deeply racist and Trump gives them an option of supporting a bigot without getting their hands dirty.

So many Americans buy the BS that they are all just embarrassed millionaire's in waiting and it's killing the poor and disenfranchised.

I honestly fear there will have to be real prolonged civil unrest before anything meaningful changes.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on July 21, 2016, 09:51:39 AM
[tweet]756119198057848833[/tweet]

www.twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/756119198057848833

Cruz explains why he decided to go against his earlier pledge that he would support whoever the Republican nominee would be. Says "I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father". Says because of that he won't come "like a servile puppy dog".

I mean, I don't like Cruz at all, and while I think it would have been better for him to state he wasn't supporting Trump because of his insane policies instead of the personal remarks Trump made against his family, it's still pretty huge of him to take this stance when the rest of the GOP won't.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on July 21, 2016, 09:55:04 AM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on July 21, 2016, 09:51:39 AM
I mean, I don't like Cruz at all, and while I think it would have been better for him to state he wasn't supporting Trump because of his insane policies instead of the personal remarks Trump made against his family, it's still pretty huge of him to take this stance when the rest of the GOP won't.

Problem there is that Cruz's own policies aren't a ton saner.

Anyways, there is a small but significant number of Republicans refusing to support Trump. Lindsay Graham and Ben Sasse are two pretty prominent Senators in that camp and Romney and the Bushes are some others.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: louisstamos on July 21, 2016, 10:03:47 AM
Two great articles with contradictory stances on Ted's defection, but both agree that this was done with 2020 in mind:

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fnewrepublic.com%2Farticle%2F135366%2Fted-cruzs-betrayal-donald-trump-brilliant&h=aAQHewM7e

https://newrepublic.com/article/135357/ted-cruz-made-terrible-mistake?utm_source=social&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=sharebtn

Basically - if Trump loses, and loses hard, Cruz sets himself up as the front runner in 2020 as the one guy who refused to follow him.  But at the same time, he has alienated a huge portion of the republican base.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on July 21, 2016, 10:03:51 AM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on July 21, 2016, 09:55:04 AM
Problem there is that Cruz's own policies aren't a ton saner.

Anyways, there is a small but significant number of Republicans refusing to support Trump. Lindsay Graham and Ben Sasse are two pretty prominent Senators in that camp and Romney and the Bushes are some others.

You're right, I should say he's unique in that he said what he said AT the Republican convention. And yeah not supporting someone you previously called a "pathological liar" doesn't give you too much credit, it's just refreshing after so many others said similar things and then stood by Trump anyway.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on July 21, 2016, 10:09:03 AM
Quote from: louisstamos on July 21, 2016, 10:03:47 AM
Basically - if Trump loses, and loses hard, Cruz sets himself up as the front runner in 2020 as the one guy who refused to follow him.  But at the same time, he has alienated a huge portion of the republican base.

The problem there is that the GOP establishment hates Cruz almost as much as the Trump fans now do.

And while CtB is right that Cruz saying what he did at the Convention is pretty noteworthy there are going to be a decent number of 2020 candidates who have sufficient distance from Trump. I mean, Kasich, Rubio, I mentioned Sasse...a lot of people aren't anywhere near this convention.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on July 21, 2016, 10:17:32 AM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on July 21, 2016, 10:09:03 AM
And while CtB is right that Cruz saying what he did at the Convention is pretty noteworthy there are going to be a decent number of 2020 candidates who have sufficient distance from Trump. I mean, Kasich, Rubio, I mentioned Sasse...a lot of people aren't anywhere near this convention.

Granted I'm no expect on American politics but I'd be pretty surprised if any of the failed candidates from this year stand much of a chance in 2020. It just seems like none of them were clicking with the people even well before Trump took everything over. They'll need some kind of fresher face. I don't know much about Sasse but maybe him. Maybe Paul Ryan is more interested in the job 4 years from now.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on July 21, 2016, 10:22:50 AM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on July 21, 2016, 10:17:32 AM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on July 21, 2016, 10:09:03 AM
And while CtB is right that Cruz saying what he did at the Convention is pretty noteworthy there are going to be a decent number of 2020 candidates who have sufficient distance from Trump. I mean, Kasich, Rubio, I mentioned Sasse...a lot of people aren't anywhere near this convention.

Granted I'm no expect on American politics but I'd be pretty surprised if any of the failed candidates from this year stand much of a chance in 2020. It just seems like none of them were clicking with the people even well before Trump took everything over. They'll need some kind of fresher face. I don't know much about Sasse but maybe him. Maybe Paul Ryan is more interested in the job 4 years from now.

I guess I see that as being determined by whether or not Trump is sort of a one-off phenomenon or if he represents something real and lasting within the party. If there's a semi-permanent Trump bloc that can be catered to and that represents a real path to victory in a crowded GOP field than, sure, you probably need someone new who can court them a little.

If, on the other hand, Trump loses and loses big this fall I think we'll see a very different dynamic in any 2020 GOP primary. I think there'd be a huge pressure by whoever is running the RNC to have only a couple of mainstream candidates challenging whatever fringe guys are out there. Remember, significantly more GOP primary voters voted for someone other than Trump than voted for him.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on July 21, 2016, 10:30:07 AM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on July 21, 2016, 10:22:50 AM
If, on the other hand, Trump loses and loses big this fall I think we'll see a very different dynamic in any 2020 GOP primary. I think there'd be a huge pressure by whoever is running the RNC to have only a couple of mainstream candidates challenging whatever fringe guys are out there. Remember, significantly more GOP primary voters voted for someone other than Trump than voted for him.

I agree but that's what I mean, weren't Cruz and Rubio supposed to be those "mainstream" candidates? And they got crushed. I think that part of the reason Trump was able to do what he did was because the rest of the GOP field blew. And it sort of seemed that way from the very start. Nobody seemed to really LOVE any of the candidates on either parties.

Whether they go for a mainstream guy or another wacko, I just feel like that person needs to be better and different than the options from this year.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on July 21, 2016, 10:32:48 AM
[tweet]755965472181399553[/tweet]

www.twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/755965472181399553

What a duo!
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Potvin29 on July 21, 2016, 10:34:23 AM
I really wonder if there is any controversy that can cling to him.  Things that would kill any other candidate in any other year are just ignored.

The guy said he wouldn't necessarily defend NATO countries.  He's just insane.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on July 21, 2016, 10:38:02 AM
Quote from: Potvin29 on July 21, 2016, 10:34:23 AM
I really wonder if there is any controversy that can cling to him.  Things that would kill any other candidate in any other year are just ignored.

The guy said he wouldn't necessarily defend NATO countries.  He's just insane.

I have a cousin in Ohio who's started posting pro-Trump messages recently on FB and he genuinely believes that most of what Trump says is just for show but still thinks that he's the best thing for America. This is a direct quote: "he is using similar tactics as Hitler, but he is doing it for good not evil".

So, no, for people who already believe in this guy I don't think there's literally anything that would change that in the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Potvin29 on July 21, 2016, 10:38:53 AM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on July 21, 2016, 10:38:02 AM
Quote from: Potvin29 on July 21, 2016, 10:34:23 AM
I really wonder if there is any controversy that can cling to him.  Things that would kill any other candidate in any other year are just ignored.

The guy said he wouldn't necessarily defend NATO countries.  He's just insane.

I have a cousin in Ohio who's started posting pro-Trump messages recently on FB and he genuinely believes that most of what Trump says is just for show but still thinks that he's the best thing for America. This is a direct quote: "he is using similar tactics as Hitler, but he is doing it for good not evil".

So, no, for people who already believe in this guy I don't think there's literally anything that would change that in the foreseeable future.

Some of the scenes of the crowd at the RNC are legitimately scary.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on July 21, 2016, 10:39:29 AM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on July 21, 2016, 10:30:07 AM
I agree but that's what I mean, weren't Cruz and Rubio supposed to be those "mainstream" candidates? And they got crushed. I think that part of the reason Trump was able to do what he did was because the rest of the GOP field blew. And it sort of seemed that way from the very start. Nobody seemed to really LOVE any of the candidates on either parties.

I guess it depends on what you mean by mainstream. If you mean marginally more within the traditional mold of a candidate, sure. If you mean closer to the center than I think it speaks to the sort of distorting effect this particular primary had. Cruz is almost certainly further to the right than Trump(depending on how you want to define protectionist economic policy on a left-right spectrum) and certainly further to the right in terms of social policy. Is building a giant, expensive wall on the Mexican border really a conservative policy?

When I talk about more mainstream candidates I mean guys closer to the Romney/McCain mold who could credibly pivot towards the center. The Republicans didn't really have anyone like that running this time outside of John Kasich who did surprisingly well given his lack of national stature. If he'd been the RNC's guy from the beginning he very well might have made it a two-horse race.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on July 21, 2016, 10:45:47 AM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on July 21, 2016, 10:39:29 AM
When I talk about more mainstream candidates I mean guys closer to the Romney/McCain mold who could credibly pivot towards the center. The Republicans didn't really have anyone like that running this time outside of John Kasich who did surprisingly well given his lack of national stature. If he'd been the RNC's guy from the beginning he very well might have made it a two-horse race.

That would be my hope for the GOP should Trump lose big. They need to get back to having candidates that are primarily focused on legitimate and significant political issues rather than those that put a significant focus on legal issues that have minimal impact on the country as a whole.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on July 21, 2016, 10:52:59 AM
Quote from: bustaheims on July 21, 2016, 10:45:47 AM
That would be my hope for the GOP should Trump lose big. They need to get back to having candidates that are primarily focused on legitimate and significant political issues rather than those that put a significant focus on legal issues that have minimal impact on the country as a whole.

Well, Jon Stewart said something interesting recently on David Axelrod's podcast where he said that Trump is really the first time where the GOP's candidate has matched their rhetoric to policy. Which isn't to say it makes sense, just that it at the very least adds up. The example he used was if you're trying to scare people into thinking barbarians are at the gate "build a wall" logically follows. "Barbarians are at the gate, therefore let's cut spending and taxes" has more than a bit of cognitive dissonance baked in.

The interesting thing is whether or not we'll see a real shift in rhetoric coming from the majority of the party(and, with the coming shakeup at Fox News, their media wing). To paraphrase Bobby Jindal, if they're going to continue to be the stupid party it may not matter because that schism between Trump voters and Centrists will probably always exist.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Peter D. on July 21, 2016, 11:24:34 AM
This has me chuckling every time I look at it:

(https://pics.onsizzle.com/i-am-so-proud-of-my-amazing-black-daughters-sasha-3099927.png)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on July 21, 2016, 11:33:38 AM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on July 21, 2016, 10:39:29 AM
I guess it depends on what you mean by mainstream. If you mean marginally more within the traditional mold of a candidate, sure. If you mean closer to the center than I think it speaks to the sort of distorting effect this particular primary had. Cruz is almost certainly further to the right than Trump(depending on how you want to define protectionist economic policy on a left-right spectrum) and certainly further to the right in terms of social policy. Is building a giant, expensive wall on the Mexican border really a conservative policy?

When I talk about more mainstream candidates I mean guys closer to the Romney/McCain mold who could credibly pivot towards the center. The Republicans didn't really have anyone like that running this time outside of John Kasich who did surprisingly well given his lack of national stature. If he'd been the RNC's guy from the beginning he very well might have made it a two-horse race.

Yeah when I said mainstream I meant just the guys who were the more established front-runners at the beginning of this thing (like Cruz and Jeb). I do agree though that they should be trying to find somebody a little more centre for the next time. They also need to do something to discourage people who clearly don't stand a chance at getting the nomination from entering the race. The pool at the start of this was way too wide.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on July 22, 2016, 08:44:58 AM


STEWART!
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on July 22, 2016, 10:46:48 AM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on July 22, 2016, 08:44:58 AM
STEWART!

Colbert brought back both old friends for the RNC coverage:



Speaking of mental/logical gymnastics:


The Republican polygamous marriage with the gun lobby, the Religious Right, and the Confederate South has found its natural conclusion in Trump.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on July 24, 2016, 03:52:01 PM
Where Clinton-Kaine stand/differ on various issues ranging from gun rights to immigration to etcetera:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/tim-kaine-issues.html
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on July 24, 2016, 04:16:22 PM
Where Trump-Pence stand/differ on various issues ranging from gun rights to immigration to etcetera:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/16/us/politics/mike-pence-issues.html
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on July 24, 2016, 05:21:00 PM
Some of those email leaks from the DNC...yeah, that's not going to help the Democrats win the election.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on July 24, 2016, 05:55:53 PM
Quote from: L K on July 24, 2016, 05:21:00 PM
Some of those email leaks from the DNC...yeah, that's not going to help the Democrats win the election.

It doesn't help when the media isn't really covering it the way they should and Twitter is removing hashtags.

It really does seem that the progressive left is bordering on being regressive, they've gone so far to the extreme that they've lost touch with reality.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on July 25, 2016, 03:13:32 AM
Quote from: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on July 24, 2016, 05:55:53 PM
Quote from: L K on July 24, 2016, 05:21:00 PM
Some of those email leaks from the DNC...yeah, that's not going to help the Democrats win the election.

It doesn't help when the media isn't really covering it the way they should and Twitter is removing hashtags.

It really does seem that the progressive left is bordering on being regressive, they've gone so far to the extreme that they've lost touch with reality.


One extreme can lead to another extreme.  The left tends to intellectualize too mich, while the right tends to be reactive.   

Come November, what will the American electorate have decided?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on July 25, 2016, 03:25:25 AM
Trump called "a disaster for innovation" in an open letter by America's top tech leaders and execs:

"We believe in an inclusive country that fosters opportunity, creativity and a level playing field," the letter reads. "Donald Trump does not."

His vision stands against the open exchange of ideas, free movement of people, and productive engagement with the outside world that is critical to our economy — and that provide the foundation for innovation and growth. Donald Trump proposes "shutting down" parts of the Internet as a security strategy — demonstrating both poor judgment and ignorance about how technology works. . . . He risks distorting markets, reducing exports, and slowing job creation."


https://techvibes.com/2016/07/14/donald-trump-disaster-innovation
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on July 25, 2016, 04:53:39 PM

This is very academic and stats heavy but worthwhile for anyone who reacts to sudden shifts in polls as being indicative of a larger shift in general opinion:

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/swing_voters.pdf (http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/swing_voters.pdf)

The incredibly oversimplified summary is that if a candidate has a good week it's not so much that there's a real shift in their support, just that their supporters are more likely to talk to pollsters.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on July 25, 2016, 08:49:12 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on July 25, 2016, 04:53:39 PM
The incredibly oversimplified summary is that if a candidate has a good week it's not so much that there's a real shift in their support, just that their supporters are more likely to talk to pollsters.

Pools are a pretty poor measurement of the pulse of the electorate as is. Phone polls tend to have very heavy representation from older/retired voters, whereas online polls are heavy on people who are already biased towards whatever candidate the site hosting said poll is likely to be supporting.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on July 25, 2016, 08:51:35 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on July 25, 2016, 08:49:12 PM
Pools are a pretty poor measurement of the pulse of the electorate as is. Phone polls tend to have very heavy representation from older/retired voters, whereas online polls are heavy on people who are already biased towards whatever candidate the site hosting said poll is likely to be supporting.

I think that the choice of Tim Kaine is a very good sign of what the Clinton campaign's internal data is showing. If they needed something exciting to really shift the needle, they'd have gone in that direction.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on July 25, 2016, 10:17:46 PM

If Michelle Obama were running I think she'd be 30 points ahead.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on July 26, 2016, 08:48:42 AM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on July 25, 2016, 10:17:46 PM

If Michelle Obama were running I think she'd be 30 points ahead.

That would be a dream come true.



Quote
One can completely understand why people plagiarize Michelle Obama
— mia farrow (@MiaFarrow) July 26, 2016
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on July 29, 2016, 01:50:29 AM
Quite the speech by Hillary.   History has been made. Not since 96 years ago when women were given voting rights in America, has a woman accepted her party's nomination to win the presidency come this November.

Wow!   What a moment when Hillary gave her acceptance speech.  Whether she is likeable or not in the eyes of the American electorate, compared to the blustering buffoon that is Donald Trump, she comes across as a far saner, reserved, steady, and experienced leader.


http://time.com/4429984/dnc-hillary-clinton-speech-video-transcript/
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on July 29, 2016, 02:01:15 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen... Hillary Rodham Clinton...

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: WAYNEINIONA on July 30, 2016, 09:50:27 AM

I'm not a fan of either one but Clinton is definitely the only sane choice.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on August 08, 2016, 12:57:39 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/cia-agent-evan-mcmullin-launch-independent-presidential-bid/story?id=41201256

QuoteEvan McMullin, a former CIA counterterrorism officer, will run for president as a third-party conservative alternative to Donald Trump, GOP operatives working to back the candidate told ABC News today.

The operatives working on McMullin's bid resigned from Better for America in order to push his candidacy. Better for America, a 501(c)(4) organization that cannot officially endorse or back McMullin's bid, has been working for months on trying to select a candidate and get on ballots throughout the country. In some states, like Texas, they will likely have to sue to get on the ballot. A 501(c)(4) is an issue-based nonprofit that can raise unlimited funds and does not have to disclose its donors.

It's an extreme uphill climb, but his supporters are confident McMullin, 40, can act as a disruptor who they hope can peel off some red states in a race where some Republicans are still resistant to Donald Trump.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on August 08, 2016, 01:13:00 PM

Real Clear's polling averages have Clinton ahead in North Carolina and just behind in Arizona and Georgia. If Clinton could flip those three states(and keep the rest of the solid Democratic states) then she could lose Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia and Iowa and still win the election.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on August 09, 2016, 08:23:15 PM
He's rambling and advocated someone from the 2nd amendment crowd end Clinton.  Unbelievable.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on August 09, 2016, 08:42:22 PM
Quote from: L K on August 09, 2016, 08:23:15 PM
He's rambling and advocated someone from the 2nd amendment crowd end Clinton.  Unbelievable.

It's crazy, and, I'm pretty sure, criminal. Honestly, I'm not sure what worries me most about it - that he's not aware enough to understand he needs to parse his words to be exceptionally clear that they aren't interpreted by some of the crazies that follow him as a suggestion that they take matters into their own hands, or that he does and he simply does not care/wants people to interpret things that way.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on August 10, 2016, 01:43:44 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on August 09, 2016, 08:42:22 PM
Quote from: L K on August 09, 2016, 08:23:15 PM
He's rambling and advocated someone from the 2nd amendment crowd end Clinton.  Unbelievable.

It's crazy, and, I'm pretty sure, criminal. Honestly, I'm not sure what worries me most about it - that he's not aware enough to understand he needs to parse his words to be exceptionally clear that they aren't interpreted by some of the crazies that follow him as a suggestion that they take matters into their own hands, or that he does and he simply does not care/wants people to interpret things that way.


There are those who believe that Trump is not fit to be president due to his temperament and off-the-cuff comments.  If that is a marker by which one is judged based on their performance throughout their campaign tenure, then it is a definite and precise fact.

I shudder to think what a Trump presidency will bring.  Some people defending Trump may bring up the fact that the man is a businessman first, not an objective-speaking, lying politician.  While that is true, still, it doesn't absolve the fact that Trump's manners,  choice of words and sense of indifference have irked, offended, and annoyed many already.  All of this without him being a politician.  Something to ponder, indeed.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: lamajama on August 10, 2016, 02:06:44 PM
His "business" acumen is suspect at best. He has been bankrupt 4 times, and had some
very very dubious forays like Trump University to name just one. He's riding on the
name recognition just like the Kardashian's - and leveraging that into a "brand" and selling
that only.

Something that will be taking a hit very soon if not already.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on August 16, 2016, 01:29:17 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/17/us/politics/donald-trump-roger-ailes.html

QuoteRoger Ailes, the former Fox News chairman ousted last month over charges of sexual harassment, is advising Donald J. Trump as he begins to prepare for the all-important presidential debates this fall.

Mr. Ailes is aiding Mr. Trump's team as it turns its attention to the first debate with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, on Sept. 26 at Hofstra University on Long Island, according to four people briefed on the move, who insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

Two of them said that Mr. Ailes's role could extend beyond the debates, which Mr. Trump's advisers see as crucial to vaulting him back into strong contention for the presidency after a series of self-inflicted wounds that have eroded his standing in public opinion polls.

(http://www.billboard.com/files/styles/article_main_image/public/media/jon-stewart-daily-show-trump-2015-billboard-650.jpg)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on August 16, 2016, 02:11:03 PM

It makes a certain degree of sense. He's not going to try to debate on the facts so who better to go to for a crash course in empty rhetoric and name calling.

The optics of it are bad, sure, but it's not like there are people supporting him right now that'll see this as a breaking point.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on August 16, 2016, 05:27:59 PM
I mean you have leading Trump people endorsing 'Afghanistan was Obama's war', 'Obama created ISIS (but not in the way where leaving Iraq was the cause even though a lot of the policy to make that happen was signed under Bush)' and outright making up medical diagnoses about Clinton.

Then you had Ru9/11dy Gu9/11ill9/11iani making statements how there were no terrorist attacks on US soil in the 8 years prior to Obama.

Trump is a car-wreck and the only people that are going to formally latch on to him at this point are other disasters.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on August 20, 2016, 11:15:53 AM
I found this pretty funny.  LK will cringe:

I'm a Doctor.  Here's What I Find Most Concerning About Trump's Medical Letter (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-gunter/im-a-doctor-heres-concerning-trumps-medical-letter_b_11565838.html)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on August 20, 2016, 06:12:38 PM
Quote from: Heroic Shrimp on August 20, 2016, 11:15:53 AM
I found this pretty funny.  LK will cringe:

I'm a Doctor.  Here's What I Find Most Concerning About Trump's Medical Letter (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-gunter/im-a-doctor-heres-concerning-trumps-medical-letter_b_11565838.html)

I routinely do this for my patients:

Hector, while small of hand is most certainly well endowed. 

I have had patients write letters to employers/judges/lawyers and they ask me to put a signature on them.  I don't, I offer to write my own letters and they most certainly don't read like what they hand me.  What I just read in that article is something that reads like Donald wrote it himself and then paid someone to sign off on it.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on August 27, 2016, 03:57:42 PM
Clinton's 1996 comment brought up by Trump:

Donald J. Trump   @realDonaldTrump
How quickly people forget that Crooked Hillary called African-American youth "SUPER PREDATORS" - Has she apologized?


http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/293477-trump-how-quickly-people-forget-clinton-super-predator
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on August 27, 2016, 05:45:00 PM
Quote from: hockeyfan1 on August 27, 2016, 03:57:42 PM
Clinton's 1996 comment brought up by Trump:

Donald J. Trump   @realDonaldTrump
How quickly people forget that Crooked Hillary called African-American youth "SUPER PREDATORS" - Has she apologized?

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/293477-trump-how-quickly-people-forget-clinton-super-predator

How quickly people forget something that happened 20 years ago.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on September 20, 2016, 11:12:37 AM
[tweet]778016283342307328[/tweet]

QuoteWrigley, which owns the Skittles brand, issued the following statement to The Hollywood Reporter (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/donald-trump-jr-skittles-responds-to-syrian-refugees-analogy-930917) on Monday night:

"Skittles are candy. Refugees are people," Denise Young, vp of corporate affairs for Wrigley Americas, told THR. "We don't feel it's an appropriate analogy. We will respectfully refrain from further commentary as anything we say could be misinterpreted as marketing."
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on September 20, 2016, 11:14:54 AM
I mean I love Skittles, so I'd probably chance it.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on September 20, 2016, 11:24:45 AM

If I had a bowl of skittles and you told me three of them would kill me I'd probably think you were just lying so you could take my skittles.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Dappleganger on September 20, 2016, 12:14:53 PM
If only you could vet the skittles to find out which ones were poison... like, as a possibility.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on September 20, 2016, 12:31:36 PM
Quote from: Dappleganger on September 20, 2016, 12:14:53 PM
If only you could vet the skittles to find out which ones were poison... like, as a possibility.

It's almost like there's an intensive screening process to see which skittles are okay to be eaten, and which are poisonous - and that process has slowed the rate at which we can eat skittles to a rate much lower than initially promised.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on September 20, 2016, 12:32:23 PM
I have a difficult time finding anything positive to say about the GOP.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on September 20, 2016, 12:35:12 PM
Also I mean technically that situation could apply to any people, I mean, food. So Trump's solution would be to just stop eating?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on September 20, 2016, 01:11:00 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on September 20, 2016, 12:35:12 PM
Also I mean technically that situation could apply to any people, I mean, food. So Trump's solution would be to just stop eating?

Pfft. No, it can't . . .

(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y293/busterh69/I%20can%20make%20memes%20too.png)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on September 20, 2016, 01:12:28 PM
Oh snap!
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on September 20, 2016, 01:15:42 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on September 20, 2016, 01:11:00 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on September 20, 2016, 12:35:12 PM
Also I mean technically that situation could apply to any people, I mean, food. So Trump's solution would be to just stop eating?

Pfft. No, it can't . . .

(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y293/busterh69/I%20can%20make%20memes%20too.png)

Hero.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on September 20, 2016, 01:19:00 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on September 20, 2016, 11:14:54 AM
I mean I love Skittles, so I'd probably chance it.

I love Marner, too.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on September 20, 2016, 02:02:41 PM
I knew that my local convenience store owner was a terrorist.  He sells Skittles right at the front counter.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on September 20, 2016, 02:05:47 PM
This Skittles thing has taken exactly the type of turn I was hoping for: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37421886

QuoteDavid Kittos, who does not follow Twitter, was alerted to the use of the image by friends.

A keen photographer, he told the BBC he originally took the picture in his home studio: "I was just experimenting with something called off-camera flash.

"This was six years ago when there were no Syrian refugees at the time and it was never done with the intention of spreading a political message.

"I have never put this image up for sale. This was not done with my permission, I don't support Trump's politics and I would never take his money to use it."

Mr Kittos' personal history means he is particularly dismayed by his image being used in a debate around accepting refugees.

"I am now a British citizen but I am Greek-Cypriot by birth and in 1974 I was a refugee because of the Turkish occupation.

"I was six years old. We lived in the area of Cyprus that is now under Turkish military control. We had to leave everything behind overnight. Our property and our possessions."
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on September 20, 2016, 02:20:43 PM

Also, Trump used money from his Charitable foundation to bribe politicians and pay off his legal bills.

Still, inapt candy metaphors are bad too.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on September 20, 2016, 02:48:02 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on September 20, 2016, 02:20:43 PM

Also, Trump used money from his Charitable foundation to bribe politicians and pay off his legal bills.

Still, inapt candy metaphors are bad too.

And buy a 6-ft portait painting of himself. And an autographed Tim Tebow helmet.

And donate Foundation donations to other charities and then charge them more than his donation in fees for using his building.

This article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-donald-trump-retooled-his-charity-to-spend-other-peoples-money/2016/09/10/da8cce64-75df-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html

is getting some good late night air time.


Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on September 20, 2016, 03:55:01 PM
Quote"However they disguise themselves, or however friendly they try to be, affirming a thousand times their good intentions to us, one must not believe them. Jews they are and Jews they remain. For our Volk they are poison."

"Like the poisonous mushroom!" says Franz.

"Yes, my child! Just as a single poisonous mushrooms can kill a whole family, so a solitary Jew can destroy a whole village, a whole city, even an entire Volk [nation]."

Your potential President of the United States.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on September 21, 2016, 10:28:56 AM
http://uproxx.com/tv/trevor-noah-skittles-trump-shady-charity/
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: TBLeafer on September 27, 2016, 10:03:15 AM
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on September 27, 2016, 10:39:09 AM

After last night, I'm willing to entertain the notion that Trump may not be the genius we thought he was.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on September 27, 2016, 10:49:42 AM
They're not saying it directly, even more people are starting to notice more and more similarities to our former mayor in Toronto (may he rest in peace).
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: TBLeafer on September 27, 2016, 12:18:08 PM
Annnnnd here he is quite literally pleading with his supporters to cheat after the debate.

[tweet]780609607957901312[/tweet]

DonaId J. Trump ‏@realDenaldTrump  13h13 hours ago
FOLKS! Everyone is saying I lost the #Debate badly. Please everyone vote in all the fake online polls. Vote 10 times! We need every vote!!!!
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Zee on September 27, 2016, 12:30:02 PM
Quote from: TBLeafer on September 27, 2016, 12:18:08 PM
Annnnnd here he is quite literally pleading with his supporters to cheat after the debate.

[tweet]780609607957901312[/tweet]

DonaId J. Trump ‏@realDenaldTrump  13h13 hours ago
FOLKS! Everyone is saying I lost the #Debate badly. Please everyone vote in all the fake online polls. Vote 10 times! We need every vote!!!!

That's a fake Donald Trump account though.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on September 27, 2016, 12:39:59 PM
Quote from: Zee on September 27, 2016, 12:30:02 PM
Quote from: TBLeafer on September 27, 2016, 12:18:08 PM
Annnnnd here he is quite literally pleading with his supporters to cheat after the debate.

[tweet]780609607957901312[/tweet]

DonaId J. Trump ‏@realDenaldTrump  13h13 hours ago
FOLKS! Everyone is saying I lost the #Debate badly. Please everyone vote in all the fake online polls. Vote 10 times! We need every vote!!!!

That's a fake Donald Trump account though.

Lol
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: TBLeafer on September 27, 2016, 01:07:51 PM
That's his official 'parody' account though.  Maybe he runs it himself, maybe not.  But it really did seem to gain traction with online polls, sadly. 
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Zee on September 27, 2016, 01:19:52 PM
Quote from: TBLeafer on September 27, 2016, 01:07:51 PM
That's his official 'parody' account though.  Maybe he runs it himself, maybe not.  But it really did seem to gain traction with online polls, sadly.

"Official parody"?  I doubt it considering this description of it:

#MakeAmericaWhiteAgain #Clown2016 I'm telling it like it REALLY is! Parody. Twitter war veteran. I only troll one guy - he trolls an entire nation! #NeverClown
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: TBLeafer on September 27, 2016, 01:23:57 PM
Quote from: Zee on September 27, 2016, 01:19:52 PM
Quote from: TBLeafer on September 27, 2016, 01:07:51 PM
That's his official 'parody' account though.  Maybe he runs it himself, maybe not.  But it really did seem to gain traction with online polls, sadly.

"Official parody"?  I doubt it considering this description of it:

#MakeAmericaWhiteAgain #Clown2016 I'm telling it like it REALLY is! Parody. Twitter war veteran. I only troll one guy - he trolls an entire nation! #NeverClown

Definitely good marketing.  Interesting online poll results, too, despite Trump decidedly getting 'crushed' at the debate by all the experts.

America is in a sad, sad state.

And yeah, you also just owned my ass.  :-X
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on September 27, 2016, 04:39:24 PM
Quote from: TBLeafer on September 27, 2016, 01:23:57 PM
Interesting online poll results, too, despite Trump decidedly getting 'crushed' at the debate by all the experts.

I wouldn't make too much out of online poll results. Trump's supporters are rabid, and quite likely flocked to every online poll they could find. In general, those polls will heavily over-represent the opinion of partisan/biased voters rather than undecided voters. Everything I've read from people who actually went out and contacted previously undecided voters strongly favoured Clinton - and, by that, I mean, 75%+ in most cases.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: TBLeafer on September 27, 2016, 05:10:33 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on September 27, 2016, 04:39:24 PM
Quote from: TBLeafer on September 27, 2016, 01:23:57 PM
Interesting online poll results, too, despite Trump decidedly getting 'crushed' at the debate by all the experts.

I wouldn't make too much out of online poll results. Trump's supporters are rabid, and quite likely flocked to every online poll they could find. In general, those polls will heavily over-represent the opinion of partisan/biased voters rather than undecided voters. Everything I've read from people who actually went out and contacted previously undecided voters strongly favoured Clinton - and, by that, I mean, 75%+ in most cases.

I don't doubt it. That debate was a landslide victory for Hillary if there ever was one when it comes to proving how inept Trump really is as a potential, future POTUS.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: jdh1 on September 27, 2016, 07:31:34 PM
Trump won the debate by simply not saying something stupid.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: crazyperfectdevil on September 27, 2016, 07:45:10 PM
Quote from: jdh1 on September 27, 2016, 07:31:34 PM
Trump won the debate by simply not saying something stupid.

something stupid like ..denying that he ever called global warming was a hoax, despite that the tweet of him saying just that is still up?  or how about stupid like doubling down over calling a former miss universe winner fat?    ....how about implying that he doesn't pay taxes and that it's smart for him not to do so? 

i guess i'm not sure what the standard for "stupid" is.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: jdh1 on September 27, 2016, 07:51:46 PM
Quote from: crazyperfectdevil on September 27, 2016, 07:45:10 PM
Quote from: jdh1 on September 27, 2016, 07:31:34 PM
Trump won the debate by simply not saying something stupid.

something stupid like ..denying that he ever called global warming was a hoax, despite that the tweet of him saying just that is still up?  or how about stupid like doubling down over calling a former miss universe winner fat?    ....how about implying that he doesn't pay taxes and that it's smart for him not to do so? 

i guess i'm not sure what the standard for "stupid" is.
I knew I would get a response,however he could of blew a gasket in the debate last night..That's why I think his poll numbers won't go down.
I think if he just stood there his numbers would at least stay the same.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on September 27, 2016, 08:13:14 PM
Quote from: jdh1 on September 27, 2016, 07:31:34 PM
Trump won the debate by simply not saying something stupid.

Clearly, we have very different definitions of stupid. Yours is probably pretty in line with Trump's, though.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on September 27, 2016, 08:16:27 PM
I'll give Trump this much - he told the best jokes last night, even if he didn't realize they were jokes.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: jdh1 on September 27, 2016, 08:41:14 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on September 27, 2016, 08:16:27 PM
I'll give Trump this much - he told the best jokes last night, even if he didn't realize they were jokes.
All I'm saying is that his ratings aren't going down after last night, even with the media dumping on him.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on September 27, 2016, 08:45:37 PM

We won't know effect on polls of the debate for a while but a "win" for Trump aren't things remaining static. Hillary is still ahead and has a pretty significant electoral edge. He needs to use the debates to do better with college educated voters and women in particular. I'm guessing claiming that Global Warming is a hoax and doubling down on his boorish insults won't go a long way towards that.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on September 27, 2016, 09:48:48 PM
Quote from: jdh1 on September 27, 2016, 08:41:14 PM
All I'm saying is that his ratings aren't going down after last night, even with the media dumping on him.

Neither are Hilary's. The debates never have much of an impact on the decided voters. It's the undecided that you hope to win over in the debates, and, based on focus groups and polls that specifically target undecided voters, he did absolutely awful.

Not losing the people who had already decided to vote for you isn't a win. It's the bare minimum. Seeing 3/4 or more of the polled undecided voters leaning towards Hillary is a pretty strong indication that the gap between him and Clinton is going to get wider over the next few weeks. His "ratings" may not have dropped yet, but, as more undecided voters turn towards Hillary - and, if the next debates play out anything like last night, that's what is going to happen - they will.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: McGarnagle on September 27, 2016, 09:56:54 PM
Even if Clinton wins, this election has really shown the size and scale of the divide between the disenfranchised and the status quo. I think all of us have had to hold our nose and vote for a particular candidate based upon party affiliation, but this election takes it to a new level.

If I was registered in the U.S., I'd write in "inanimate carbon rod" on the ballot and put a check next to it.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on September 27, 2016, 10:28:32 PM
Quote from: McGarnagle on September 27, 2016, 09:56:54 PM
Even if Clinton wins, this election has really shown the size and scale of the divide between the disenfranchised and the status quo. I think all of us have had to hold our nose and vote for a particular candidate based upon party affiliation, but this election takes it to a new level.

I don't know if I buy that narrative. Trump is polling terribly with African American voters. Aren't they disenfranchised too? Hispanics? Hillarys way in front with young people. Do they represent a status quo?

Most looks at it I've seen show Trump voters typically making more money than typical Americans. I think there's something to be said about the resentment of blue collar white voters in industries that are probably not going to grow in the 21st century and Hillary's inability to really articulate a vision for the future that addresses that hurts her, sure, but I don't think the people voting Trump are all that different than the people who typically vote Republican.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: jdh1 on September 27, 2016, 10:37:15 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on September 27, 2016, 09:48:48 PM
Quote from: jdh1 on September 27, 2016, 08:41:14 PM
All I'm saying is that his ratings aren't going down after last night, even with the media dumping on him.

Neither are Hilary's. The debates never have much of an impact on the decided voters. It's the undecided that you hope to win over in the debates, and, based on focus groups and polls that specifically target undecided voters, he did absolutely awful.

Not losing the people who had already decided to vote for you isn't a win. It's the bare minimum. Seeing 3/4 or more of the polled undecided voters leaning towards Hillary is a pretty strong indication that the gap between him and Clinton is going to get wider over the next few weeks. His "ratings" may not have dropped yet, but, as more undecided voters turn towards Hillary - and, if the next debates play out anything like last night, that's what is going to happen - they will.
I have to disagree with you on that. Hillary has been in and around politics for 30 years,the voters know what they are getting with her.
If you believe that voters still don't know whether they are going to vote for her yet...what are they waiting for?
In my opinion the undecided are looking if they can stomach Trump or not.  Thus the basis of my first post on this subject.Both candidates have made stupid comments in the past.

Howard Stern has made outrageous comments over many years.That doesn't mean people stopped listening to him.Our society has progressively excepted words that offend people...however in the presidential race this is the first time of this magnitude.

I don't like it myself but that's happening today.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on September 27, 2016, 10:46:03 PM
Quote from: jdh1 on September 27, 2016, 10:37:15 PM
If you believe that voters still don't know whether they are going to vote for her yet...what are they waiting for?

The debates, probably.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on September 28, 2016, 12:40:53 AM
Quote from: jdh1 on September 27, 2016, 07:31:34 PM
Trump won the debate by simply not saying something stupid.

We clearly watched a different debate. 
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on September 28, 2016, 04:49:57 AM
How many saw the debate: polls, results, & observations...

In a CNN poll, Americans who watched the debate sided with Clinton. Sixty-two per cent said she was the winner, while just 27 per cent named Trump.

Voters thought Clinton expressed her views "more clearly" than Trump and had a better understanding of key issues at heart. Clinton also addressed concerns voters might have about her leading the country better than Trump did – to the tune of 57 per cent compared to 35 per cent.

David Gergen, CNN's expert, wondered if Clinton's triumph holds much clout in the Republican camp.

By all traditional standards of debate, Mrs. Clinton crushed ... by constrast, he came in unprepared, had nothing fresh to say, and increasingly gave way to rants," Gergen said.

"Even so, I doubt she has put him away ... Those who are for him are likely to stick, despite his ineffectual performance," Gergen suggested.

He said Clinton fell short in forging an emotional bond with voters, too.

The Washington Post had Clinton at the top of its "winners" list.

"Clinton wasn't perfect in this debate ... but Clinton was head and shoulders better than Trump. She was, unsurprisingly, very well prepared – using a slew of facts and figures to not only make her positive but also to slam Trump," the Post's analyst said.

...the Atlantic chose Clinton as its winner. Its commentators said she delivered a "commanding performance" while Trump offered too many interruptions.

"One, from Hillary Clinton, was wonky, crisp, and polished; if not always inspiring, it was professional and careful. The other, from Donald Trump, was freewheeling, aggressive, and meandering, occasionally landing a hard blow but often substance-less and hard to follow," its post read.

More:
http://globalnews.ca/news/2966616/trump-v-clinton-debate-who-won-here-are-what-pundits-pollsters-are-saying/
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on September 28, 2016, 07:35:28 AM
Quote from: jdh1 on September 27, 2016, 10:37:15 PM
I have to disagree with you on that. Hillary has been in and around politics for 30 years,the voters know what they are getting with her.
If you believe that voters still don't know whether they are going to vote for her yet...what are they waiting for?

People don't know what she'd be like as President, they don't necessarily know what her platform is, they don't know a lot of things pertaining to this election. Sure, she's been in and around politics for 30 years, but a lot of that was as the wife of a governor/president - which isn't going to provide a whole lot of information on how she'd govern herself - and a significant part of the rest was confined to the State of NY - which means the majority of the nation would not have the benefit of that direct experience. A lot of voters are smart enough and/or open minded enough to recognize that know a lot about Hillary Clinton as a political figure, but they don't really know a whole lot about Hillary Clinton as a politician.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on September 28, 2016, 11:15:23 AM


I get that the mainstream media needs the candidates to be on largely equal-seeming footing to ensure 'balanced' coverage, but it's pretty ridiculous how any one of Trumps gaffes would've normally tanked a candidate immediately, whereas even 75% of Hillary's qualifications would have vaulted a male candidate into shoo-in status.

The bar is set exceedingly high for Hillary, while Trump just has to act civil to be considered successful (which he has failed repeatedly).
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on September 28, 2016, 04:49:22 PM
Quote from: herman on September 28, 2016, 11:15:23 AM
I get that the mainstream media needs the candidates to be on largely equal-seeming footing to ensure 'balanced' coverage, but it's pretty ridiculous how any one of Trumps gaffes would've normally tanked a candidate immediately, whereas even 75% of Hillary's qualifications would have vaulted a male candidate into shoo-in status.

The bar is set exceedingly high for Hillary, while Trump just has to act civil to be considered successful (which he has failed repeatedly).

I get and mostly agree with the Trump point -- though gaffe is hardly a word sufficient to describe what comes out of his mouth, but gaffe normalizes him as a politician in a way that doesn't sound quite right to me...

As for Clinton, she's certainly qualified, but the last non-incumbent president who won on "qualified" was, I think, Nixon (?) -- and that should pretty clearly indicate how overrated "qualified" can be. I sort of suspect the reluctance of people to come around to her because she is qualified -- the only plausible president in the race -- and has all sorts of structural factors making her election the more likely outcome. Folks are more likely to carefully scrutinize their future president than the sideshow.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on September 28, 2016, 05:18:14 PM
Quote from: mr grieves on September 28, 2016, 04:49:22 PM
As for Clinton, she's certainly qualified, but the last non-incumbent president who won on "qualified" was, I think, Nixon (?) -- and that should pretty clearly indicate how overrated "qualified" can be. I sort of suspect the reluctance of people to come around to her because she is qualified -- the only plausible president in the race -- and has all sorts of structural factors making her election the more likely outcome. Folks are more likely to carefully scrutinize their future president than the sideshow.

I guess that sort of depends on what you mean. Do you mean Nixon won because he was noticeably more qualified than Humphrey? Or that it was a major element of his campaign? Because Nixon's opponent in '68 was one of the most "qualified" candidates ever. Humphrey had been mayor of Minneapolis, a 3 term US Senator and was the sitting Vice-President. It seems to me that Nixon didn't win because of his qualifications(which were basically the same as Humphrey's) but just because the guy who was most likely to be his opponent, RFK, was murdered. Humphrey was effectively a back-up choice.

It also raises the question of what qualifies someone to be President. Is legislative experience more important than executive experience? And does experience matter? Most people agree Eisenhower was a pretty good President despite never having held any political office prior to the Presidency. The description "the son of a political dynasty without much experience in office and mainly riding to office on the strength of the family's political machine" could apply just as well to George W. Bush as John F. Kennedy.

As for a non-incumbent winning on "experience" I think you could go to '88 where George H.W. Bush may have had the most and broadest range of government experience for any President since Thomas Jefferson. He had executive experience(VP for 8 years), legislative experience(2 terms in Congress) and Foreign Policy experience(Ambassador to UN, Director of CIA). Despite that...he isn't seen as a terribly effective President. On the other hand you have Lincoln, a one term congressman who is maybe the pinnacle of the office.

So I tend to reject the idea that Hillary's "experience" would look incredible on a man or it should really catapult her anywhere. She's a smart person and seems capable enough and in this election that should do it but the question of experience as a deciding factor is a difficult one to invest heavily in.

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on September 29, 2016, 04:48:47 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on September 28, 2016, 05:18:14 PM
Quote from: mr grieves on September 28, 2016, 04:49:22 PM
As for Clinton, she's certainly qualified, but the last non-incumbent president who won on "qualified" was, I think, Nixon (?) -- and that should pretty clearly indicate how overrated "qualified" can be. I sort of suspect the reluctance of people to come around to her because she is qualified -- the only plausible president in the race -- and has all sorts of structural factors making her election the more likely outcome. Folks are more likely to carefully scrutinize their future president than the sideshow.

I guess that sort of depends on what you mean. Do you mean Nixon won because he was noticeably more qualified than Humphrey?

No, meant what you go on to say, at least with respect to GHWB. Perhaps herman wasn't viewing HRC's experience as an inherent virtue, but a lot of liberals down here do. 30 years in public service, has scars, etc. I think it's as likely to make her a bad (or very mediocre) president as a good one. Experience can teach you how to work within the system; it can also shape your beliefs about what a system can and ought to do. Ultimately decisive will be not her qualifications, but what she believes and plans to do.

The other thing, along these lines, worth pointing out about herman's post: I suspect HRC's gender also works in her favor on the experience issue. Her 30 years of public service, gathered as a woman and in the face of some pretty nasty, sexist attacks, gives her record a sort of heroic hue that occludes much of what she's actually done. Lots of folks on the left hold her in higher esteem than they would a male politician who's had similar experiences.

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on September 29, 2016, 05:23:30 PM
Quote from: mr grieves on September 29, 2016, 04:48:47 PM
No, meant what you go on to say, at least with respect to GHWB. Perhaps herman wasn't viewing HRC's experience as an inherent virtue, but a lot of liberals down here do. 30 years in public service, has scars, etc. I think it's as likely to make her a bad (or very mediocre) president as a good one. Experience can teach you how to work within the system; it can also shape your beliefs about what a system can and ought to do. Ultimately decisive will be not her qualifications, but what she believes and plans to do.

Maybe but I generally tend to think that most people would agree that while "experience" is not a cumulative thing where more necessarily equals better, I do think most people would agree that some sort of experience with the ins and outs of the political system are pretty worthwhile. Or even just relevant experience for the job. To go back to Eisenhower, sure, he didn't hold political office before the presidency but he had been in charge of the single most largest and complex military operation the world had ever seen by that point(or even now). You have to assume that some elements of overseeing the invasion of Europe were then relevant to running the country. One of my favourite quotes, for instance, is Eisenhower saying "I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its stupidity". Eisenhower went on to have some pretty questionable foreign policy decisions but reckless use of the military wasn't one.

That to me is where Trump really falls short. He doesn't seem to understand the military and suggests NATO ought to be run as some sort of protection racket. He seems to think that international trade deals can be negotiated the way you would with an Atlantic City concrete supplier. I don't know that anything he's done gives him any actual sense of how a government is run and I think in general most people would agree that at least some of that knowledge is required.

Quote from: mr grieves on September 29, 2016, 04:48:47 PM
The other thing, along these lines, worth pointing out about herman's post: I suspect HRC's gender also works in her favor on the experience issue. Her 30 years of public service, gathered as a woman and in the face of some pretty nasty, sexist attacks, gives her record a sort of heroic hue that occludes much of what she's actually done. Lots of folks on the left hold her in higher esteem than they would a male politician who's had similar experiences.

This I don't agree with. I think her experience is what works in her favor on the experience issue. I think her gender has probably worked against her on what's really hurting her which is the issues of likability and trust.

I mean, we talk about her 30 years of experience but let's be real. She's got 8 years as a Senator and 4 as Secretary of State. Beyond that her "experience" is as First Lady and while she was arguably more involved in policy as First Lady than most are, she's still being held accountable for decisions her husband made in office(and perhaps more fairly, her actions and language in supporting).

I mean look at all of the talk post-debate about how Trump is patting himself on the back for not bringing up her husband's affairs and impeachment. Trump, on his third marriage and having cheated on his own wives, thinks he's got the upper hand on the marital fidelity issue because of something Bill Clinton did. I don't think a male candidate would ever be on the receiving end of that and we largely know that to be true. People somehow aren't holding Trump's(or Gingrich's or Giuliani's) crummy behaviour as husbands against them but there are people out there who think something that was done to her is a negative.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on September 30, 2016, 09:05:00 AM
Man, for a guy who's been in the casino business, Trump sure doesn't know when to double down.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on September 30, 2016, 10:21:12 AM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on September 29, 2016, 05:23:30 PM
Quote from: mr grieves on September 29, 2016, 04:48:47 PM
No, meant what you go on to say, at least with respect to GHWB. Perhaps herman wasn't viewing HRC's experience as an inherent virtue, but a lot of liberals down here do. 30 years in public service, has scars, etc. I think it's as likely to make her a bad (or very mediocre) president as a good one. Experience can teach you how to work within the system; it can also shape your beliefs about what a system can and ought to do. Ultimately decisive will be not her qualifications, but what she believes and plans to do.

That to me is where Trump really falls short. He doesn't seem to understand the military and suggests NATO ought to be run as some sort of protection racket. He seems to think that international trade deals can be negotiated the way you would with an Atlantic City concrete supplier. I don't know that anything he's done gives him any actual sense of how a government is run and I think in general most people would agree that at least some of that knowledge is required.


I see that as Trump's caveat, his flaw, the lack of apparent understanding of a 'complicated and sensitive' issue on the subject of foreign policy.

Watching the first presidential debate the other night, Clinton provided a more proper counterpoint to Trump's answer on foreign policy, with a far greater knowledge of understanding in a prudent & straight forward manner.  While not necessarily perfect, it spoke spades over, and compared to, Trump's shallow explanation.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on September 30, 2016, 10:22:07 AM
mr. grieves, I still haven't figured out what you're saying I was trying to say.  :)

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on September 30, 2016, 11:17:46 AM


Should I laugh or cry? Tell me what to do, Internet.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on September 30, 2016, 07:13:38 PM
Quote from: herman on September 30, 2016, 10:22:07 AM
mr. grieves, I still haven't figured out what you're saying I was trying to say.  :)

Quote from: herman on September 30, 2016, 10:22:07 AM
mr. grieves, I still haven't figured out what you're saying I was trying to say.  :)

Well, I know you said that Clinton's experience should ensure her the presidency, and that it doesn't have her up by 40 points has to do with her gender. I don't think experience has very much to do with how elections work in general, and I'm especially doubtful that that's how they work in this era. I don't think her gender enters into her experience not counting for more.

I don't think you were saying -- but think what you wrote can be read to suggest -- that you think Clinton's experience is something that ensures she'll be a good president. If you don't think this, apologies. But some down here do think that, so I took it as an opportunity to dispute it. Clinton's experience is as likely to make her a good president (able to navigate the structures of government) as a bad one (internalized the limitations of modern American politics).
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on October 03, 2016, 02:11:37 PM
Ah okay. All I was saying was that Clinton, for all her flaws, is being judged far more stringently than candidates of the past (e.g. a lot of other politicians have used private email servers). And the reason for that is basically because she's a woman. They judge her voice, her laugh, her facial expressions, her clothing, etc.

The Donald, on the other hand, has the media stepping in to help either add step-stools for him to climb a hurdle, or they remove the bar altogether and applaud that he didn't blurt out too-overt a racist/sexist remark as he saunters to the podium.

Would Hillary be a good president? I can't say for sure, but she sure seems measured, tactful, politically-savvy and tough enough to deal with the old boys club of politics (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/hillary-clinton-first-lady-white-house/502451/). She also seems to be trying to make changes for the betterment of the people of the country (and the world), even to the detriment of her own family's income. She can't pull off a joke to save a life but that's not a job requirement (and Obama has spoiled us).

Would Trump be a good president? No.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on October 04, 2016, 03:30:11 PM
https://twitter.com/WorldofIsaac/status/783353969888329728

So when is she running? Pretty please?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on October 04, 2016, 05:30:47 PM
Is that the same Michelle that said Hillary can't run her own house never mind the White House last election cycle.  The US doesn't need Trump, Hillary, or another Obama. 
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on October 04, 2016, 08:17:56 PM
[tweet]783443559798013952[/tweet]
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on October 05, 2016, 12:26:10 PM
Quote from: herman on October 03, 2016, 02:11:37 PM
Would Hillary be a good president? I can't say for sure, but she sure seems measured, tactful, politically-savvy and tough enough to deal with the old boys club of politics (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/hillary-clinton-first-lady-white-house/502451/). She also seems to be trying to make changes for the betterment of the people of the country (and the world), even to the detriment of her own family's income. She can't pull off a joke to save a life but that's not a job requirement (and Obama has spoiled us).

Cult of personality, even in the caveats (how lucky we've been to be spoiled by a charismatic neoliberal!) and the follow up (Michelle Obama gives good speeches, yes). The problem with politics isn't that it's an "old boys club" but that it's responsive to the needs of ~10% of the population and can't address the negative effects of globalization and technological advances.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on October 05, 2016, 12:52:32 PM
Quote from: mr grieves on October 05, 2016, 12:26:10 PM
Quote from: herman on October 03, 2016, 02:11:37 PM
Would Hillary be a good president? I can't say for sure, but she sure seems measured, tactful, politically-savvy and tough enough to deal with the old boys club of politics (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/hillary-clinton-first-lady-white-house/502451/). She also seems to be trying to make changes for the betterment of the people of the country (and the world), even to the detriment of her own family's income. She can't pull off a joke to save a life but that's not a job requirement (and Obama has spoiled us).

Cult of personality, even in the caveats (how lucky we've been to be spoiled by a charismatic neoliberal!) and the follow up (Michelle Obama gives good speeches, yes). The problem with politics isn't that it's an "old boys club" but that it's responsive to the needs of ~10% of the population and can't address the negative effects of globalization and technological advances.

Thank you for outlining exactly why old boys clubs are the worst.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on October 05, 2016, 01:05:48 PM
Quote from: herman on October 05, 2016, 12:52:32 PM
Quote from: mr grieves on October 05, 2016, 12:26:10 PM
Quote from: herman on October 03, 2016, 02:11:37 PM
Would Hillary be a good president? I can't say for sure, but she sure seems measured, tactful, politically-savvy and tough enough to deal with the old boys club of politics (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/hillary-clinton-first-lady-white-house/502451/). She also seems to be trying to make changes for the betterment of the people of the country (and the world), even to the detriment of her own family's income. She can't pull off a joke to save a life but that's not a job requirement (and Obama has spoiled us).

Cult of personality, even in the caveats (how lucky we've been to be spoiled by a charismatic neoliberal!) and the follow up (Michelle Obama gives good speeches, yes). The problem with politics isn't that it's an "old boys club" but that it's responsive to the needs of ~10% of the population and can't address the negative effects of globalization and technological advances.

Thank you for outlining exactly why old boys clubs are the worst.

Not sure what you're trying to say here.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on October 05, 2016, 01:16:23 PM
Quote from: mr grieves on October 05, 2016, 01:05:48 PM
Quote from: herman on October 05, 2016, 12:52:32 PM
Quote from: mr grieves on October 05, 2016, 12:26:10 PM
Quote from: herman on October 03, 2016, 02:11:37 PM
Would Hillary be a good president? I can't say for sure, but she sure seems measured, tactful, politically-savvy and tough enough to deal with the old boys club of politics (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/hillary-clinton-first-lady-white-house/502451/). She also seems to be trying to make changes for the betterment of the people of the country (and the world), even to the detriment of her own family's income. She can't pull off a joke to save a life but that's not a job requirement (and Obama has spoiled us).

Cult of personality, even in the caveats (how lucky we've been to be spoiled by a charismatic neoliberal!) and the follow up (Michelle Obama gives good speeches, yes). The problem with politics isn't that it's an "old boys club" but that it's responsive to the needs of ~10% of the population and can't address the negative effects of globalization and technological advances.

Thank you for outlining exactly why old boys clubs are the worst.

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

Old boys clubs pander to their own needs, and can't handle change. I don't think we were saying different things.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on October 05, 2016, 01:29:27 PM
Quote from: herman on October 05, 2016, 01:16:23 PM
Quote from: mr grieves on October 05, 2016, 01:05:48 PM
Quote from: herman on October 05, 2016, 12:52:32 PM
Quote from: mr grieves on October 05, 2016, 12:26:10 PM
Quote from: herman on October 03, 2016, 02:11:37 PM
Would Hillary be a good president? I can't say for sure, but she sure seems measured, tactful, politically-savvy and tough enough to deal with the old boys club of politics (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/hillary-clinton-first-lady-white-house/502451/). She also seems to be trying to make changes for the betterment of the people of the country (and the world), even to the detriment of her own family's income. She can't pull off a joke to save a life but that's not a job requirement (and Obama has spoiled us).

Cult of personality, even in the caveats (how lucky we've been to be spoiled by a charismatic neoliberal!) and the follow up (Michelle Obama gives good speeches, yes). The problem with politics isn't that it's an "old boys club" but that it's responsive to the needs of ~10% of the population and can't address the negative effects of globalization and technological advances.

Thank you for outlining exactly why old boys clubs are the worst.

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

Old boys clubs pander to their own needs, and can't handle change. I don't think we were saying different things.

To the extent that you don't think Obama and Hillary are in the club, we are saying different things. There is plenty of room in it for not-old not-boys, provided the change the new entrants offer is purely symbolic, merely ceiling shattering.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on October 07, 2016, 11:29:27 PM

So not, in the strictest sense, a good night for Donald Trump.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on October 08, 2016, 10:07:05 AM
Have we hit bottom yet?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on October 08, 2016, 10:20:41 AM
Quote from: herman on October 08, 2016, 10:07:05 AM
Have we hit bottom yet?

Where we're going, we don't need bottoms.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on October 08, 2016, 11:05:00 AM
Quote from: L K on October 08, 2016, 10:20:41 AM
Quote from: herman on October 08, 2016, 10:07:05 AM
Have we hit bottom yet?

Where we're going, we don't need bottoms.

They'd just get grabbed anyway :(
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on October 08, 2016, 09:47:06 PM
We have hit a new bottom, of sorts!
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on October 08, 2016, 10:33:41 PM
Quote from: herman on October 08, 2016, 09:47:06 PM
We have hit a new bottom, of sorts!

I suspect there's still some descending left to go. The next debate will certainly be an interesting one. It does appear as though the GOP is reaching a tipping point they should have experienced by this time last year.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on October 09, 2016, 10:56:16 AM
Quote from: KGB on June 13, 2016, 02:11:23 PMFortunately for those of us that would have to live with a Clinton administration, you don't have that option.  I'm not a fan of Trump but he's made it possible to discuss issues that progressives have done their damndest to make off-limits.  For that alone he edges past Clinton, who has not one redeeming characteristic.

So do you remain a Trump guy?  If so, this is the article for you:

The Conservative Case Against Donald Trump (https://theringer.com/six-reasons-conservatives-should-not-vote-for-donald-trump-df1df2a9f8c5#.m9in4arj7)

There are a lot of folks out there who, like me, don't care one bit for Hillary Clinton — 53 percent of you, according to the latest Real Clear Politics average. Whether you are Republicans or Bernie bros or just people who have fully functioning auditory systems, you don't trust her, don't think she is in touch with your concerns, and don't really want her to be president.

I come before you today, Hillary haters, as one of your standard-bearers. I find her utterly loathsome. I literally wrote a book on her failures — you can buy it for the low, low price of 99 cents on Amazon dot com. I started the first anti-Hillary super PAC of the presidential cycle back in 2013. My bona fides are real.

But here is the painful reality. As truly awful as Hillary Clinton is, Donald Trump is far, FAR worse. It is not even close. Trump is a clear and present danger to our republic. And no matter how deep and abiding your mistrust is of Hillary, you cannot pull the lever for Trump. Let a charter member of the vast, right-wing anti-Clinton conspiracy convince you.

...


Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on October 09, 2016, 11:39:45 AM
Quote from: Heroic Shrimp on October 09, 2016, 10:56:16 AM
Quote from: KGB on June 13, 2016, 02:11:23 PMFortunately for those of us that would have to live with a Clinton administration, you don't have that option.  I'm not a fan of Trump but he's made it possible to discuss issues that progressives have done their damndest to make off-limits.  For that alone he edges past Clinton, who has not one redeeming characteristic.

So do you remain a Trump guy?

He is still discussing things progressives think are off-limits.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: McGarnagle on October 09, 2016, 12:30:30 PM
The problem I have with all the republican governors jumping off the bus at this point is that now they'll get to distance themselves, despite the ridiculousness they justified and supported for the last full year.

They should have to wear the hairshirt for the rest of their political lives.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on October 09, 2016, 12:42:50 PM
Quote from: McGarnagle on October 09, 2016, 12:30:30 PM
The problem I have with all the republican governors jumping off the bus at this point is that now they'll get to distance themselves, despite the ridiculousness they justified and supported for the last full year.

They should have to wear the hairshirt for the rest of their political lives.

My hunch is they will, more or less. Anyone who ever said "I support Donald Trump" or something like it on Camera will have that played at them and have to weakly explain they rescinded that support at some point.

At which point, if their opponents are smart, they'll ask "When did you change your mind? After his attacking a gold star family? After his racist comments about Judge Curiel? After..." and so on.

I don't know what extent it'll matter but it'll get used against them.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on October 09, 2016, 02:04:45 PM
My hope is this spills over into the House and Senate votes. It doesn't quite matter what President gets voted in if these Trump enablers are still camped out on Capitol Hill.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on October 09, 2016, 02:08:02 PM
Quote from: herman on October 09, 2016, 02:04:45 PM
My hope is this spills over into the House and Senate votes. It doesn't quite matter what President gets voted in if these Trump enablers are still camped out on Capitol Hill.

I get what you're saying but there's a massive world of difference between having a president whose agenda they want to obstruct and having a president who will let them do whatever they want.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on October 09, 2016, 07:54:04 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on October 09, 2016, 02:08:02 PM
Quote from: herman on October 09, 2016, 02:04:45 PM
My hope is this spills over into the House and Senate votes. It doesn't quite matter what President gets voted in if these Trump enablers are still camped out on Capitol Hill.

I get what you're saying but there's a massive world of difference between having a president whose agenda they want to obstruct and having a president who will let them do whatever they want.

I meant beyond Hillary's upcoming term. The Republicans executed a perfect gerrymander coup that has them set for at least this decade under normal voting patterns.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on October 11, 2016, 01:09:25 AM
Quote from: herman on October 09, 2016, 02:04:45 PM
My hope is this spills over into the House and Senate votes. It doesn't quite matter what President gets voted in if these Trump enablers are still camped out on Capitol Hill.

Agreed! The fewer Republicans for Clinton to work with -- finding "common ground" and "pragmatic solutions" to "problems" like America's meagre entitlements -- the better.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on October 11, 2016, 12:28:21 PM

It's hard not to see the race as all but over. Over at RCP, the States where Clinton is up by at least 5% points in their averages total 260 electoral votes(which doesn't include Minnesota which would itself clinch it). PEC has her chances at 95-97%. Even Nate Silver, who's seemed weirdly conservative this time around, has her at 84% just by the polls.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on October 11, 2016, 01:10:38 PM
This isn't even really accounting for the child rape case that is about to hit the mainstream news circuit.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on October 11, 2016, 01:19:12 PM
Quote from: herman on October 11, 2016, 01:10:38 PM
This isn't even really accounting for the child rape case that is about to hit the mainstream news circuit.

Hunh?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on October 11, 2016, 01:27:06 PM
Quote from: Significantly Insignificant on October 11, 2016, 01:19:12 PM
Quote from: herman on October 11, 2016, 01:10:38 PM
This isn't even really accounting for the child rape case that is about to hit the mainstream news circuit.

Hunh?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html

Trial set for mid-December.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on October 11, 2016, 01:38:27 PM
Quote from: herman on October 11, 2016, 01:10:38 PM
This isn't even really accounting for the child rape case that is about to hit the mainstream news circuit.

That's been out there for a while at this point and has been largely ignored. Just numbers-wise, it would take a minor miracle to flip things right now.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Omallley on October 11, 2016, 02:41:22 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on October 11, 2016, 12:28:21 PM
It's hard not to see the race as all but over. Over at RCP, the States where Clinton is up by at least 5% points in their averages total 260 electoral votes(which doesn't include Minnesota which would itself clinch it). PEC has her chances at 95-97%. Even Nate Silver, who's seemed weirdly conservative this time around, has her at 84% just by the polls.

He (and others) were burned by Trump during the primaries in the sense that they didn't give him much/any chance to win (great read on that retrospective (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/)) which could be informing some of that conservative-ness.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on October 11, 2016, 02:51:52 PM
Quote from: Omallley on October 11, 2016, 02:41:22 PM
He (and others) were burned by Trump during the primaries in the sense that they didn't give him much/any chance to win (great read on that retrospective (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/)) which could be informing some of that conservative-ness.

Yeah, I'm not enough of a stats guy to really have intelligent things to say re: the various methods he uses it just strikes me that his "Polls-Plus" model effectively does the same thing as he's saying tripped him up here.

That said, we're just talking about the difference between a few percentage points but it still strikes me as odd. Either way, I'm happy to go with the PEC and RCP stuff.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on October 20, 2016, 09:21:25 AM
This:
https://twitter.com/AntonioFrench/status/788928579086217216

Led to these:
https://twitter.com/CatherineQ/status/788957876387737600
https://twitter.com/sam_aye_ahm/status/788958033674137600
https://twitter.com/noblerzen/status/788944742788829184
https://twitter.com/BrentSirota/status/789056761831497728
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Gerald The Duck on October 20, 2016, 01:11:45 PM
Quote from: herman on October 20, 2016, 09:21:25 AM
This:
https://twitter.com/AntonioFrench/status/788928579086217216

Led to these:
https://twitter.com/CatherineQ/status/788957876387737600
https://twitter.com/sam_aye_ahm/status/788958033674137600
https://twitter.com/noblerzen/status/788944742788829184
https://twitter.com/BrentSirota/status/789056761831497728
That's awesome
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on October 20, 2016, 10:07:59 PM
In a nutshell...

"Trump hasn't managed to ignite some White Power movement...what he's done is relegitimize attitudes that had become unacceptable in polite conversation and often career-ending in public discourse."

Sad.

"[Republicans now] owe it to the country to clean up after themselves.  It's time to renounce and marginalize the last vestiges of a 1950's social order --if not from a moral imperative, then surely from a political one".

About time.


https://ca.news.yahoo.com/the-trump-show-is-ending-sad-134109964.html (https://ca.news.yahoo.com/the-trump-show-is-ending-sad-134109964.html)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bullfrog on October 21, 2016, 10:56:40 AM
(https://i.redd.it/2wqatcl4jrsx.jpg)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: McGarnagle on October 22, 2016, 09:25:16 AM
Quote from: Bullfrog on October 21, 2016, 10:56:40 AM

"hey, I'm trying to eat lunch here"
-McGarnagle
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on October 25, 2016, 01:27:35 PM
Another day, another ugh

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/24/inside-donald-trump-s-one-stop-parties-attendees-recall-cocaine-and-very-young-models.html
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on November 01, 2016, 10:08:13 AM
There's a lot flying down the pipe right now as we hit the home stretch.

- ComeyGate
- Trumppet of Putin
- NC vote-rigging

and this:

I'm not into poking fun of illiteracy or learning impediments, but when it's a pompous sociopathic rapist/racist/misogynist/eugenicist/tax evader running for the highest office I'm okay making the exception.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on November 04, 2016, 01:50:59 PM

I tell you with some of the statistical models tightening and the panic on my twitter feed I'm having a solid three or four "Thank fudge I'm Canadian" moments a day.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on November 04, 2016, 02:01:13 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on November 04, 2016, 01:50:59 PM

I tell you with some of the statistical models tightening and the panic on my twitter feed I'm having a solid three or four "Thank fudge I'm Canadian" moments a day.

I think that too, but then I remember we're in the blast and fallout radii.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on November 04, 2016, 02:09:42 PM
There is no way Americans follow through with this protest to the ultimate end....is there??  Surely they just hold their noses and vote Hillary when the ultimate decision has to be made??  No matter how much they dislike and distrust Hillary they can't elect Trump to stop her can they??
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on November 04, 2016, 02:15:18 PM
Quote from: herman on November 04, 2016, 02:01:13 PM
I think that too, but then I remember we're in the blast and fallout radii.

You just have to remember that Buffalo is probably the least strategically important city they have.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on November 04, 2016, 02:22:13 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on November 04, 2016, 02:15:18 PM
Quote from: herman on November 04, 2016, 02:01:13 PM
I think that too, but then I remember we're in the blast and fallout radii.

You just have to remember that Buffalo is probably the least strategically important city they have.

And Detroit is already basically in a post-nuclear explosion state already.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on November 04, 2016, 02:22:29 PM
Quote from: Bates on November 04, 2016, 02:09:42 PM
There is no way Americans follow through with this protest to the ultimate end....is there??  Surely they just hold their noses and vote Hillary when the ultimate decision has to be made??  No matter how much they dislike and distrust Hillary they can't elect Trump to stop her can they??

The big fear is that all that closet racists show up and vote Trump.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on November 04, 2016, 02:44:51 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on November 04, 2016, 02:22:13 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on November 04, 2016, 02:15:18 PM
Quote from: herman on November 04, 2016, 02:01:13 PM
I think that too, but then I remember we're in the blast and fallout radii.

You just have to remember that Buffalo is probably the least strategically important city they have.

And Detroit is already basically in a post-nuclear explosion state already.

Whatever the case may be, the safest place is probably wherever Ovechkin is.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on November 04, 2016, 03:23:48 PM
Quote from: herman on November 04, 2016, 02:44:51 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on November 04, 2016, 02:22:13 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on November 04, 2016, 02:15:18 PM
Quote from: herman on November 04, 2016, 02:01:13 PM
I think that too, but then I remember we're in the blast and fallout radii.

You just have to remember that Buffalo is probably the least strategically important city they have.

And Detroit is already basically in a post-nuclear explosion state already.

Whatever the case may be, the safest place is probably wherever Ovechkin is.

Considering his home base, that going to be heavily dependent on who's pissing off who.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on November 07, 2016, 06:17:58 PM

Anyone with a prediction? I like it as Clinton 307, Trump 231
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on November 07, 2016, 06:43:25 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on November 07, 2016, 06:17:58 PM
Anyone with a prediction? I like it as Clinton 307, Trump 231

I think it could be a little closer than that - Clinton 301, Trump 237 - but, I'm really hoping McMullin pulls off the victory in Utah, making it Clinton 301, Trump 231, McMullin 6.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: TBLeafer on November 08, 2016, 09:28:42 AM
So what's it gonna be tonight?  Armageddon or just WWIII?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on November 08, 2016, 11:46:23 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwwAugjXAAAgBwx.jpg:large)

Off to a great start.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on November 08, 2016, 12:22:35 PM
Pfft. Election laws aren't real laws . . . :o
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on November 08, 2016, 12:36:13 PM

Safe to say that Trump will be one of the very few Candidates in the last 100 or so years to lose their home states.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: jdh1 on November 08, 2016, 01:01:10 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on November 07, 2016, 06:17:58 PM

Anyone with a prediction? I like it as Clinton 307, Trump 231
[/quote

Trump  280 ,Clinton 258
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: louisstamos on November 08, 2016, 01:21:35 PM
I'll go with Hillary 322, Trump 216.

I also think Trump will actually win Ohio, but nonetheless lose the Presidency.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on November 08, 2016, 02:01:19 PM
https://twitter.com/natemcdermott/status/796047207816368130
www.twitter.com/natemcdermott/status/796047207816368130

Huh so they're both illiterate.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: crazyperfectdevil on November 08, 2016, 02:05:23 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on November 08, 2016, 02:01:19 PM
https://twitter.com/natemcdermott/status/796047207816368130
www.twitter.com/natemcdermott/status/796047207816368130

Huh so they're both illiterate.

here i figured it was because in both cases they weren't sure who the other was voting for
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on November 08, 2016, 03:02:58 PM
I figured it was because they didn't know how to write an X.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on November 08, 2016, 03:05:23 PM
If anybody thought that Trump was going to go down quietly:

QuoteIn a sign that the legal team for the Trump campaign is aggressively laying the groundwork for potential legal challenges -- big and small -- lawyers have gone to state court in Nevada in an early vote dispute.

They are suing Joe P. Gloria, the Clark County registrar of voters, over a decision they allege he made to keep polling locations open "two hours beyond the designated closing time." The lawsuit targets polling places in the greater Las Vegas area that have larger minority voting precincts.

Dan Kulin, a spokesperson for the county, told CNN that no early voting stations extended their closing times. They did, however, process voters who were in line at closing time to allow as many people to vote as possible.

...

Clark County, which includes the suburbs of Las Vegas, has a large Hispanic population and could figure prominently in who wins the White House.

At Saturday's rally, Trump suggested that the polling location's extended closing time to allow voters to cast their ballots was a sign of a "rigged system" pitted against his campaign.

"It's being reported that certain key Democratic polling locations in Clark County were kept open for hours and hours beyond closing time to bus and bring democratic voters in. Folks, it's a rigged system. It's a rigged system and we're going to beat it. We're going to beat it," Trump said.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/08/politics/nevada-voting-lawsuit-donald-trump/index.html

A) As the article points out, if you're in line at closing time you still have the right to vote

B) Imagine being so dumb you think that allowing people the right to vote is a sign of a rigged system.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on November 08, 2016, 03:16:51 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on November 08, 2016, 03:05:23 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/08/politics/nevada-voting-lawsuit-donald-trump/index.html

A) As the article points out, if you're in line at closing time you still have the right to vote

B) Imagine being so dumb you think that allowing people the right to vote is a sign of a rigged system.

Sadly, this is likely only the beginning. You can be sure that, after he loses tonight and as soon as the courts open tomorrow, there'll be a flood of lawsuits from Trump and his supporters. Because of how they've completely rejected any media sources that aren't Breitbart/Drudge Report/etc., they're living in their own little fantasy world that's so detached from reality that anything other than a massive Trump victory will be illegitimate in their eyes.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on November 08, 2016, 03:26:46 PM
I don't think I posted this yet:


I love Poppy Carlton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_Royal).
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Tigger on November 08, 2016, 04:02:37 PM
'Schroedinger's cat of candidates', awesome.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on November 08, 2016, 04:24:51 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on November 08, 2016, 03:05:23 PM
If anybody thought that Trump was going to go down quietly:

[cut]

A) As the article points out, if you're in line at closing time you still have the right to vote

B) Imagine being so dumb you think that allowing people the right to vote is a sign of a rigged system.

So, yeah, the Judge didn't have a lot of time for this nonsense.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on November 08, 2016, 09:02:55 PM
https://twitter.com/fbcso/status/796151174202347520
www.twitter.com/fbcso/status/796151174202347520

lol
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on November 08, 2016, 09:41:03 PM
That this election is actually close is pathetic
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on November 08, 2016, 10:04:35 PM
Quote from: L K on November 08, 2016, 09:41:03 PM
That this election is actually close is pathetic

Unsurprisingly, Trump is winning the racist redneck Southern states. What I wonder about is how much the email stupidity dampened some of the turn out for Clinton. The announcement that they found nothing definitely did not get the kind of traction she needed to undo the damage that was done by Comey's stupidity.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on November 08, 2016, 10:18:04 PM
Everything will be fine... right?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on November 08, 2016, 10:19:25 PM

That does it. I'm moving to Canada.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on November 08, 2016, 10:24:24 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on November 08, 2016, 10:18:04 PM
Everything will be fine... right?

We'll build a wall, and make the Americans pay for it.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on November 08, 2016, 10:25:19 PM
Yeah, really not liking where things are heading.  Good old wonderful FBI that derailed this thing.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on November 08, 2016, 10:38:03 PM
Quote from: L K on November 08, 2016, 10:25:19 PM
Yeah, really not liking where things are heading.  Good old wonderful FBI that derailed this thing.

That and idiots who vote 3rd party, especially in key states:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwyLmHTUkAAeAc1?format=jpg&name=large)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on November 08, 2016, 10:42:36 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on November 08, 2016, 10:38:03 PM
That and idiots who vote 3rd party, especially in key states:

There's also a significant number of "Bernie or Bust" voters who have decided that standing firm to supporting their "grass roots" movement (that decided it didn't need to grow from the grass roots, but, from the top down) is more important than preventing a dangerous demagogue from taking power.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on November 08, 2016, 11:03:10 PM
Hopefully, Clinton can hold Virginia, because you know that's a state Trump would love to grab. ;)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Arn on November 08, 2016, 11:16:14 PM
New York Times has Trump at 72% likely to win and all the bookies are starting to show him as favourite also...
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on November 08, 2016, 11:18:29 PM
Quote from: Arn on November 08, 2016, 11:16:14 PM
New York Times has Trump at 72% likely to win and all the bookies are starting to show him as favourite also...

I feel like tomorrow the collective expression in America will be "Wait, what?"
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on November 08, 2016, 11:22:17 PM
So, we really are watching America's series finale, huh?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on November 08, 2016, 11:23:43 PM
The god damn garbage media needs to be shot into the sun.  Two years.   They had almost two years to hold Donald's ass to the fire for having dick all when it came to policy.   Instead they propped him up for friging entertainment and the reality is that a large percentage of the US is full of dumb idiots who ate it up.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on November 08, 2016, 11:25:02 PM
The West coast can still turn this around... right?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on November 08, 2016, 11:26:14 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on November 08, 2016, 11:25:02 PM
The West coast can still turn this around... right?

55 electoral votes in Cali that are guaranteed to go blue.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Gerald The Duck on November 08, 2016, 11:29:51 PM
I mean they say there's no air in outer space...but I'm starting to wonder, how bad is it really?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on November 08, 2016, 11:30:04 PM
Trump has already taken Ohio and Florida.  He's ahead in Michigan. 

I'm making bricks right now to build our wall.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: azzurri63 on November 08, 2016, 11:33:29 PM
Unbelievable actually. I agree with you L K.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on November 08, 2016, 11:39:07 PM
Emails. This is all because of goddamn emails.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on November 08, 2016, 11:41:19 PM
 
Nah. Emails was a convenient cudgel but this is about people not liking Hillary Clinton, extreme polarization and, let's be real, Donald Trump's views being sadly representative of a lot of people.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on November 08, 2016, 11:43:47 PM
Now remember boys and girls.  The only way to get ahead is to be born with a silver spoon, molest women, hold anti-semetic views, and be racist.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on November 09, 2016, 12:15:50 AM
So what happens when Mexico doesn't pay to build the wall?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on November 09, 2016, 12:24:35 AM
Quote from: Significantly Insignificant on November 09, 2016, 12:15:50 AM
So what happens when Mexico doesn't pay to build the wall?

I suppose that depends on how closely Trump follows the misogynist, racist, homophobic, bigoted demagogue playbook.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: jdh1 on November 09, 2016, 12:52:56 AM
I told you guys that Trump won the debates.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: TBLeafer on November 09, 2016, 12:58:58 AM
Trump didn't get euchred and Weiner put the final screws to Hillary.

Ain't America great?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: TBLeafer on November 09, 2016, 01:16:31 AM
One of our closest neighbours to the South... Michigan, seems to have been the state that gave the election to Trump.

Doesn't that just punch you in all your tender places?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Mostar on November 09, 2016, 02:52:55 AM
I suspected for quite some time now that the Western Empire was starting to deteriorate.

Here she goes...

I wonder who the new overlords will be?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Tigger on November 09, 2016, 05:34:28 AM
Quote from: Mostar on November 09, 2016, 02:52:55 AM
I suspected for quite some time now that the Western Empire was starting to deteriorate.

Here she goes...

I wonder who the new overlords will be?

Same as the old Overlords, in 1080.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on November 09, 2016, 07:26:04 AM
Looks like the media and the pollsters in general, may have lost some credibility here.  Not only did they all underestimate Trump winning the Republican nomination a year ago, but again, the same mistake was made in their predictions and most importantly, projections in determining the eventual President-elect.

In winning, Trump has practically thrown pie in their faces, especially CNN who had him cast as the devil's advocate in a suit.  It's pretty obvious no one saw this victory coming, much less expected it.  It happened.  What's done, is now done.

Everybody was wrong. Again.

When Election Day dawned, almost all the pollsters, analytics nerds and political insiders in the country had Hillary Clinton waltzing into the White House.

By the time polls had closed nationwide on Tuesday night, those projections had been left in shambles — just like the ones a year ago that all-but ruled out the possibility of Donald Trump winning the Republican Party's presidential nomination.

The Republican nominee's surprisingly strong performance, which left the race on a razor's edge at the publication of this story, seemed to at least partly validate his claims that many polls "just put out phony numbers."

And it left pollsters and operatives struggling to explain how everyone had been so far off. There was too great a belief that demographics are destiny, and that demographics would lead to a certain outcome," he said. "The reality turned out to be much different that."

"The pollsters have lost a lot of credibility and won't be believed on anything soon," said Jonathan Barnett, a Republican National Committeeman from Arkansas who supported Trump. "The way they poll doesn't work anymore.

Some pointed to the possibility of "hidden Trump voters," who were embarrassed to admit even anonymously to pollsters that they planned to support Trump.

"The very premise of polling is based on the idea that voters will be completely honest with total strangers," said veteran GOP operative Ned Ryun, who runs a grassroots group called American Majority and had announced his intent to run for Republican National Committee chairman if Trump lost.

Others pointed to the surge in momentum Trump received when the FBI announced 11 days before the election that it was reviewing new evidence related to its investigation into the handling of sensitive information by Clinton and her aides at the State Department.

But operatives on both sides of the aisle agreed the damage was done.

They pointed out that Trump was out-performing projections in states that had minimal early voting, such as New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

"The bad headlines hurt her this past week," said conservative operative Brendan Steinhauser, a staunch Trump critic. "Trump had the momentum and the enthusiasm at just the right time.

nd the Republican National Committee's investment over the past three years in its ground game, once regarded as a significant liability, was getting renewed attention as Trump's electoral vote count mounted.

While Trump's campaign lacked anywhere close to the field staff and offices maintained Clinton's operation, the RNC had worked to make up the difference, funding 315 field offices staffed by 6,012 paid employees and fellows.

Pro-Trump operatives argued that even when some polls hinted at Trump's strength, it was ignored or explained away by the media and analysts.

"Most of the press and folks in DC were science deniers when it came to this election," said veteran GOP operative Curt Anderson, an adviser to a pro-Trump super PAC. "Even in the face of polls that showed it very close, they all said that Trump had almost no chance. It was because they couldn't imagine it happening."

He added that "they are in a bubble, and that bubble has just been burst."


http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/how-did-everyone-get-2016-wrong-presidential-election-231036
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on November 09, 2016, 07:47:42 AM
How will Trump and his policies (and beliefs) on issues related to the environment, defence & security (NATO, NORAD), trade (NAFTA, TPP), foreign policy, etc., affect Canada, for better or for worse?

Read on:
http://globalnews.ca/news/3051049/what-president-donald-trump-will-mean-for-canada/ (http://globalnews.ca/news/3051049/what-president-donald-trump-will-mean-for-canada/)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on November 09, 2016, 08:05:00 AM
Trump President.  Republican Senate.  Republican House. 

What a cess pool of a country.  For all of the "but my Bernie" supporters.  Enjoy your poverty.  Idiots.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bullfrog on November 09, 2016, 08:52:37 AM
I live on the western shore of Lake Superior. I'll start building the wall from there and head west. Potvin, you head east towards Toronto.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Potvin29 on November 09, 2016, 09:01:24 AM
Never seen a more unqualified candidate and the people around him are just as insane and scary.  Can't even fathom electing a more loathsome human being.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on November 09, 2016, 09:11:59 AM
It's just insane how we up here voted in Trudeau just a year ago when he ran on almost the polar opposite campaign Trump did. At least when it came to things like love/fear, LGBT rights, womens rights, Muslims immigrants/Syrian refugees, being a decent human being.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: TBLeafer on November 09, 2016, 09:19:00 AM
I feel numb.  Fear mongering and hate won over the majority of Americans.  Sad.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: TimKerr on November 09, 2016, 09:32:07 AM
This is a horrible result but please do not underestimate  people's feelings towards Hillary. The fact that Trump won Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and is so close in Michigan. All those male white blue-collar workers flipped from Obama to Trump.
Everyone says this election is about racism but I wonder if it is more about sexism. They could have fathom a black President but not a female one.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: TBLeafer on November 09, 2016, 09:35:27 AM
Well, the rest of the world is taking no time to prepare for Trump's Presidency.

[tweet]796332711526957056[/tweet]

Tom Knowles
‏@tkbeynon
BAE Systems, one of the biggest weapons manufacturers in the world, has seen its shares hit a record high today on that Trump victory

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cw0kEK2XgAAN05v.jpg)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Boston Leaf on November 09, 2016, 09:51:11 AM
As an American who voted in this election I am sickened and saddened. I am far from a Hillary supporter too.. But I didn't want to waste a vote or write one in.. so extremely reluctantly I voted for HC. I just couldn't vote for a guy who has said and done so many awful things and continuously put fear in Americans...I do not for a second think of moving or any of that crazy stuff. I still love my country.. but am really concerned of what the future holds right now...
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on November 09, 2016, 10:15:00 AM
I have three kids, ages 6, 8, and 11.  The two oldest ones went to bed stressed that Trump might win, and they woke up scared about what is going to happen in the world.

In the 80's, when Reagan was running for his second term, I was around their age.  The stories that got told were that if Reagan got elected, that world war three would happen.  He got elected, and while that immediate result did not happen, one could argue that a lot of Reagans policies in that second term lead to the problems that are occurring in the middle east now.  In thinking about that, we shouldn't be worried about what is going to happen immediately, we should worry about the state that the world is going to be in in 10 years.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: TBLeafer on November 09, 2016, 10:23:04 AM
Quote from: Significantly Insignificant on November 09, 2016, 10:15:00 AM
I have three kids, ages 6, 8, and 11.  The two oldest ones went to bed stressed that Trump might win, and they woke up scared about what is going to happen in the world.

In the 80's, when Reagan was running for his second term, I was around their age.  The stories that got told were that if Reagan got elected, that world war three would happen.  He got elected, and while that immediate result did not happen, one could argue that a lot of Reagans policies in that second term lead to the problems that are occurring in the middle east now.  In thinking about that, we shouldn't be worried about what is going to happen immediately, we should worry about the state that the world is going to be in in 10 years.

More WMD's at the ready in every nation that can afford them, apparently. Even ones that can't.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Arn on November 09, 2016, 10:29:23 AM
Quote from: Bullfrog on November 09, 2016, 08:52:37 AM
I live on the western shore of Lake Superior. I'll start building the wall from there and head west. Potvin, you head east towards Toronto.

How do yo think we feel in Ireland?

(https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15032657_1105387382911727_7509232663978949532_n.jpg?oh=66e0991fe92d0e02c20920e4260881e7&oe=58870ABD)

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on November 09, 2016, 10:32:23 AM
America's Brexit.

Turns out if you give bigoted racists an option, they'll check over their shoulder and vote with their tiny mind.

This morning I'm trying to take a deep breath and find any potential positives going forward.

As half of an interracial marriage in Texas, I'm dealing with a scared spouse and a little mixed race child who faces an uncertain future.

I think it's probably the best we try to move, we already get a lot of disapproving looks now and honestly I'm not sure I could keep the red mist at bay if any of these small minded fools who feel emboldened by this, open their mouth and cast their aspersions our way.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on November 09, 2016, 10:43:09 AM

Don't blame me, I voted for Kessel.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on November 09, 2016, 10:47:49 AM
Quote from: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on November 09, 2016, 10:32:23 AM
America's Brexit.

Turns out if you give bigoted racists an option, they'll check over their shoulder and vote with their tiny mind.

This morning I'm trying to take a deep breath and find any potential positives going forward.

As half of an interracial marriage in Texas, I'm dealing with a scared spouse and a little mixed race child who faces an uncertain future.

I think it's probably the best we try to move, we already get a lot of disapproving looks now and honestly I'm not sure I could keep the red mist at bay if any of these small minded fools who feel emboldened by this, open their mouth and cast their aspersions our way.

You know what I think this highlights for me, and why I find this so disappointing is that for years it felt like the human race was making progress towards acceptance.  For years it felt that we were starting to reconcile some of the bad things from our past.  This morning highlighted that there hasn't been any progress made really, and the same old problems exist today that did 30, 40, 100 years ago.  We think that we are becoming a more civilized entity, but really all that is happening is that the problems are being shoved under the rug, and all it takes is an individual to come along and uplift that rug to expose all the problems again.

The sad thing about all of this for me is that it cements the idea that you can't fight craziness.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on November 09, 2016, 12:43:11 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004708101/hillary-clinton-concession-speech-live-stream.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Clinton's concession speech
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on November 09, 2016, 12:50:16 PM
Bill looks absolutely demolished. I honestly can't believe that Hilary is as composed as she is. I struggle to talk about this in real life and like most people here (Canadian, white, male) this effects me the least.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on November 09, 2016, 12:58:16 PM
Obama said something in his interview with Samantha Bee last week in regards to what he wants his legacy to be that's really stuck with me. This was his answer:

"I feel confident that we can build on the progress we've made around climate change, clean energy, healthcare, making the economy work better for everybody... all that feels good to me but the thing that I care most about is making sure that there's a generation of young people who are following me and Michelle and if we can look back 20 years from now and say to ourselves, wow there are a whole bunch of people who were inspired by what we did and are doing it even better, then we'll feel pretty good."

I hope to god that still happens.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on November 09, 2016, 01:01:38 PM
https://twitter.com/EByard/status/796317753749729280
www.twitter.com/EByard/status/796317753749729280

Millennials rule. Take as many snapchats and selfies as you want.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: louisstamos on November 09, 2016, 01:03:54 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on November 09, 2016, 01:01:38 PM
https://twitter.com/EByard/status/796317753749729280
www.twitter.com/EByard/status/796317753749729280

Millennials rule. Take as many snapchats and selfies as you want.

11,000 people also voted for Harambe - so, you know, there's still ways to go...
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on November 09, 2016, 01:05:03 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on November 09, 2016, 01:01:38 PM
Millennials rule. Take as many snapchats and selfies as you want.

This is what's giving me hope today. Trump is the last lingering gift from the Baby Boomers and Co. As long as we can survive him, we can be secure in knowing that the future is going to be much more progressive than the present.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on November 09, 2016, 01:07:29 PM

Thing is, and I don't want to snuff out candles here, but I wonder how that would compare to say % of how young people voted 20 or 30 years ago. Is that a real sign of shifting political priorities or a fairly standard sign of generational divide?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bill_Berg_is_sad on November 09, 2016, 01:18:33 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on November 09, 2016, 01:07:29 PM

Thing is, and I don't want to snuff out candles here, but I wonder how that would compare to say % of how young people voted 20 or 30 years ago. Is that a real sign of shifting political priorities or a fairly standard sign of generational divide?

Meaning those blue votes will turn red when those young people reach their 50s become jaded and possibly racist?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on November 09, 2016, 01:21:17 PM
Quote from: Bill_Berg on November 09, 2016, 01:18:33 PM
Meaning those blue votes will turn red when those young people reach their 50s become jaded and possibly racist?

If you buy the idea that a lot of Trump's vote was based on disenfranchisement and economic anxiety then, yeah, maybe.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bullfrog on November 09, 2016, 03:40:31 PM
Quote from: Bill_Berg on November 09, 2016, 01:18:33 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on November 09, 2016, 01:07:29 PM

Thing is, and I don't want to snuff out candles here, but I wonder how that would compare to say % of how young people voted 20 or 30 years ago. Is that a real sign of shifting political priorities or a fairly standard sign of generational divide?

Meaning those blue votes will turn red when those young people reach their 50s become jaded and possibly racist?

I think we need to be careful with suggesting those who vote Republican are possibly racist.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bender on November 09, 2016, 03:48:18 PM
Really?

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on November 09, 2016, 03:49:14 PM
Quote from: Bullfrog on November 09, 2016, 03:40:31 PM
I think we need to be careful with suggesting those who vote Republican are possibly racist.

It would be wrong to say they're definitely racist but they're certainly possibly racist.

Either way, they're certainly ok with voting for a racist which isn't yards better.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: louisstamos on November 09, 2016, 04:00:03 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on November 09, 2016, 03:49:14 PM
Quote from: Bullfrog on November 09, 2016, 03:40:31 PM
I think we need to be careful with suggesting those who vote Republican are possibly racist.

It would be wrong to say they're definitely racist but they're certainly possibly racist.

Either way, they're certainly ok with voting for a racist which isn't yards better.

As a rule, though, people are self interested.  Trump came out explicitly saying he was going to save rust belt jobs in decline (automotive, coal), which is exactly that they wanted to hear.  A lot of people in Michigan and Wisconsin who have voted Obama twice (and probably Kerry and Gore before that) voted Trump, and basically said "yeah, he's a deplorable human being...but at least he'll fight to save my job."

Of course, what that does is it legitimizes those who did vote for Trump because their anti-progressive policies line up with Trump's views. They can now boldly claim that the majority of the country agrees that should ban all Muslims, that they're okay with the objectification of women - when in fact, a lot of people in those swing states particularly didn't like those things, but held their noses and voted for Trump just because they wanted to keep their jobs, lower taxes, etc.

On top of which, looking at the exit polls, the majority of people who voted Trump are white men.  They don't really concern themselves with him being a racist or sexist because it doesn't affect them personally.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Frank E on November 09, 2016, 04:01:28 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on November 09, 2016, 03:49:14 PM
Quote from: Bullfrog on November 09, 2016, 03:40:31 PM
I think we need to be careful with suggesting those who vote Republican are possibly racist.

It would be wrong to say they're definitely racist but they're certainly possibly racist.

Either way, they're certainly ok with voting for a racist which isn't yards better.

What about the suggestion that Hilary was a racist as well, due to racist statements in the past?

And really, aren't the Trump statements more xenophobic than racist?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Frank E on November 09, 2016, 04:06:44 PM
Quote from: louisstamos on November 09, 2016, 04:00:03 PM
As a rule, though, people are self interested.  Trump came out explicitly saying he was going to save rust belt jobs in decline (automotive, coal), which is exactly that they wanted to hear.  A lot of people in Michigan and Wisconsin who have voted Obama twice (and probably Kerry and Gore before that) voted Trump, and basically said "yeah, he's a deplorable human being...but at least he'll fight to save my job."

Yeah, I think this might be the case. 
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on November 09, 2016, 04:14:14 PM
Quote from: louisstamos on November 09, 2016, 04:00:03 PM
As a rule, though, people are self interested.  Trump came out explicitly saying he was going to save rust belt jobs in decline (automotive, coal), which is exactly that they wanted to hear.  A lot of people in Michigan and Wisconsin who have voted Obama twice (and probably Kerry and Gore before that) voted Trump, and basically said "yeah, he's a deplorable human being...but at least he'll fight to save my job."

Of course, what that does is it legitimizes those who did vote for Trump because their anti-progressive policies line up with Trump's views. They can now boldly claim that the majority of the country agrees that should ban all Muslims, that they're okay with the objectification of women - when in fact, a lot of people in those swing states particularly didn't like those things, but held their noses and voted for Trump just because they wanted to keep their jobs, lower taxes, etc.

On top of which, looking at the exit polls, the majority of people who voted Trump are white men.  They don't really concern themselves with him being a racist or sexist because it doesn't affect them personally.

I don't fundamentally disagree with any of this(although Trump also won a majority of white women who you'd like to think do care more about that sexism). Like I said, I'm not willing to call all of his voters racist but they did vote for one and there's a limit to the extent to which I'm going to empathize with economic self-interest in that context.

edit: Also Trump's tax plan will increase taxes on a lot of those people.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on November 09, 2016, 04:18:33 PM
Quote from: Frank E on November 09, 2016, 04:01:28 PM
What about the suggestion that Hilary was a racist as well, due to racist statements in the past?

I think that suggestion is nonsense and a willful distortion of something Hillary said while advocating a policy of her husband's, not her own.

Quote from: Frank E on November 09, 2016, 04:01:28 PM
And really, aren't the Trump statements more xenophobic than racist?

The great thing about the President-Elect is that there's enough of both. Feel free to say that bans on Muslims or a wall to keep out Mexican rapists is xenophobic rather than racist but you can't really say the same about saying that an American-born federal judge can't fairly do his job because of his ethnicity or that black people everywhere live in violent inner cities.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on November 09, 2016, 04:19:25 PM
Perhaps some day, America will have a female President.  For now, it will still be a very bitter pill to those who believed in that dream coming to fruition and to watch it fade far & away,  in a stunning and stinging defeat.

Clinton...addressed the historic achievement for which she twice strived in losing presidential campaigns.

"I know we have still not shattered that highest and hardest glass ceiling, but someday, someone will, and hopefully sooner than we might think right now."

"And to all the little girls who are watching this, never doubt that you are valuable and powerful and deserving of every chance and opportunity in the world to pursue and to achieve your own dreams."

....she also put Trump on notice that the core American values which many Democrats believe Trump abhors, citing his proposals for a ban on Muslim immigration and rhetorical assaults on female journalists during his campaign, would not be forgotten.

"Our constitutional democracy enshrines the peaceful transfer of power and we don't just respect that, we cherish it. It also enshrines other things: the rule of law, the principle that we are equal in rights and dignity, freedom of worship and expression. We respect and cherish these values too and we must defend them."

Her speech marked a bitter conclusion to a campaign that will be remembered for failing to fully energize Democratic voters and for squandering the party's traditional heartlands in states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/clinton-to-offer-remarks-in-new-york-city/
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Boston Leaf on November 09, 2016, 04:19:46 PM
I guess Trump set a precedent too. No one running for Prez in future need to have any experience nor have to show his/her taxes
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: louisstamos on November 09, 2016, 04:19:52 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on November 09, 2016, 04:14:14 PM
Quote from: louisstamos on November 09, 2016, 04:00:03 PM
As a rule, though, people are self interested.  Trump came out explicitly saying he was going to save rust belt jobs in decline (automotive, coal), which is exactly that they wanted to hear.  A lot of people in Michigan and Wisconsin who have voted Obama twice (and probably Kerry and Gore before that) voted Trump, and basically said "yeah, he's a deplorable human being...but at least he'll fight to save my job."

Of course, what that does is it legitimizes those who did vote for Trump because their anti-progressive policies line up with Trump's views. They can now boldly claim that the majority of the country agrees that should ban all Muslims, that they're okay with the objectification of women - when in fact, a lot of people in those swing states particularly didn't like those things, but held their noses and voted for Trump just because they wanted to keep their jobs, lower taxes, etc.

On top of which, looking at the exit polls, the majority of people who voted Trump are white men.  They don't really concern themselves with him being a racist or sexist because it doesn't affect them personally.

I don't fundamentally disagree with any of this(although Trump also won a majority of white women who you'd like to think do care more about that sexism). Like I said, I'm not willing to call all of his voters racist but they did vote for one and there's a limit to the extent to which I'm going to empathize with economic self-interest in that context.

edit: Also Trump's tax plan will increase taxes on a lot of those people.

That's pretty much where I'm at too.  I'm curious how many will have buyers' remorse after a few months in.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Frank E on November 09, 2016, 04:31:39 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on November 09, 2016, 04:18:33 PM
Quote from: Frank E on November 09, 2016, 04:01:28 PM
What about the suggestion that Hilary was a racist as well, due to racist statements in the past?

I think that suggestion is nonsense and a willful distortion of something Hillary said while advocating a policy of her husband's, not her own.

Quote from: Frank E on November 09, 2016, 04:01:28 PM
And really, aren't the Trump statements more xenophobic than racist?

The great thing about the President-Elect is that there's enough of both. Feel free to say that bans on Muslims or a wall to keep out Mexican rapists is xenophobic rather than racist but you can't really say the same about saying that an American-born federal judge can't fairly do his job because of his ethnicity or that black people everywhere live in violent inner cities.

Fair enough, and I don't necessarily disagree.  I do find, however, that too many people attribute racism to statements that really aren't racist.  It's a word that has had its meaning diluted.  Many people use the term racism when they mean xenophobic or stereotyping.

I'm no Trump fan, and I think he's full of shit, but the Democrats really screwed this one up.  Hillary's platform was a bunch of nothingness.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on November 09, 2016, 04:54:51 PM
Quote from: Frank E on November 09, 2016, 04:31:39 PM
Fair enough, and I don't necessarily disagree.  I do find, however, that too many people attribute racism to statements that really aren't racist.  It's a word that has had its meaning diluted.  Many people use the term racism when they mean xenophobic or stereotyping.

I'm no Trump fan, and I think he's full of shit, but the Democrats really screwed this one up.  Hillary's platform was a bunch of nothingness.

I agree with everything you wrote here to one extent or another. The thing of it is that this isn't really even a Left-Right thing. Trump's positions on a lot of things are probably further to the Left than Hillary's. It was just establishment vs. let's throw a grenade into the establishment.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on November 09, 2016, 04:55:25 PM
The real reason Trump won...the economy:

Economists aren't suffering from this post-election confusion.  They are in the enviable position of saying "I told you so."....they base their predictions on economic variables.  And those variables were indicating a Trump victory long before the first ballots were cast.

The basic premise of economic modeling for election outcomes is that people vote their pocketbooks.... if the economy isn't delivering the growth and jobs that people expect, they want a change  in leadership — a different party in the White House.  

From this perspective, it doesn't really matter who the candidate of either party is — much less their gaffes or their crude language or their bankruptcies...All that matters is whether voters want a change or not.  And that depends on how well the economy has been performing under the outgoing administration...

For the last, agonizing  six months, the airwaves and newspapers have been filled with political prognoses.  Every commentator claimed special insight into how voters would cast their ballots and why. None of the political factors the pundits cited ad nauseum even enter the best economic models.

The most famous model was constructed by Yale economist Ray Fair, who argues that people's sense of how well the economy is performing depends on two key variables: GDP growth and inflation. 

If GDP growth is robust, job creation will keep up with the population and workers will be happy.  If inflation is restrained, consumers will be happy.  So a combination of robust growth and restrained inflation will make voters feel happy about the economy.  Happy voters will vote for the incumbent party — and vice versa.

Clinton lost because the economy under President Obama did not perform well enough to meet Fair's thresholds of happiness.  Economic growth was anemic for nearly all of the last eight years.  As a result, job creation lagged far behind the records set during other post-recession recoveries. 

In the Fair model, GDP growth in the three calendar quarters prior to the election is critical: That's when voters are especially  attuned to how the economy is performing. And on that count, Clinton lost a lot of votes.
This sluggish growth hardly inspired confidence in the economic policies of an Obama/Clinton team, and it seems Clinton couldn't talk her way out of this performance. 

.The Fair model, furthermore, says that "good news" quarters are particularly important to the incumbent  party.  Every calendar quarter in which GDP growth exceeds the long-term average of 3.2% yields a popular vote advantage of .873 %.  That's significant in presidential elections that are typically won by only a few percentage points.Unfortunately for Clinton, the Obama administration was able to deliver only six quarters of good news out of the 31 that it has presided over.  A couple of more robust growth quarters could have swung the election to the Democrats.

The inflation record was benign...the inflation rate has stayed well below the Federal Reserve's target of 2%.  So voters didn't turn away from Clinton because of rising prices.  It was only GDP growth that did her in.

Fair predicted a Republican victory back in May in this very newspaper. All he needed were a few, readily available statistics on the economy's performance over the past four years.


http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-91826641/

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on November 09, 2016, 04:57:19 PM

HF1, would you please post less of the articles in your actual posts. Link to articles if you think they're worth reading but outside of some highlights the body text is unnecessary.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on November 09, 2016, 06:16:10 PM
I'm struggling with the notion that a vote for Trump was a vote to indicate a displeasure with the establishment.

It was an election that saw the majority of incumbents re-elected despite a house/senate with historically low approval ratings.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on November 09, 2016, 07:43:02 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on November 09, 2016, 03:49:14 PM
Quote from: Bullfrog on November 09, 2016, 03:40:31 PM
I think we need to be careful with suggesting those who vote Republican are possibly racist.

It would be wrong to say they're definitely racist but they're certainly possibly racist.

Either way, they're certainly ok with voting for a racist which isn't yards better.

Morally, no. Electorally, it means you can reach them.

Which is probably a better path forward for the American left than waiting for the Millennial map -- and other bits of demographic inevitability -- to arrive...
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on November 10, 2016, 12:52:23 PM
https://twitter.com/ShaunKing is sharing a lot of stories about hate crimes that have happened in the wake of Trump's victory. Blah blah isolated incidents and all that but still racists and bigots have essentially been given permission to be racists and bigots. This is just the beginning.

edit: here's a larger collection of stories from Day 1 of Trump's America: https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on November 10, 2016, 01:18:55 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on November 10, 2016, 12:52:23 PM
https://twitter.com/ShaunKing is sharing a lot of stories about hate crimes that have happened in the wake of Trump's victory. Blah blah isolated incidents and all that but still racists and bigots have essentially been given permission to be racists and bigots. This is just the beginning.

edit: here's a larger collection of stories from Day 1 of Trump's America: https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656

The things my wife hears on a daily basis at a Texas middle school would get you fired/expelled in any kind of civilized society.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on November 10, 2016, 02:10:54 PM
The vote going the other way would not have solved racism/sexism/discrimination, merely continued to hide it. It's hard to defeat something that people deny the existence of. We've seen it ourselves here: they keep doing it because they don't know it's wrong.

It's out in broad daylight now. Between Brexit, Russia, France, ISIS, Boko Haram, and a Trumpublican US, we have tremendous fuel for education right on our door steps.

The election result is a great conversation starter to reach out to those of differing minds. Siloing with those we already agree with will only further the divides.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on November 10, 2016, 04:15:28 PM
Quote from: herman on November 10, 2016, 02:10:54 PM
The vote going the other way would not have solved racism/sexism/discrimination, merely continued to hide it. It's hard to defeat something that people deny the existence of. We've seen it ourselves here: they keep doing it because they don't know it's wrong.

It's out in broad daylight now. Between Brexit, Russia, France, ISIS, Boko Haram, and a Trumpublican US, we have tremendous fuel for education right on our door steps.

The election result is a great conversation starter to reach out to those of differing minds. Siloing with those we already agree with will only further the divides.

That would be great, but a lot of the people that were emboldened by Trump are willfully ignorant. There's no conversation to be had with them, or any education that's going to reach them. They're akin to 5 year olds with their fingers in their ears (and, yes, I acknowledge there are many with the same attitude on the other side, as well). These aren't people that are doing things because they don't know they're wrong, they're people who genuinely hold these positions and attitudes. Too many of them are beyond reach.

Their young children, on the other hand, hopefully are not. They're the ones that need to be educated, to be exposed to other races and cultures, and to have the values of equality and respect for basic human rights and dignities enshrined within them. We need to fix the future generations, because, the unfortunate truth is, large swathes of the current generations are broken beyond repair.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Puerto Rico Suave on November 10, 2016, 04:27:15 PM
Great to see the Republicans owning the House, Senate, and (eventually) Supreme Court.  Don't screw this up, Trump.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: crazyperfectdevil on November 10, 2016, 04:32:53 PM
Quote from: Puerto Rico Suave on November 10, 2016, 04:27:15 PM
Great to see the Republicans owning the House, Senate, and (eventually) Supreme Court.  Don't screw this up, Trump.

since trump ran on a platform of screwing up everything ...what is the metric for that success? 
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on November 10, 2016, 04:52:26 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on November 10, 2016, 04:15:28 PM
Quote from: herman on November 10, 2016, 02:10:54 PM
The vote going the other way would not have solved racism/sexism/discrimination, merely continued to hide it. It's hard to defeat something that people deny the existence of. We've seen it ourselves here: they keep doing it because they don't know it's wrong.

It's out in broad daylight now. Between Brexit, Russia, France, ISIS, Boko Haram, and a Trumpublican US, we have tremendous fuel for education right on our door steps.

The election result is a great conversation starter to reach out to those of differing minds. Siloing with those we already agree with will only further the divides.

That would be great, but a lot of the people that were emboldened by Trump are willfully ignorant. There's no conversation to be had with them, or any education that's going to reach them. They're akin to 5 year olds with their fingers in their ears (and, yes, I acknowledge there are many with the same attitude on the other side, as well). These aren't people that are doing things because they don't know they're wrong, they're people who genuinely hold these positions and attitudes. Too many of them are beyond reach.

Their young children, on the other hand, hopefully are not. They're the ones that need to be educated, to be exposed to other races and cultures, and to have the values of equality and respect for basic human rights and dignities enshrined within them. We need to fix the future generations, because, the unfortunate truth is, large swathes of the current generations are broken beyond repair.

The problem is that the hatred just continues.  You can expose children to as much as you want but the values that their parents place on them seem to override what society is trying explain to them.  Like at the hatred that exists in the middle east and how long it has been going on for.  It's pretty simple to say "Hey if you stop hating one another, and stop fighting, things might get better", but they just don't want to let it go. 
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Andy on November 10, 2016, 04:53:38 PM
Quote from: Puerto Rico Suave on November 10, 2016, 04:27:15 PM
Great to see the Republicans owning the House, Senate, and (eventually) Supreme Court.  Don't screw this up, Trump.

Yay, hooray for censorship, war, climate destruction, unwanted births, no rights for minority groups and inheritance-wealthy people not sharing! Woo hoo!
Title: The Donald
Post by: Highlander on November 10, 2016, 06:38:48 PM
The amazing thing is we are two days in and the sky has not fallen as yet. Unbelievable :o
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: TBLeafer on November 10, 2016, 06:54:41 PM
Its the swearing in, I'm worried about.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on November 10, 2016, 07:24:14 PM
Quote from: Highlander on November 10, 2016, 06:38:48 PM
The amazing thing is we are two days in and the sky has not fallen as yet. Unbelievable :o

Tell that to the victims of emboldened hate criminals.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on November 10, 2016, 07:35:35 PM
Quote from: Puerto Rico Suave on November 10, 2016, 04:27:15 PM
Great to see the Republicans owning the House, Senate, and (eventually) Supreme Court.  Don't screw this up, Trump.

You mean, like last time they controlled the Whitehouse, Senate, and Congress in 1928. Anyone here remember what happened in 1929?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: TBLeafer on November 10, 2016, 07:58:24 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on November 10, 2016, 07:35:35 PM
Quote from: Puerto Rico Suave on November 10, 2016, 04:27:15 PM
Great to see the Republicans owning the House, Senate, and (eventually) Supreme Court.  Don't screw this up, Trump.

You mean, like last time they controlled the Whitehouse, Senate, and Congress in 1928. Anyone here remember what happened in 1929?

You wouldn't be referring to Wall Street by chance would you?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on November 10, 2016, 08:24:42 PM
Quote from: TBLeafer on November 10, 2016, 07:58:24 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on November 10, 2016, 07:35:35 PM
Quote from: Puerto Rico Suave on November 10, 2016, 04:27:15 PM
Great to see the Republicans owning the House, Senate, and (eventually) Supreme Court.  Don't screw this up, Trump.

You mean, like last time they controlled the Whitehouse, Senate, and Congress in 1928. Anyone here remember what happened in 1929?

You wouldn't be referring to Wall Street by chance would you?

Something important may have happened on Wall Street, yes.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: crazyperfectdevil on November 10, 2016, 08:39:41 PM
history doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes - Twain (possibly)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Puerto Rico Suave on November 10, 2016, 10:21:38 PM
Predictably salty responses
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: TBLeafer on November 10, 2016, 10:26:16 PM
Quote from: crazyperfectdevil on November 10, 2016, 08:39:41 PM
history doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes - Twain (possibly)

Trump maybe on his way to pulling a Lindros?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Dappleganger on November 10, 2016, 10:54:58 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on November 10, 2016, 07:35:35 PM
Quote from: Puerto Rico Suave on November 10, 2016, 04:27:15 PM
Great to see the Republicans owning the House, Senate, and (eventually) Supreme Court.  Don't screw this up, Trump.

You mean, like last time they controlled the Whitehouse, Senate, and Congress in 1928. Anyone here remember what happened in 1929?

Leave it to Anne Coulter to spread this wackiness. George W. Bush had 5 years of control over all three. Barack Obama had 2 years of control over all three.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidents_and_control_of_Congress

This shit pisses me (not you Busta) but someone says something on twitter and everyone takes it as fact, and reports on it. Jeezus.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: TBLeafer on November 10, 2016, 11:10:48 PM
Quote from: Dappleganger on November 10, 2016, 10:54:58 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on November 10, 2016, 07:35:35 PM
Quote from: Puerto Rico Suave on November 10, 2016, 04:27:15 PM
Great to see the Republicans owning the House, Senate, and (eventually) Supreme Court.  Don't screw this up, Trump.

You mean, like last time they controlled the Whitehouse, Senate, and Congress in 1928. Anyone here remember what happened in 1929?

Leave it to Anne Coulter to spread this wackiness. George W. Bush had 5 years of control over all three. Barack Obama had 2 years of control over all three.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidents_and_control_of_Congress

This shit pisses me (not you Busta) but someone says something on twitter and everyone takes it as fact, and reports on it. Jeezus.

At the same time they were about to take power in office?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on November 10, 2016, 11:20:17 PM
Quote from: Dappleganger on November 10, 2016, 10:54:58 PM
Leave it to Anne Coulter to spread this wackiness. George W. Bush had 5 years of control over all three. Barack Obama had 2 years of control over all three.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidents_and_control_of_Congress

This shit pisses me (not you Busta) but someone says something on twitter and everyone takes it as fact, and reports on it. Jeezus.

Obama having all three doesn't impact when the Republicans last did, but, nonetheless, your point is valid. Last time the Republicans held all 3, we entered the "Great Recession." When they held all 3 briefly in the 50s, the US saw a spike in the levels of inflation, and, yes, before that that was leading up to and during the Great Depression. So, I mean, it generally hasn't been a great thing over the better part of the last century.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on November 10, 2016, 11:58:09 PM
Subject: prediction on presidency from 96 years ago
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016

"As democracy is perfected, the office of the president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people.
On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the
White House will be occupied by a downright fool and complete narcissistic moron."
H. L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun,  July 26, 1920
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on November 11, 2016, 12:17:13 AM
Quote from: Significantly Insignificant on November 10, 2016, 04:52:26 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on November 10, 2016, 04:15:28 PM
Quote from: herman on November 10, 2016, 02:10:54 PM
The vote going the other way would not have solved racism/sexism/discrimination, merely continued to hide it. It's hard to defeat something that people deny the existence of. We've seen it ourselves here: they keep doing it because they don't know it's wrong.

It's out in broad daylight now. Between Brexit, Russia, France, ISIS, Boko Haram, and a Trumpublican US, we have tremendous fuel for education right on our door steps.

The election result is a great conversation starter to reach out to those of differing minds. Siloing with those we already agree with will only further the divides.

That would be great, but a lot of the people that were emboldened by Trump are willfully ignorant. There's no conversation to be had with them, or any education that's going to reach them. They're akin to 5 year olds with their fingers in their ears (and, yes, I acknowledge there are many with the same attitude on the other side, as well). These aren't people that are doing things because they don't know they're wrong, they're people who genuinely hold these positions and attitudes. Too many of them are beyond reach.

Their young children, on the other hand, hopefully are not. They're the ones that need to be educated, to be exposed to other races and cultures, and to have the values of equality and respect for basic human rights and dignities enshrined within them. We need to fix the future generations, because, the unfortunate truth is, large swathes of the current generations are broken beyond repair.

The problem is that the hatred just continues.  You can expose children to as much as you want but the values that their parents place on them seem to override what society is trying explain to them.  Like at the hatred that exists in the middle east and how long it has been going on for.  It's pretty simple to say "Hey if you stop hating one another, and stop fighting, things might get better", but they just don't want to let it go.

Be that as it may, I can't stop hoping; I can't say, this or that person is irredeemable. Because that route will lead to the Age of Ultron (or whatever AI singularity apocalypse you choose).

So yeah, it's going to suck (and be even more dangerous literally) for the next little while, but I know the oppression of what is good and noble will lead to some of the brightest works of humanity.

The indoctrinated hate mentioned does seem like a formidable wall. There's a reason such regimes abolish elements of society like free press and education up front. We have to keep talking about it, and try to build ideas towards solutions.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on November 11, 2016, 10:34:20 AM
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/796900183955095552
www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/796900183955095552

And back in 2012 when he thought that Romney had won the popular vote:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cw3dW5eXEAA-qei.jpg:large)

Still hard to believe that this dude is President.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on November 11, 2016, 10:36:36 AM
Electoral reform is really funny that way. Only the winners can make changes, so...
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Highlander on November 11, 2016, 11:10:06 AM
Quote from: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on November 10, 2016, 07:24:14 PM
Quote from: Highlander on November 10, 2016, 06:38:48 PM
The amazing thing is we are two days in and the sky has not fallen as yet. Unbelievable :o

Tell that to the victims of emboldened hate criminals.

I do not advocate hate crimes, I hate, hate crimes, the fact of the matter is that the U.S. is so far removed from its old history, slavery, the Civil War, hate of the Irish at that time (or any other new ethic group to hit their shores),and has moved to equal rights for not only Blacks, but same Sex folks and the rest. It takes time to build tolerance and education.  To blame the big T for these things is like blaming Washington for fathering the country where all this hate has manifested for its ages.  There has been a tremendous acceleration in our societys for the rights of all, there is no reason to think these things will ultimately be set back.  Society is more than one President, if he can provide Jobs as he has promised (and yes I am skeptical of his ability to do so) then more and more people will adjust and settle down, with more prosperity.
These things take baby steps
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on November 11, 2016, 11:20:51 AM
Quote from: Highlander on November 11, 2016, 11:10:06 AM
There has been a tremendous acceleration in our societys for the rights of all, there is no reason to think these things will ultimately be set back.

Except Mike Pence has literally already talked about doing this in regards to the LGBT community since their victory.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on November 11, 2016, 12:24:22 PM
Quote from: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on November 10, 2016, 11:58:09 PM
Subject: prediction on presidency from 96 years ago
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016

"As democracy is perfected, the office of the president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people.
On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the
White House will be occupied by a downright fool and complete narcissistic moron."
H. L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun,  July 26, 1920

This is a great quote, but that isn't necessarily the whole thing.  This is it:

The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.

The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on November 11, 2016, 03:29:28 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on November 10, 2016, 07:35:35 PM
Quote from: Puerto Rico Suave on November 10, 2016, 04:27:15 PM
Great to see the Republicans owning the House, Senate, and (eventually) Supreme Court.  Don't screw this up, Trump.

You mean, like last time they controlled the Whitehouse, Senate, and Congress in 1928. Anyone here remember what happened in 1929?

ACTUALLY, the last time that happened was 2003-2007.
So, we've already had the repeat of 1929.
We just never got 1932.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on November 11, 2016, 04:12:27 PM
Quote from: mr grieves on November 11, 2016, 03:29:28 PM
ACTUALLY, the last time that happened was 2003-2007.
So, we've already had the repeat of 1929.
We just never got 1932.

Great Depression, Great Recession . . . I guess it's now time for the Great Regression. Or is it the Great Oppression?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on November 11, 2016, 09:48:15 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on November 11, 2016, 04:12:27 PM
Quote from: mr grieves on November 11, 2016, 03:29:28 PM
ACTUALLY, the last time that happened was 2003-2007.
So, we've already had the repeat of 1929.
We just never got 1932.

Great Depression, Great Recession . . . I guess it's now time for the Great Regression. Or is it the Great Oppression?

I mean, we're sort of living in an alternate history. What if the 1929 crash wasn't followed by a bold traitor to his class who directed the anger of a nation at its financial elites (say, FDR) but a feckless corporatist manager who completely failed to appreciate the gravity of the situation (say, Hoover)?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on November 11, 2016, 10:08:20 PM
Quote from: mr grieves on November 11, 2016, 09:48:15 PM
I mean, we're sort of living in an alternate history. What if the 1929 crash wasn't followed by a bold traitor to his class who directed the anger of a nation at its financial elites (say, FDR) but a feckless corporatist manager who completely failed to appreciate the gravity of the situation (say, Hoover)?

Well, I suppose that depends on whose history seems to be being repeated. Or, to use a more modern cinematic term, reimagined and rebooted.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on November 13, 2016, 08:54:45 AM
So Trump named three of his children and his son-in-law to his transition team.  It's against US law to appoint direct family members to civilian positions.   The same individuals who will be running his company.  He also wants to maintain his apartment in New York and is going to destroy half they city with the security detail that will require.

Comical.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on November 13, 2016, 01:46:14 PM
Quote from: L K on November 13, 2016, 08:54:45 AM
So Trump named three of his children and his son-in-law to his transition team.  It's against US law to appoint direct family members to civilian positions.   The same individuals who will be running his company.  He also wants to maintain his apartment in New York and is going to destroy half they city with the security detail that will require.

Comical.

Poor Tiffany.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on November 13, 2016, 07:45:01 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on November 11, 2016, 10:08:20 PM
Quote from: mr grieves on November 11, 2016, 09:48:15 PM
I mean, we're sort of living in an alternate history. What if the 1929 crash wasn't followed by a bold traitor to his class who directed the anger of a nation at its financial elites (say, FDR) but a feckless corporatist manager who completely failed to appreciate the gravity of the situation (say, Hoover)?

Well, I suppose that depends on whose history seems to be being repeated. Or, to use a more modern cinematic term, reimagined and rebooted.

Can you think of any other extreme economic downturns that weren't followed by either populist right-wing or populist left-wing response?

I'm afraid Obama not managing to be up to being our FDR means he's ended up being our Hoover. I really don't see any other legacy for him at this point.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bender on November 14, 2016, 12:12:39 AM
Quote from: mr grieves on November 13, 2016, 07:45:01 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on November 11, 2016, 10:08:20 PM
Quote from: mr grieves on November 11, 2016, 09:48:15 PM
I mean, we're sort of living in an alternate history. What if the 1929 crash wasn't followed by a bold traitor to his class who directed the anger of a nation at its financial elites (say, FDR) but a feckless corporatist manager who completely failed to appreciate the gravity of the situation (say, Hoover)?

Well, I suppose that depends on whose history seems to be being repeated. Or, to use a more modern cinematic term, reimagined and rebooted.

Can you think of any other extreme economic downturns that weren't followed by either populist right-wing or populist left-wing response?

I'm afraid Obama not managing to be up to being our FDR means he's ended up being our Hoover. I really don't see any other legacy for him at this point.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

"The United States economy expanded an annualized 2.9 percent in the third quarter of 2016, more than 1.4 percent in the previous quarter and beating market expectations of a 2.5 percent rise, the advance estimate from BEA showed. The increase in real GDP reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures, exports, private inventory investment, federal government spending, and nonresidential fixed investment that were partly offset by negative contributions from residential fixed investment and state and local government spending."

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/gdp-growth

Canada has been barely at a sputter but I don't see us electing an extremist going forward.

I hate to be the one to point this out, but there's no analogy between either FDR or Hoover here, especially from an economic standpoint - there has been no major downturn (which Republicans were partially complicit to) in the US for 8 years. Additionally, most developed countries/advanced economies are experiencing slow economic growth and that will likely remain a prevailing feature going forward.

There are many reasons that things happened the way that they did on Wednesday, many reasons that I don't (and many) can't really pin down right now (you've heard a lot of them already), but by so many metrics Obama's presidency has succeeded rather than failed. I really wouldn't pin the American people electing Donald Trump as much of a reflection on the job he's done.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on November 14, 2016, 01:55:16 AM
Oh, I don't mean to suggest Obama wasn't a good president. He was, by most standards, a very good president, and certainly a historic one. But he might not've been up to the historical moment -- maybe no one would've been -- and, as consequence, the Republicans have a control over levels of government (Federal and states) that they haven't seen since Reconstruction. Except this time, the Republicans are very likely to undo the ACA, Dodd-Frank, CFPB, the Iran deal, all of the major executive orders...

As for your GDP numbers, that's sort of why liberals were complacent about the midwest.

(https://www.timesheets.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Screen-Shot-2016-07-27-at-1.51.24-PM.png)

and

[tweet]798263168392974336[/tweet]
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on November 14, 2016, 09:49:20 PM
Trump's controversial pick:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/stephen-bannon-how-he-fits-in-trumps-unusual-inner-circle/article32835619/:
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on November 16, 2016, 05:29:36 PM
Quote from: mr grieves on June 04, 2016, 10:22:15 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on May 27, 2016, 01:07:07 PM
Quote from: Dappleganger on May 27, 2016, 12:58:11 PM
I'm actually worried that Hillary will be such an unappealing candidate Trump might win this.

I honestly don't know. I'm concerned about that, but, at the same time, I also see a very real possibility that Trump has alienated a significant enough portion of Republican voters to even things out. I also think the mere possibility that Trump could win might mobilize enough people to vote for Clinton solely to keep him out of office. And, while I don't think Hillary will be a particularly inspiring president, I don't think she'll be a particularly detrimental one, either. In fact, other than being the first female president, I expect she'll fit nicely into this group:

Republicans seem to be falling into line. Might be a feature of that party, or maybe it's because the Democrats nominated the one name in national party that unites the opposing party into a ball of fury. 

I'm most concerned that the race will play out as a repeat of Martha Coakley vs. Scott Brown in 2010. For non-Americans: a special Senate election wherein a competent but uncharismatic and message-less neoliberal technocrat lost to a faux populist bully who offered nothing tangible to the electorate but, by speaking to (stoking) their cultural resentment of elites, managed to win Ted freaking Kennedy's seat! It Can't Happen Here, we all thought. And then it did.

Brown wasn't nearly the buffoon that Trump is, but he also didn't hit the right-wing nationalist notes as effectively.

And that seems to be about how it played out.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on November 22, 2016, 09:38:25 AM
It's been 2 weeks now. I think that every single day something has happened that me me think this is going to be as big of a catastrophe as I feared. From Trump blatantly lying on his twitter feed and having his followers and even some news people blindly believing it, to his multiple appointments of people who are clearly white nationalists/racists, to all the hate-crimes that have occurred in his name, to the public rise of the Neo-Nazi's/"alt-right" in the US, and now there's been multiple instances of Trump using the position of PEOTUS to benefit his fortune/company/personal interests.

He's going to go down as the greatest con-man in the history of the world.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Boston Leaf on November 22, 2016, 10:42:14 AM
It's been a brutal 2 weeks with Don the con.. While some of followers carry out hate acts he is too concerned with SNL and Hamilton the play
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Potvin29 on November 22, 2016, 11:22:13 AM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on November 22, 2016, 09:38:25 AM
It's been 2 weeks now. I think that every single day something has happened that me me think this is going to be as big of a catastrophe as I feared. From Trump blatantly lying on his twitter feed and having his followers and even some news people blindly believing it, to his multiple appointments of people who are clearly white nationalists/racists, to all the hate-crimes that have occurred in his name, to the public rise of the Neo-Nazi's/"alt-right" in the US, and now there's been multiple instances of Trump using the position of PEOTUS to benefit his fortune/company/personal interests.

He's going to go down as the greatest con-man in the history of the world.

It almost seems like commonplace now, but the way he continues to lie and throw accusations on Twitter is what concerns me as much as anything.  I thought that at the VERY least after winning that the twitter stuff would stop.  It's incredibly un-Presidential.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on November 22, 2016, 12:25:48 PM
The way the media is letting these guys hide behind terms like "alt-right" and "white nationalists" drives me nuts. These are such watered down terms for what these jerks really are. They're neo-Nazis, white supremacists, racists, bigots, etc. The media needs to call them out for what they are!
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on November 22, 2016, 12:31:07 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on November 22, 2016, 12:25:48 PM
The way the media is letting these guys hide behind terms like "alt-right" and "white nationalists" drives me nuts. These are such watered down terms for what these jerks really are. They're neo-Nazis, white supremacists, racists, bigots, etc. The media needs to call them out for what they are!

I'm assuming that you saw this horsecrap:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cxwts03UQAApyrF.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxwttuXVQAAco03.jpg)

(via @ira)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on November 22, 2016, 01:11:55 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on November 22, 2016, 12:31:07 PM
I'm assuming that you saw this horsecrap:

I did, but I was thinking more about this complete idiocracy:

(http://esq.h-cdn.co/assets/16/47/1479781584-cnn.jpg)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on November 22, 2016, 01:23:43 PM

Yes, Adolf Hitler really said he would 'Make Germany Great Again' (http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/yes-adolf-hitler-really-said-he-would-make-germany-gre-1789261081)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on November 22, 2016, 01:44:33 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on November 22, 2016, 01:11:55 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on November 22, 2016, 12:31:07 PM
I'm assuming that you saw this horsecrap:

I did, but I was thinking more about this complete idiocracy:

(http://esq.h-cdn.co/assets/16/47/1479781584-cnn.jpg)

Yeah, that was pretty deplorable too.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on November 22, 2016, 01:51:03 PM
I wonder if the Conservatives are going to hold 50 Benghazi level tribunals against Trump like they did with Hillary.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on November 22, 2016, 02:45:17 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on November 22, 2016, 01:44:33 PM
Yeah, that was pretty deplorable too.

Yup. I mean, that's something that's basically straight out of the Hitler handbook. Like, dehumanizing Jews was practically his raison d'être.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Coco-puffs on November 22, 2016, 03:29:59 PM
The Alt-Right needs to be branded differently.  Think progress is trying to do its part:

https://thinkprogress.org/thinkprogress-alt-right-policy-b04fd141d8d4#.qzgaou32e
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on November 22, 2016, 03:42:55 PM
Quote from: herman on September 30, 2016, 11:17:46 AM


Let's see this again, but this time with less tongue-in-cheek and more alarm bells.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on November 23, 2016, 01:53:00 PM
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/307345-report-trump-building-project-makes-headway-after-call-with-argentinian

By the end of all of this Trump is finally going to be as rich as he always claimed to be.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on November 23, 2016, 04:33:35 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on November 23, 2016, 01:53:00 PM
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/307345-report-trump-building-project-makes-headway-after-call-with-argentinian

By the end of all of this Trump is finally going to be as rich as he always claimed to be.

Nah. Once he officially takes office, he's going to be sued into oblivion. If there's even a hint of his involvement with any of his businesses, and if they're even considered for government contracts or are seen as getting preferable treatment by foreign governments, he'll be in violation of a number of different laws and regulations.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on November 25, 2016, 03:36:08 PM
Environment be d*#med:

In the beginning....
Donald J. Trump  @realDonaldTrump
The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.
2:15 PM - 6 Nov 2012

Then...
Mike Grynbaum  @grynbaum
Tom Friedman asks if Trump will withdraw from climate change accords. Trump: "I'm looking at it very closely. I have an open mind to it."
1:17 PM - 22 Nov 2016

And...
Mike Grynbaum  @grynbaum
On climate change, Trump says he is also thinking about "how much it will cost our companies" & the effect on American competitiveness.
1:21 PM - 22 Nov 2016

Now...
Mike Grynbaum  @grynbaum
Does Trump think human activity is linked to climate change? "I think there is some connectivity. Some, something. It depends on how much."
1:20 PM - 22 Nov 2016


http://gizmodo.com/donald-trump-maybe-humans-did-the-climate-change-after-1789270591?utm_source=taboola
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on December 26, 2016, 03:57:24 AM
Trump-Canada connection:  How Trump helped elevate a Canadian ice-rink making company to international status (begining with the then decrepit New York's Central Park ice-skating rink -- Wolfman Rink). 
Vegas Golden Knights, here they come...

In his 1987 memoir, "The Art of the Deal", Trump wrote:
"Since I myself knew absolutely nothing about building rinks, I set out to find the best skating-rink builder I could," he wrote. "Logic suggested the best place to look was Canada."

More :
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/how-donald-trump-helped-build-canadas-ice-rink-empire/article33430900/
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: OrangeBlack on December 29, 2016, 06:39:18 PM
Should be an interesting 4 years....guess we'll see what happens.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Highlander on January 02, 2017, 01:42:28 PM
What should be most interesting is to see how much of the swamp he actually is allowed to drain. To those who have said he is there to enrich himself and his cronies, I think this is false. He has said he will take $1 a year to do the job, wants to fly in his own plane and save hundreds of millions on a new Air Force 1 (actually 2 planes). 
His other advisors are already so wealthy they don't need any extra. Actually most are involved in heavy philanthropy.
In any case he is there for better or worse and hopefully he will do some good things.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on January 02, 2017, 02:02:00 PM
Quote from: Highlander on January 02, 2017, 01:42:28 PM
What should be most interesting is to see how much of the swamp he actually is allowed to drain. To those who have said he is there to enrich himself and his cronies, I think this is false. He has said he will take $1 a year to do the job, wants to fly in his own plane and save hundreds of millions on a new Air Force 1 (actually 2 planes). 
His other advisors are already so wealthy they don't need any extra. Actually most are involved in heavy philanthropy.
In any case he is there for better or worse and hopefully he will do some good things.

I've got a fantastic line of chocolate tea kettles that I'm certain you're going to love.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: louisstamos on January 02, 2017, 02:02:39 PM
Quote from: Highlander on January 02, 2017, 01:42:28 PM
What should be most interesting is to see how much of the swamp he actually is allowed to drain. To those who have said he is there to enrich himself and his cronies, I think this is false. He has said he will take $1 a year to do the job, wants to fly in his own plane and save hundreds of millions on a new Air Force 1 (actually 2 planes). 
His other advisors are already so wealthy they don't need any extra. Actually most are involved in heavy philanthropy.
In any case he is there for better or worse and hopefully he will do some good things.

Because never in the history of time has a rich man ever said "you know what?  I'd like to be even richer."

The fact that he refused to put his businesses in a blind trust, and instead leave it with his kids (with whom he will have regular communication with) shows where his vested interests are.

That said, I'm still fairly convinced that Trump just wanted the title of President, and doesn't actually want to do the work of the president.  I'm sure Pence will be doing a lot of the legwork - whether that's even worse is also up for debate...
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on January 02, 2017, 02:07:59 PM
Mike "Gay Conversion Therapy" Pence, I'm pretty sure his biggest fear is that dicks are actually delicious, expect him to dive on one like it's a live grenade before the end of his time as VP.

I'm sure when they put homophobes on the Supreme Court it'll be all gravy.

The attorney general who hates weed too, what a winner.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on January 02, 2017, 06:56:04 PM
Quote from: Highlander on January 02, 2017, 01:42:28 PM
To those who have said he is there to enrich himself and his cronies, I think this is false. He has said he will take $1 a year to do the job, wants to fly in his own plane and save hundreds of millions on a new Air Force 1 (actually 2 planes). 
His other advisors are already so wealthy they don't need any extra. Actually most are involved in heavy philanthropy.
In any case he is there for better or worse and hopefully he will do some good things.

If his plans didn't include changes to the tax code that will save him, his advisors, and other members of his cabinet a combined $17B, you might have had a point.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on January 02, 2017, 07:05:28 PM

The President's plane, which is not actually "Air Force 1" as that's the designation given to any plane the President is on, is expensive precisely because it's not like other planes. Not only is it built to be incredibly hard to shoot down but it's also capable of functioning as a mobile command center in catastrophic events.

Saying he wants to use his own plane is just more evidence of his complete and total lack of understanding of what the job of President actually entails.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: McGarnagle on January 02, 2017, 07:22:06 PM
On the other hand, if he insists on being on a plane incapable of being a mobile command center, maybe that's in everyone's best interests.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: princedpw on January 02, 2017, 07:32:06 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on January 02, 2017, 06:56:04 PM
Quote from: Highlander on January 02, 2017, 01:42:28 PM
To those who have said he is there to enrich himself and his cronies, I think this is false. He has said he will take $1 a year to do the job, wants to fly in his own plane and save hundreds of millions on a new Air Force 1 (actually 2 planes). 
His other advisors are already so wealthy they don't need any extra. Actually most are involved in heavy philanthropy.
In any case he is there for better or worse and hopefully he will do some good things.

If his plans didn't include changes to the tax code that will save him, his advisors, and other members of his cabinet a combined $17B, you might have had a point.

+1

His decision to not take a salary is a totally transparent ploy to make him look magnanimous while he takes from other sources that make him significantly more money but create conflicts of interest.  If he was interested in doing the right thing financially, he would sell his assets and put them in a blind trust.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Highlander on January 04, 2017, 07:31:21 PM
as any father who has built his own business knows, they live to hand the business to the kidz and let them run the show. 
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on January 05, 2017, 01:05:36 AM

Then don't run for President. The appearance of impartiality in government is more important than any one person's selfish desires.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on January 05, 2017, 01:12:44 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on January 05, 2017, 01:05:36 AM

Then don't run for President. The appearance of impartiality in government is more important than any one person's selfish desires.

Grifter Donald talking about cutting the CIA because they were mean to Putin.  The guy needs to be shot before he causes much bigger international problems.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on January 05, 2017, 01:49:45 PM
Quote from: Highlander on January 04, 2017, 07:31:21 PM
as any father who has built his own business knows, they live to hand the business to the kidz and let them run the show.

A normal father, sure. An egomaniac? Not so much. Trump's not handing the business to his kids in any meaningful way. He's temporarily ceding "official" control until he's no longer in office.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on January 05, 2017, 05:58:31 PM
Quote from: L K on January 05, 2017, 01:12:44 PM
The guy needs to be shot before he causes much bigger international problems.

That's probably little too far (I recognize that you're being hyperbolic), but it's definitely a concern. Also, barring an extremely unlikely announcement that he's actually placed all his holdings in a true blind trust or sold them/legitimately divested himself from them (not just placing his children in charge), there's going be dozens and dozens of lawsuits related to his many conflicts of interest filed within hours of his inauguration.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on January 05, 2017, 08:04:49 PM
There is a slight irony in reading people who are primarily from Ontario bashing someone's voting choice.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: louisstamos on January 05, 2017, 08:13:00 PM
Quote from: Bates on January 05, 2017, 08:04:49 PM
There is a slight irony in reading people who are primarily from Ontario bashing someone's voting choice.

Irony?

Do we have a dictator?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on January 05, 2017, 08:15:01 PM
You have the 2nd highest debt for anything but a Country in the World and your power costs are skyrocketing.  It's about more than silly name calling.  Your Province is a mess and our Country is heading downhill, notice any similarities in both Govts?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on January 05, 2017, 08:16:02 PM
Oh and I guess you missed the Election??  That's not how Dictators usually get to power.
Quote from: louisstamos on January 05, 2017, 08:13:00 PM
Quote from: Bates on January 05, 2017, 08:04:49 PM
There is a slight irony in reading people who are primarily from Ontario bashing someone's voting choice.

Irony?

Do we have a dictator?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: louisstamos on January 05, 2017, 08:22:46 PM
I'm just curious as to why simply because I'm from Ontario I'm not allowed to criticize any other candidate or leader, be it for their personality or their policies?

Also, I didn't vote Wynne either.

edit: I was also living in Toronto for the Rob Ford era.  We truly live in the era of Populism politics.  It doesn't mean that anyone is above criticism.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on January 05, 2017, 08:24:48 PM
I don't recall saying you weren't allowed.  I simply stated that's it's kinda ironic, which it is.  It's like pointing out how bad the Avs defence is as a Leaf fan, it's ironic.
Quote from: louisstamos on January 05, 2017, 08:22:46 PM
I'm just curious as to why simply because I'm Ontario I'm not allowed to criticize any other candidate or leader, be it for their personality or their policies?

Also, I didn't vote Wynne either.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bill_Berg_is_sad on January 05, 2017, 08:25:43 PM
Quote from: louisstamos on January 05, 2017, 08:22:46 PM
I'm just curious as to why simply because I'm from Ontario I'm not allowed to criticize any other candidate or leader, be it for their personality or their policies?

Also, I didn't vote Wynne either.

It's it obvious? You live in Ontario. The country is in tatters because of you.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: louisstamos on January 05, 2017, 08:37:04 PM
Quote from: Bates on January 05, 2017, 08:24:48 PM
I don't recall saying you weren't allowed.  I simply stated that's it's kinda ironic, which it is.  It's like pointing out how bad the Avs defence is as a Leaf fan, it's ironic.

Okay?  But using your metaphor - knowing that I'm a Leafs fan, and knowing the Leafs defense is bad, how does that absolve someone from mentioning that the Avs defense is *also* bad?  Isn't that just telling it like it is?  Especially when the discussion is ABOUT the Avs and/or their defense?

That's like me seeing a helicopter in a tree outside my house, and saying "wow, that's not supposed to happen," and someone saying to me "yeah, but didn't you get into a car accident once?  Oh, the irony!"

edit: a not-at-fault accident at that, since...you know...I never voted for Wynne. :P
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on January 05, 2017, 08:48:45 PM
Again it's certainly fine to point and laugh. But as an outsider it's ironic.  Sorry about the Govt you didn't vote for.   
Quote from: louisstamos on January 05, 2017, 08:37:04 PM
Quote from: Bates on January 05, 2017, 08:24:48 PM
I don't recall saying you weren't allowed.  I simply stated that's it's kinda ironic, which it is.  It's like pointing out how bad the Avs defence is as a Leaf fan, it's ironic.

Okay?  But using your metaphor - knowing that I'm a Leafs fan, and knowing the Leafs defense is bad, how does that absolve someone from mentioning that the Avs defense is *also* bad?  Isn't that just telling it like it is?  Especially when the discussion is ABOUT the Avs and/or their defense?

That's like me seeing a helicopter in a tree outside my house, and saying "wow, that's not supposed to happen," and someone saying to me "yeah, but didn't you get into a car accident once?  Oh, the irony!"

edit: a not-at-fault accident at that, since...you know...I never voted for Wynne. :P
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on January 05, 2017, 10:16:12 PM
Wow. Talk about your false equivalencies. Wynne is nowhere near as problematic is Trump appears that he's going to be, nor does the premier of Ontario or the Province of Ontario have anywhere near the power and influence as the President of the United States, or the U.S. itself.

What happens in Ontario doesn't have much impact outside of Canada. What happens in the U.S. has implications around the world.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on January 05, 2017, 10:55:57 PM
So Rob Ford doesn't count either as he isn't as important.  OK gotcha no dumb elections in Canada count. 
Quote from: bustaheims on January 05, 2017, 10:16:12 PM
Wow. Talk about your false equivalencies. Wynne is nowhere near as problematic is Trump appears that he's going to be, nor does the premier of Ontario or the Province of Ontario have anywhere near the power and influence as the President of the United States, or the U.S. itself.

What happens in Ontario doesn't have much impact outside of Canada. What happens in the U.S. has implications around the world.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on January 05, 2017, 10:57:21 PM
Quote from: Bates on January 05, 2017, 10:55:57 PM
So Rob Ford doesn't count either as he isn't as important.  OK gotcha no dumb elections in Canada count.

Anyone else smell burning straw man?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bender on January 06, 2017, 12:47:31 AM
Quote from: Bates on January 05, 2017, 10:55:57 PM
So Rob Ford doesn't count either as he isn't as important.  OK gotcha no dumb elections in Canada count. 
Quote from: bustaheims on January 05, 2017, 10:16:12 PM
Wow. Talk about your false equivalencies. Wynne is nowhere near as problematic is Trump appears that he's going to be, nor does the premier of Ontario or the Province of Ontario have anywhere near the power and influence as the President of the United States, or the U.S. itself.

What happens in Ontario doesn't have much impact outside of Canada. What happens in the U.S. has implications around the world.
Rob Ford was not CINC of the world's most powerful army. I think the points made by many here aren't that hard to grasp. If Rob Ford were elected as the Prime Minister I wouldn't at all mind people from other countries criticizing a poor decision.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on January 06, 2017, 07:11:23 AM

I know people hate semantic points but at this point we might just as well rewrite the definition of "Irony" to be:

Irony
(noun)whatever the hell people who don't understand what irony actually is want it to mean in a particular sentence while trying to sound clever.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on January 06, 2017, 09:22:35 AM
Like rain on your wedding day...
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Highlander on January 06, 2017, 08:28:36 PM
Thomas Jefferson once said that America will need a revolution every 15 to 30 years. Perhaps the Civil War can be counted as a revolution of sorts, but that ended 150 years ago. Trump is obviously not a politician, does and says a lot of crass things, but he is the elected official and will surround himself with top advisers in all fields.  He said before he was elected that he would bring in Carl Icahn which he has done in a matter of sorts. Mr. Icahn is perhaps the most brilliant business mind in the world.  We have to remember that America wanted change and they would have voted for Topo Gigo if he was running. 
Obviously there is a zillion things to fix in the U.S. and perhaps some of these things will get fixed.  Even if he just drains the swamp somewhat that will be a huge improvement.
Just saying America wanted change and now they have it.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on January 06, 2017, 10:29:33 PM
Quote from: Highlander on January 06, 2017, 08:28:36 PMWe have to remember that America wanted change and they would have voted for Topo Gigo if he was running.

If Trump represented "change" and Clinton the status quo then millions more Americans wanted the status quo than  this poorly defined change.

"America" didn't want any singular thing and I feel pretty confident saying that if the direct manifestation of the status quo could have run, he'd have won a pretty comfortable 3rd term.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on January 06, 2017, 11:39:55 PM

Another fundamental problem with the idea that Americans wanted "change" to any meaningful degree is that of the 434 Congressional seats, a whopping 1.38% of them shifted to the other party.

Congress, with an approval rating in the low double digits, all effectively kept their jobs. The Democrats, supposedly representing the status quo, made gains in both the House and Senate.

There wasn't some massive popular support for Trump. He got about as many votes as Romney. And there's really no evidence that people, by and large, were unhappy with their representatives in Washington.

Clinton ran a mess of a campaign, was sabotaged in unprecedented ways by the FBI and a foreign government and, yes, people didn't like her much. Despite that, millions more voted for her than Trump and he won because of the peculiarities of the Electoral College.

To present that as some sort of significant mandate from the people is nonsense.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bender on January 06, 2017, 11:48:12 PM
Quote from: Highlander on January 06, 2017, 08:28:36 PM
Thomas Jefferson once said that America will need a revolution every 15 to 30 years. Perhaps the Civil War can be counted as a revolution of sorts, but that ended 150 years ago. Trump is obviously not a politician, does and says a lot of crass things, but he is the elected official and will surround himself with top advisers in all fields.  He said before he was elected that he would bring in Carl Icahn which he has done in a matter of sorts. Mr. Icahn is perhaps the most brilliant business mind in the world.  We have to remember that America wanted change and they would have voted for Topo Gigo if he was running. 
Obviously there is a zillion things to fix in the U.S. and perhaps some of these things will get fixed.  Even if he just drains the swamp somewhat that will be a huge improvement.
Just saying America wanted change and now they have it.

You know, I could say that I'm the biggest man in the world and made out of gold, but it wouldn't be objectively true no matter how many people I brainwashed into thinking that. I find it amusing people believe this man basically because he says things with conviction and repeats them.

Actually... I'm the biggest man in the world and made out of gold!
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: princedpw on January 06, 2017, 11:56:08 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on January 06, 2017, 11:39:55 PM

Another fundamental problem with the idea that Americans wanted "change" to any meaningful degree is that of the 434 Congressional seats, a whopping 1.38% of them shifted to the other party.

Congress, with an approval rating in the low double digits, all effectively kept their jobs. The Democrats, supposedly representing the status quo, made gains in both the House and Senate.

There wasn't some massive popular support for Trump. He got about as many votes as Romney. And there's really no evidence that people, by and large, were unhappy with their representatives in Washington.

Clinton ran a mess of a campaign, was sabotaged in unprecedented ways by the FBI and a foreign government and, yes, people didn't like her much. Despite that, millions more voted for her than Trump and he won because of the peculiarities of the Electoral College.

To present that as some sort of significant mandate from the people is nonsense.

I agree, except I don't actually think Clinton ran a mess of a campaign.  She was extremely unpopular and had baggage she couldn't distance herself from but the overall organization and logistics of her campaign seemed as strong as anyone.  Apparently, she outperformed the economic models (despite her inherent negatives).

Her loss in the electoral college was so unbelievably narrow -- a few 10s of thousands in a couple of key places -- that any bit of luck (or a minor logistical change in voting availability) would have tilted the balance. 

When Obama says "I could have beaten trump" all he is saying was that he could have done infinitesimally better than Clinton, which seems obvious given their popularity differential.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on January 07, 2017, 12:03:01 AM
Quote from: princedpw on January 06, 2017, 11:56:08 PMI agree, except I don't actually think Clinton ran a mess of a campaign.  She was extremely unpopular and had baggage she couldn't distance herself from but the overall organization and logistics of her campaign seemed as strong as anyone.  Apparently, she outperformed the economic models (despite her inherent negatives).

I've heard some things from actual people on the ground that say differently. People who wanted to knock on doors or make phone calls but who were essentially turned away by the Clinton campaign whose data said that their counties/districts were effectively safe.

Likewise, it's hard to ignore the fact that she spent almost no time on the ground in some of those states she lost by narrow margins(Wisconsin and Michigan especially) whereas she made it out to states like Arizona and Georgia that were pipe dreams at worst, unnecessary at best.

Finally, it's really tough for me to look at some things that should have been small/pointless but still strike me as really bad decisions. I get that Abedin has been her #1 aide for a bunch of years but, man, did we really need any scenario where Anthony Weiner's name could come up in the last week of the campaign?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bender on January 07, 2017, 12:05:33 AM
Quote from: Highlander on January 06, 2017, 08:28:36 PM
Thomas Jefferson once said that America will need a revolution every 15 to 30 years. Perhaps the Civil War can be counted as a revolution of sorts, but that ended 150 years ago. Trump is obviously not a politician, does and says a lot of crass things, but he is the elected official and will surround himself with top advisers in all fields.  He said before he was elected that he would bring in Carl Icahn which he has done in a matter of sorts. Mr. Icahn is perhaps the most brilliant business mind in the world.  We have to remember that America wanted change and they would have voted for Topo Gigo if he was running. 
Obviously there is a zillion things to fix in the U.S. and perhaps some of these things will get fixed.  Even if he just drains the swamp somewhat that will be a huge improvement.
Just saying America wanted change and now they have it.

This reminds me of the bit from George Carlin where he said politicians are there to give you the illusion of freedom of choice and instead big business interests run the show. It's completely hysterical to think that the very people who've been eroding the middle class of America for decades are suddenly going to improve the conditions of those who voted them (unless they're part of the economic elite). Change for change's sake is often one of the worst reasons for change.

And as an aside I'm sure you mean draining the swamp by, you know, denying Russian involvement in the election, tapping well known crackpots such as Ben Carson as one of his "top advisers" and forming the most plutocratic cabinet in history. Drain the swamp... I think the Dems should have their own slogan: Out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: princedpw on January 07, 2017, 12:11:41 AM
Quote from: Highlander on January 06, 2017, 08:28:36 PM
Thomas Jefferson once said that America will need a revolution every 15 to 30 years. Perhaps the Civil War can be counted as a revolution of sorts, but that ended 150 years ago. Trump is obviously not a politician, does and says a lot of crass things, but he is the elected official and will surround himself with top advisers in all fields.

First, Trump is a politician. He just ran the most surprising political campaign in modern history.  Second, when people use the term "politician" in a derogatory fashion, they point to *exactly* the kind of behavior trump is displaying: say one thing to get elected and then do another.

Third, Trump is surrounding himself with the least qualified cabinet and advisors in modern history.  The best capsul description of the change from Obama is that the department of energy is going from being run by a Nobel-prize winning physicist to a guy who couldn't remember the name of the department.  That's kind of a funny joke, and actually not all that fair because Perry does have some governmental experience at least -- he is legitimately a better choice than half of his other appointees. His other advisers (especially Michael Flynn) are incompetent, uneducated, and/or white supremacists.  I mean Ben Carson publically said that he was not qualified to run a government agency, but trump picked him anyway.

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bender on January 07, 2017, 12:15:38 AM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on January 07, 2017, 12:03:01 AM
Quote from: princedpw on January 06, 2017, 11:56:08 PMI agree, except I don't actually think Clinton ran a mess of a campaign.  She was extremely unpopular and had baggage she couldn't distance herself from but the overall organization and logistics of her campaign seemed as strong as anyone.  Apparently, she outperformed the economic models (despite her inherent negatives).

I've heard some things from actual people on the ground that say differently. People who wanted to knock on doors or make phone calls but who were essentially turned away by the Clinton campaign whose data said that their counties/districts were effectively safe.

Likewise, it's hard to ignore the fact that she spent almost no time on the ground in some of those states she lost by narrow margins(Wisconsin and Michigan especially) whereas she made it out to states like Arizona and Georgia that were pipe dreams at worst, unnecessary at best.

Finally, it's really tough for me to look at some things that should have been small/pointless but still strike me as really bad decisions. I get that Abedin has been her #1 aide for a bunch of years but, man, did we really need any scenario where Anthony Weiner's name could come up in the last week of the campaign?

Van Jones has said basically the same thing as your first and second points.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: princedpw on January 07, 2017, 12:16:09 AM
Quote from: Bender on January 07, 2017, 12:05:33 AM
Quote from: Highlander on January 06, 2017, 08:28:36 PM
Thomas Jefferson once said that America will need a revolution every 15 to 30 years. Perhaps the Civil War can be counted as a revolution of sorts, but that ended 150 years ago. Trump is obviously not a politician, does and says a lot of crass things, but he is the elected official and will surround himself with top advisers in all fields.  He said before he was elected that he would bring in Carl Icahn which he has done in a matter of sorts. Mr. Icahn is perhaps the most brilliant business mind in the world.  We have to remember that America wanted change and they would have voted for Topo Gigo if he was running. 
Obviously there is a zillion things to fix in the U.S. and perhaps some of these things will get fixed.  Even if he just drains the swamp somewhat that will be a huge improvement.
Just saying America wanted change and now they have it.

This reminds me of the bit from George Carlin where he said politicians are there to give you the illusion of freedom of choice and instead big business interests run the show. It's completely hysterical to think that the very people who've been eroding the middle class of America for decades are suddenly going to improve the conditions of those who voted them (unless they're part of the economic elite). Change for change's sake is often one of the worst reasons for change.

And as an aside I'm sure you mean draining the swamp by, you know, denying Russian involvement in the election, tapping well known crackpots such as Ben Carson as a "top adviser" and forming the most plutocratic cabinet in history. Drain the swamp... I think the Dems should have their own slogan: Out of the frying pan and into the fire.

+1

I've been trying to avoid political news since the US election (I live in the states).  It is too depressing to think that so many people in the US are either uninformed, bad at thinking, or just plain mean.  This thread on tmlfans is not helping ...
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: princedpw on January 07, 2017, 12:34:37 AM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on January 07, 2017, 12:03:01 AM
Quote from: princedpw on January 06, 2017, 11:56:08 PMI agree, except I don't actually think Clinton ran a mess of a campaign.  She was extremely unpopular and had baggage she couldn't distance herself from but the overall organization and logistics of her campaign seemed as strong as anyone.  Apparently, she outperformed the economic models (despite her inherent negatives).

I've heard some things from actual people on the ground that say differently. People who wanted to knock on doors or make phone calls but who were essentially turned away by the Clinton campaign whose data said that their counties/districts were effectively safe.

Likewise, it's hard to ignore the fact that she spent almost no time on the ground in some of those states she lost by narrow margins(Wisconsin and Michigan especially) whereas she made it out to states like Arizona and Georgia that were pipe dreams at worst, unnecessary at best.

Finally, it's really tough for me to look at some things that should have been small/pointless but still strike me as really bad decisions. I get that Abedin has been her #1 aide for a bunch of years but, man, did we really need any scenario where Anthony Weiner's name could come up in the last week of the campaign?

I was on the ground, knocking on doors in Pennsylvania.  :-)

I do imagine there were some mistakes made, but I will bet this is true of any campaign.  In terms of ground game, fundraising, responses, etc, it seemed to be Well organized relative to many campaigns.

All available data suggested Michigan, for instance, was hers with high probability and losing PA (where she spent tons of time) makes it irrelevant anyway.  I don't think you can blame her for not being omniscient.

Obviously, because in hindsight we know she lost, any other strategy would have been worth a shot.  But at the time the campaign was going on, it didn't strike people  as particularly disorganized (unlike, say trump's).  Basically, it looked like she was winning the entire time and hence it made sense to keep doing what she was doing.

The stupid Comey letter. That's out of her control. It was one of the things that went trump's way and seems to have easily made that 10k difference in votes.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: princedpw on January 07, 2017, 12:37:05 AM
Anyway, I really really should avoid politics in this forum ... way too depressing. This the "just for fun" category ...
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on January 07, 2017, 12:40:45 AM
Quote from: princedpw on January 07, 2017, 12:34:37 AM
I was on the ground, knocking on doors in Pennsylvania.  :-)

I do imagine there were some mistakes made, but I will bet this is true of any campaign.  In terms of ground game, fundraising, responses, etc, it seemed to be Well organized relative to many campaigns.

All available data suggested Michigan, for instance, was hers with high probability and losing PA (where she spent tons of time) makes it irrelevant anyway.  I don't think you can blame her for not being omniscient.

Obviously, because in hindsight we know she lost, any other strategy would have been worth a shot.  But at the time the campaign was going on, it didn't strike people  as particularly disorganized (unlike, say trump's).  Basically, it looked like she was winning the entire time and hence it made sense to keep doing what she was doing.

The stupid Comey letter. That's out of her control. It was one of the things that went trump's way and seems to have easily made that 10k difference in votes.

To one extent or another those are all fair points, especially that we're going to look harsher at the mistakes of a loss than those in a victory. I think though that one of the bigger problems I've heard people talk about was an over reliance on what the data was saying about what was or wasn't safe whereas a lot of the Obama guys were saying "Regardless of how good it looks, go out and work for it".

But, like I said, it's a good case you make.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on January 07, 2017, 02:08:03 AM
Quote from: princedpw on January 06, 2017, 11:56:08 PM
The stupid Comey letter. That's out of her control. It was one of the things that went trump's way and seems to have easily made that 10k difference in votes.


Agree 100%.  But, let's not forget, there is one person to blame for Hillary's loss -- Hillary Clinton herself. 

She failed to galvanize the Democratic party, as has been mentioned, particularly in key states, and also, as one anonymous Democrat pointed out frustratingly, is that if she had never requested the private email server, none of the fiasco that ensued, culminating with the Comey investigation, would have happened.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on January 10, 2017, 09:57:22 PM
So #GoldenShowers is trending on Twitter....
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on January 10, 2017, 11:05:29 PM
Quote from: Heroic Shrimp on January 10, 2017, 09:57:22 PM
So #GoldenShowers is trending on Twitter....

I'm trying to figure out the best way to Google this without a lifetime of regret.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on January 10, 2017, 11:06:58 PM
Quote from: herman on January 10, 2017, 11:05:29 PM
Quote from: Heroic Shrimp on January 10, 2017, 09:57:22 PM
So #GoldenShowers is trending on Twitter....

I'm trying to figure out the best way to Google this without a lifetime of regret.

If you add "Trump" and don't go past the news, you might be okay.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on January 10, 2017, 11:17:26 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on January 10, 2017, 11:06:58 PM
Quote from: herman on January 10, 2017, 11:05:29 PM
Quote from: Heroic Shrimp on January 10, 2017, 09:57:22 PM
So #GoldenShowers is trending on Twitter....

I'm trying to figure out the best way to Google this without a lifetime of regret.

If you add "Trump" and don't go past the news, you might be okay.

Four more years...four more years....  :'(
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on January 10, 2017, 11:23:29 PM
It's a fascinating read. And if it's a hoax, it is a ridiculously elaborate and high level creation.

I've been catching up on The Americans.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Zee on January 11, 2017, 10:01:06 AM
What a s__t show.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on January 11, 2017, 10:02:27 AM
Quote from: Zee on January 11, 2017, 10:01:06 AM
What a s__t show.

That's another room.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on January 11, 2017, 10:42:04 AM
Quote from: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on January 11, 2017, 10:02:27 AM
Quote from: Zee on January 11, 2017, 10:01:06 AM
What a s__t show.

That's another room.

(http://a.fod4.com/images/GifGuide/clapping/1292223254212-dumpfm-mario-Obamaclap.gif)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on January 11, 2017, 11:41:30 AM
Trump is going to have his first press conference since becoming PEEsident Elect.   Should be good.    He's off to an amazing start implying he's being persecuted like in Nazi Germany.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: louisstamos on January 11, 2017, 11:48:51 AM
Quote from: L K on January 11, 2017, 11:41:30 AM
Trump is going to have his first press conference since becoming PEEsident Elect.   Should be good.    He's off to an amazing start implying he's being persecuted like in Nazi Germany.

Which is ironic, considering the American Nazi Party is backing him publicly...

(...that's proper use of "irony," right?)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bullfrog on January 11, 2017, 12:01:50 PM
Quote from: herman on January 10, 2017, 11:05:29 PM
Quote from: Heroic Shrimp on January 10, 2017, 09:57:22 PM
So #GoldenShowers is trending on Twitter....

I'm trying to figure out the best way to Google this without a lifetime of regret.

Incognito window
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bill_Berg_is_sad on January 11, 2017, 12:29:26 PM
Quote from: louisstamos on January 11, 2017, 11:48:51 AM
Quote from: L K on January 11, 2017, 11:41:30 AM
Trump is going to have his first press conference since becoming PEEsident Elect.   Should be good.    He's off to an amazing start implying he's being persecuted like in Nazi Germany.

Which is ironic, considering the American Nazi Party is backing him publicly...

(...that's proper use of "irony," right?)

Saying 'break a leg' to an actor moments before he walks out on stage, slips on a banana peel and breaks his leg is ironic.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: louisstamos on January 11, 2017, 12:48:24 PM
Quote from: Bill_Berg on January 11, 2017, 12:29:26 PM
Quote from: louisstamos on January 11, 2017, 11:48:51 AM
Quote from: L K on January 11, 2017, 11:41:30 AM
Trump is going to have his first press conference since becoming PEEsident Elect.   Should be good.    He's off to an amazing start implying he's being persecuted like in Nazi Germany.

Which is ironic, considering the American Nazi Party is backing him publicly...

(...that's proper use of "irony," right?)

Saying 'break a leg' to an actor moments before he walks out on stage, slips on a banana peel and breaks his leg is ironic.

That's actually a terrific example (and really speaks to me as a former theatre kid!)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on January 11, 2017, 01:07:08 PM
This is ummm...not good?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on January 11, 2017, 01:15:33 PM
Quote from: Bill_Berg on January 11, 2017, 12:29:26 PM
Quote from: louisstamos on January 11, 2017, 11:48:51 AM
Quote from: L K on January 11, 2017, 11:41:30 AM
Trump is going to have his first press conference since becoming PEEsident Elect.   Should be good.    He's off to an amazing start implying he's being persecuted like in Nazi Germany.

Which is ironic, considering the American Nazi Party is backing him publicly...

(...that's proper use of "irony," right?)

Saying 'break a leg' to an actor moments before he walks out on stage, slips on a banana peel and breaks his leg is ironic.

Sort of.

Actually just saying "break a leg" is ironic as you're saying something that isn't what you actually mean because you don't actually want them to break their leg but rather you're wishing them good luck.

The simplest and most straightforward way to think of it is as sarcasm but maybe lacking in what we'd identify as a sarcastic tone. There are other uses of it but that's bread and butter.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on January 11, 2017, 01:55:41 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on January 11, 2017, 01:15:33 PM
Quote from: Bill_Berg on January 11, 2017, 12:29:26 PM
Quote from: louisstamos on January 11, 2017, 11:48:51 AM
Quote from: L K on January 11, 2017, 11:41:30 AM
Trump is going to have his first press conference since becoming PEEsident Elect.   Should be good.    He's off to an amazing start implying he's being persecuted like in Nazi Germany.

Which is ironic, considering the American Nazi Party is backing him publicly...

(...that's proper use of "irony," right?)

Saying 'break a leg' to an actor moments before he walks out on stage, slips on a banana peel and breaks his leg is ironic.

Sort of.

Actually just saying "break a leg" is ironic as you're saying something that isn't what you actually mean because you don't actually want them to break their leg but rather you're wishing them good luck.

The simplest and most straightforward way to think of it is as sarcasm but maybe lacking in what we'd identify as a sarcastic tone. There are other uses of it but that's bread and butter.

(https://media3.giphy.com/media/NmyEjXTmvSbxm/200_s.gif)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on January 12, 2017, 03:25:48 PM
https://twitter.com/mikeyface/status/819334956027695104
www.twitter.com/mikeyface/status/819334956027695104

Again, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on January 12, 2017, 03:27:56 PM
Yeah, that's great. It's like the Trump-iest thing that they could have possibly done.

I also love that a Bruce Springsteen tribute band is the best that they could do for his inauguration.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on January 12, 2017, 03:39:54 PM
There are so many funny inane moments of ineptitude sprinkled amongst the frightening, ominous decisions.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on January 12, 2017, 03:54:57 PM
Any of you looking to adopt a slightly worn mixed race family of 3?

Might be time to head north.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on January 12, 2017, 03:59:12 PM
Seriously, we're basically a week away from the US government and many government agencies being so bogged down in lawsuits that it won't be able to function. And, considering the people in charge, that's a good thing.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on January 12, 2017, 04:03:48 PM
Quote from: herman on January 12, 2017, 03:39:54 PM
There are so many funny inane moments of ineptitude sprinkled amongst the frightening, ominous decisions.

It's the kind of thing that makes you laugh and then remember that these are the people who'll have the nuclear codes.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on January 12, 2017, 04:06:34 PM
Quote from: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on January 12, 2017, 03:54:57 PM
Any of you looking to adopt a slightly worn mixed race family of 3?

Might be time to head north.

Do you have any technical/mechanical skills? My company will be looking for a technical salesperson for Ontario a few months from now.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on January 12, 2017, 05:50:22 PM
Quote from: herman on January 12, 2017, 04:06:34 PM
Quote from: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on January 12, 2017, 03:54:57 PM
Any of you looking to adopt a slightly worn mixed race family of 3?

Might be time to head north.

Do you have any technical/mechanical skills? My company will be looking for a technical salesperson for Ontario a few months from now.

Thanks for the thought herman, I'll shoot you a pm at some point.

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: LuncheonMeat on January 12, 2017, 10:54:38 PM
I'm going to continue to tough it out in Seattle, with the hope that the NHL will arrive before the world explodes.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on January 12, 2017, 11:59:21 PM
One of our last few reminders of what a competent President and decent human being sounds like:  8 days to go.

https://streamable.com/0rexi
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on January 13, 2017, 10:38:24 AM
Quote from: L K on January 12, 2017, 11:59:21 PM
One of our last few reminders of what a competent President and decent human being sounds like:  8 days to go.

https://streamable.com/0rexi

It's crazy. We're going from witnessing one of the most eloquent Presidents in American history, to quite probably the least eloquent.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on January 13, 2017, 11:11:01 AM
Quote from: L K on January 12, 2017, 11:59:21 PM
One of our last few reminders of what a competent President and decent human being sounds like:  8 days to go.

https://streamable.com/0rexi

Definitely worth watching the whole thing. He was so surprised!
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on January 13, 2017, 11:19:21 AM
Quote from: herman on January 13, 2017, 11:11:01 AM
Quote from: L K on January 12, 2017, 11:59:21 PM
One of our last few reminders of what a competent President and decent human being sounds like:  8 days to go.

https://streamable.com/0rexi

Definitely worth watching the whole thing. He was so surprised!


Thanks, I couldn't find the whole thing!
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on January 13, 2017, 11:41:25 AM
It's really too bad he didn't run. (I mean Biden of course)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on January 13, 2017, 02:43:03 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on January 13, 2017, 11:41:25 AM
It's really too bad he didn't run. (I mean Biden of course)

I only just read up on his story today, because a lot of the references he and Obama made in their respective speeches were over my head. Wow.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Joe on January 13, 2017, 04:59:01 PM
Well he is 74. I'm no ageist but likely would like to slow down not ramp up at this point.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on January 14, 2017, 05:55:12 AM
President Obama's farewell speech to the nation Wednesday night was moving as he touched on several points, none the more when he referenced a tribute to his wife Michelle, and his two daughters, Sasha (who did not attend) & Malia (who was present.  Not a dry eye in the house.  His tribute as he referenced VP Joe Biden & his wife was touching.

Grace, style, compassion, empathy, and so much more is what the Obama's brought to the White House.  And, for the first time since time can remember, a scandal-free marriage.

Proudly in service for you America.  Wow.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bullfrog on January 14, 2017, 01:16:41 PM
I don't recall any matrimonial scandals with the Bushs.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on January 14, 2017, 03:44:36 PM
Quote from: Bullfrog on January 14, 2017, 01:16:41 PM
I don't recall any matrimonial scandals with the Bushs.

Time's memory ain't what it used to be.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on January 15, 2017, 07:45:38 AM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on January 14, 2017, 03:44:36 PM
Quote from: Bullfrog on January 14, 2017, 01:16:41 PM
I don't recall any matrimonial scandals with the Bushs.

Time's memory ain't what it used to be.


Don't worry you two, time's memory is just fine.

Whether the Obama's have a carefully crafted image of a lovey-dovey homey and close-knit family, or whether it is true that they've emerged with a stronger bond than ever (not without marital disagreements), we'll never really know at least for the time being.

As for the Bushes, they seemed fine save for some issues with their daughters.  Again, did it stop there?

Here are two (older) articles that dealt with some of the above.  Remember when the Enquired was correct in telling it like it was about John Edwards?


http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/george-w-bush-condoleezza-rice-affair-author-ronnie-seaton-tell-all-book-sir-white-house-chef

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541580/Is-Obama-marriage-rocks-Ugly-fights-selfie-Even-Presidential-affair-Astonishing-claims-emerge.html

People will say anything, but then, there's always so much going on in a politician's life, or life beyond a political marriage.  Who knows.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on January 15, 2017, 08:30:28 AM
The Republican-proposed BAT out of hell: Serious implications for Canada or not...

When it comes to trade, President-elect Donald Trump does not seem all that concerned about Canada. That doesn't mean Canadian exporters should not be concerned about him.

...a revolutionary Republican tax proposal could damage Canada more than any other nation on earth.

It is called the Border Adjusted Tax (or BAT). It would mean American companies could no longer write-off the cost of imported goods. Only the costs of American-produced goods would be deductible. To simplify, a gift store in Maine buys a bottle of Quebec maple syrup for $1 and sells it for $3. Under the status quo, the store can write off the dollar spent buying the Canadian product, so it would pay business tax only on the remaining $2 in profit. Under the BAT, the company could not write-off goods from abroad, so it would pay corporate tax on all $3, even though it only made a profit of $2.

If the retailer bought the maple syrup from an American sugar bush, on the other hand, it could deduct the cost. For the cabane à sucre in Quebec to compete, it would need to sell its syrup at a big enough discount to compensate for the tax advantage its American competitors would enjoy.

All other things equal, that discount would be around 15 per cent, because that is the business tax rate Trump says he will establish.

Unfortunately, we are not just talking about maple syrup. Canada exported almost $400 billion in goods to the U.S. in 2015, which works out to almost a fifth of our gross domestic product.

The BAT has the backing of two congressmen with the power to do something about it: House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady.

President-elect Trump has not stated a definitive position on it, but it lines up perfectly with his plan to cut imports and boost domestic production. With Republican domination in the House, Senate, and Oval Office, there is a real chance it will happen.

More:
http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/pierre-poilievre-trump-could-be-about-to-take-a-bat-to-canadian-jobs (http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/pierre-poilievre-trump-could-be-about-to-take-a-bat-to-canadian-jobs)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on January 15, 2017, 02:08:01 PM
Quote from: hockeyfan1 on January 15, 2017, 07:45:38 AM
Don't worry you two, time's memory is just fine.

Whether the Obama's have a carefully crafted image of a lovey-dovey homey and close-knit family, or whether it is true that they've emerged with a stronger bond than ever (not without marital disagreements), we'll never really know at least for the time being.

As for the Bushes, they seemed fine save for some issues with their daughters.  Again, did it stop there?

Here are two (older) articles that dealt with some of the above.  Remember when the Enquired was correct in telling it like it was about John Edwards?


http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/george-w-bush-condoleezza-rice-affair-author-ronnie-seaton-tell-all-book-sir-white-house-chef

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541580/Is-Obama-marriage-rocks-Ugly-fights-selfie-Even-Presidential-affair-Astonishing-claims-emerge.html

People will say anything, but then, there's always so much going on in a politician's life, or life beyond a political marriage.  Who knows.

Ug dech jethick fut zo dinclodifrupp chupid laxamfricks eb up efvieusrupp claxazupp dolsen. Ovolytimo Pum loaxad axanythick ug drito vupp DiQ wreps ton deinks hist chirr roaxavos vo axafuk eno whuctlow axahoaxad eb ug.

Haxat nud velo, zo waxaupp ug drito axas dib wo wolo up axaudionco laxathol zaxan doepro ug axalo din pit iscussien um dis efnexieus pi weurd fo ovon dib haxat ug dreto waxasniz dinaxano, maxapid pi se cristo-lighton zo oditel eb Loaxadol nud Igoch weurd wrep poaxad en zo spet axabtol quich pit bod sonkoncos.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on January 16, 2017, 08:39:02 AM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on January 15, 2017, 02:08:01 PM
Quote from: hockeyfan1 on January 15, 2017, 07:45:38 AM
Don't worry you two, time's memory is just fine.

Whether the Obama's have a carefully crafted image of a lovey-dovey homey and close-knit family, or whether it is true that they've emerged with a stronger bond than ever (not without marital disagreements), we'll never really know at least for the time being.

As for the Bushes, they seemed fine save for some issues with their daughters.  Again, did it stop there?

Here are two (older) articles that dealt with some of the above.  Remember when the Enquired was correct in telling it like it was about John Edwards?


http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/george-w-bush-condoleezza-rice-affair-author-ronnie-seaton-tell-all-book-sir-white-house-chef

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541580/Is-Obama-marriage-rocks-Ugly-fights-selfie-Even-Presidential-affair-Astonishing-claims-emerge.html

People will say anything, but then, there's always so much going on in a politician's life, or life beyond a political marriage.  Who knows.

Ug dech jethick fut zo dinclodifrupp chupid laxamfricks eb up efvieusrupp claxazupp dolsen. Ovolytimo Pum loaxad axanythick ug drito vupp DiQ wreps ton deinks hist chirr roaxavos vo axafuk eno whuctlow axahoaxad eb ug.

Haxat nud velo, zo waxaupp ug drito axas dib wo wolo up axaudionco laxathol zaxan doepro ug axalo din pit iscussien um dis efnexieus pi weurd fo ovon dib haxat ug dreto waxasniz dinaxano, maxapid pi se cristo-lighton zo oditel eb Loaxadol nud Igoch weurd wrep poaxad en zo spet axabtol quich pit bod sonkoncos.


Ug axalo jethick fut up axallegaxank, axacolfic, pioco eb kaxalfaxago he nud flaxain joods te fo axadjuchow.  As baxal axas Pum'v cencolnow, ug whaxavo dinsurtow ceunkropt doepro en zis feaxald pi dib Pum wolo din staxalgo wholo, Pum'd whaxavo zlewn ug lidd uk

Pum axam jethick eb haxat ug saxaupp Pum axam. Dit sooms te vo zaxat dit dis dimpessifro te whaxavo pit cenvolsaxatien, el welso chirr, te dinitiaxato pi dech pit loprupp, dinnecueus axas dit dis, withuk ug joaxactolthaxar stowick pi spittick doepro uk, se te spoaxak.

Peniz ug daxalo plebopt te fo whoaxad pi skeurdols axafevo axanyeno, focaxauso dib ug wolo zo gict eb dolsen he eno caxan axandui ox onjeupp pit dech um, ovon pit sirrupp eno, ug weukd jet fo lospectick din sust up uc wur waxaupp.

P.S.  Zis dis suppesow te fo pit 'bun' feaxald.  Unbeltunaxatorupp, yeep plosonco caxan fo posclifow axas putlid axat timos.

Kled an el fogeno!
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: louisstamos on January 16, 2017, 10:28:01 AM
???

(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/896/301/0b3.gif)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on January 16, 2017, 08:56:50 PM
[tweet]821025244064444417[/tweet]
www.twitter.com/studentactivism/status/821025244064444417

Trump thinks the President of the United States gets weekends off.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Arn on January 17, 2017, 08:33:35 AM
We were staying in a hotel on 7th Avenue in New York, pretty much up at the southern entrance to Central Park, so were within about 5 minutes walking distance to Trump Tower. Amusingly we arrived in the city about an hour before he began his press conference about the whole pee thing. We walked round and the place is like a circus.

If you want to go to any of the shops that are in the block on which Trump Tower sits (Tiffany & Co is one) you have to go through an NYPD security tent to be searched. The whole sidewalk on that side of the road is completely sealed off and you can't just walk past, so you have to cross 3 roads just to get past. There's absolutely no stopping of cars allowed on the section out front on either side of the road (except for normal traffic).

You also can't just cross the roads as normal waiting for lights - the entire junction is controlled entirely by NYPD officers who let the traffic through and pedestrians cross when they see fit.

The sidewalk on the opposite side of the road is fenced off and was completely full of TV cameras etc pretty much 24 hours a day.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on January 17, 2017, 12:09:49 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on January 12, 2017, 03:27:56 PM
I also love that a Bruce Springsteen tribute band is the best that they could do for his inauguration.

Whoops, nevermind, they backed out for fairly obvious reasons. Which led to this great observation:

[tweet]821195858150649858[/tweet]
www.twitter.com/ChaseMit/status/821195858150649858
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on January 18, 2017, 09:45:08 AM
[tweet]821699390939205633[/tweet]
www.twitter.com/kevinolearytv/status/821699390939205633

It'll be very interesting to see how much he just blatantly copies Trump's campaign strategies.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on January 18, 2017, 09:55:49 AM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on January 18, 2017, 09:45:08 AM
[tweet]821699390939205633[/tweet]
www.twitter.com/kevinolearytv/status/821699390939205633

It'll be very interesting to see how much he just blatantly copies Trump's campaign strategies.

For the Good of the Country:  I joined the Conservative Party to pick its next leader. You should, too. (https://thewalrus.ca/for-the-good-of-the-country/)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: TBLeafer on January 18, 2017, 10:45:08 AM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on January 18, 2017, 09:45:08 AM
[tweet]821699390939205633[/tweet]
www.twitter.com/kevinolearytv/status/821699390939205633

It'll be very interesting to see how much he just blatantly copies Trump's campaign strategies.

Here's hoping the vast majority of Canadians aren't as dumb as our brothers and sisters in the south.

At least he doesn't go around, grabbing women's crotches.

Times are dark, indeed.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: TimKerr on January 18, 2017, 11:43:29 AM
For the record, Kevin O'Leary can't even speak French and he wants to lead the country. I'm not saying he is Trump or anything but there are definitely some parallels.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on January 18, 2017, 11:44:59 AM
Quote from: TimKerr on January 18, 2017, 11:43:29 AM
For the record, Kevin O'Leary can't even speak French and he wants to lead the country. I'm not saying he is Trump or anything but there are definitely some parallels.

I think he's mildly more intelligent than Trump.  I think he in some ways is more dangerous because of that as he is going to vie with Kellie Leitch (disgrace to my profession) to perform a similar dirty campaign to Trump's.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: TBLeafer on January 18, 2017, 11:50:31 AM
Quote from: TimKerr on January 18, 2017, 11:43:29 AM
For the record, Kevin O'Leary can't even speak French and he wants to lead the country. I'm not saying he is Trump or anything but there are definitely some parallels.

Could Harper?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: TimKerr on January 18, 2017, 11:54:32 AM
Quote from: TBLeafer on January 18, 2017, 11:50:31 AM
Quote from: TimKerr on January 18, 2017, 11:43:29 AM
For the record, Kevin O'Leary can't even speak French and he wants to lead the country. I'm not saying he is Trump or anything but there are definitely some parallels.

Could Harper?

Yes. Not well mind you, but he was able to participate in the French language debates.

O'Leary has stated he doesn't need to speak French to lead the party.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: louisstamos on January 18, 2017, 12:12:02 PM
The one thing, though, is O'Leary doesn't have anywhere the same level of charisma that Trump has.  Trump has that whole "Cult of Personality" aspect in which people will support him at any turn (Rob Ford had this too).  I don't really see that character trait in O'Leary.

That said, the one advantage O'Leary has is he doesn't carry the "-isms" baggage that Trump has.  From what I've read and heard, he's been an equal opportunity employer and has never spoken out against any particular group (unlike Kellie Lietch).  His only foible might be that he's stated that massive income inequality is a "wonderful thing," but that didn't really deter working class people from voting for Trump either.

The hilarious thing is - I honestly think if he ran provincially, either in Alberta or Ontario (where he's spoken out against the government before), he'd probably win.  Nationally, though?  Even with a LOT of Trudeau supporters starting to lash out against him for breaking campaign promises, I don't see him carrying an election - especially without Quebec.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on January 18, 2017, 04:01:46 PM
Quote from: louisstamos on January 18, 2017, 12:12:02 PM
That said, the one advantage O'Leary has is he doesn't carry the "-isms" baggage that Trump has.  From what I've read and heard, he's been an equal opportunity employer and has never spoken out against any particular group (unlike Kellie Lietch).  His only foible might be that he's stated that massive income inequality is a "wonderful thing," but that didn't really deter working class people from voting for Trump either.

Yeah. I get the impression he'll be more of a far right Canadian politician than a Canadian Trump. Basically, I think he'll be kind of like Harper near the end, but with more personality, and less attempts to change the focus of the campaign to things like the hijab stupidity and such. So, basically, less spending on social programs, less focus on environmental issues, etc., but, also, tax cuts and such. Still not someone I'd vote for, but also not someone who'd be an international embarrassment, either.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: McGarnagle on January 18, 2017, 08:52:39 PM
Quote from: TimKerr on January 18, 2017, 11:54:32 AM
Quote from: TBLeafer on January 18, 2017, 11:50:31 AM
Quote from: TimKerr on January 18, 2017, 11:43:29 AM
For the record, Kevin O'Leary can't even speak French and he wants to lead the country. I'm not saying he is Trump or anything but there are definitely some parallels.

Could Harper?

Yes. Not well mind you, but he was able to participate in the French language debates.

O'Leary has stated he doesn't need to speak French to lead the party.

I don't really know much about the guy other than he reminds me a bit of the 80's business jerk from futurama, but I don't think bilingualism should be a required prerequisite/qualification. It eliminates too many potential high contributors. 
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: crazyperfectdevil on January 18, 2017, 09:04:19 PM
Quote from: McGarnagle on January 18, 2017, 08:52:39 PM
Quote from: TimKerr on January 18, 2017, 11:54:32 AM
Quote from: TBLeafer on January 18, 2017, 11:50:31 AM
Quote from: TimKerr on January 18, 2017, 11:43:29 AM
For the record, Kevin O'Leary can't even speak French and he wants to lead the country. I'm not saying he is Trump or anything but there are definitely some parallels.

Could Harper?

Yes. Not well mind you, but he was able to participate in the French language debates.

O'Leary has stated he doesn't need to speak French to lead the party.

I don't really know much about the guy other than he reminds me a bit of the 80's business jerk from futurama, but I don't think bilingualism should be a required prerequisite/qualification. It eliminates too many potential high contributors.

tell that to quebec.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on January 18, 2017, 09:27:37 PM
Quote from: McGarnagle on January 18, 2017, 08:52:39 PM
I don't really know much about the guy other than he reminds me a bit of the 80's business jerk from futurama, but I don't think bilingualism should be a required prerequisite/qualification. It eliminates too many potential high contributors.

It's awfully difficult to win a majority without strong support in Quebec, and it's virtually impossible to get strong support in Quebec if you don't speak French. I'm not convinced any party would voluntarily elect a leader that virtually guarantees the best they can achieve is a minority government.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Joe on January 18, 2017, 09:33:32 PM
Wasn't stockwell day kind of a Canadian version of the schlock that was trump a number of years ago? My only point is that Canadians didn't go for it back then and I don't think (I hope) they don't go for it in the future.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on January 18, 2017, 09:36:33 PM

I think bilingualism is a pretty fair standard to have for someone who's the head of government for an officially bilingual country.

Especially since, as Harper proved, it's not exactly as if an eloquent fluency is required.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on January 18, 2017, 09:42:28 PM
Quote from: Joe S. on January 18, 2017, 09:33:32 PM
Wasn't stockwell day kind of a Canadian version of the schlock that was trump a number of years ago? My only point is that Canadians didn't go for it back then and I don't think (I hope) they don't go for it in the future.

Different political climate RE: Day, but, I'm inclined to agree. I think the most recent election and the reaction to Harper pressing on the hijab issue showed that Canadian voters are more likely to be turned away by that sort of rhetoric.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on January 19, 2017, 12:05:04 AM
Quote from: Joe S. on January 18, 2017, 09:33:32 PM
Wasn't stockwell day kind of a Canadian version of the schlock that was trump a number of years ago? My only point is that Canadians didn't go for it back then and I don't think (I hope) they don't go for it in the future.

Kinda like how Homer was not not licking poison frogs?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Boston Leaf on January 19, 2017, 08:09:56 AM
A disgusting human being sworn in tomorrow...Regardless of party I ahve always had respect for president. Many I disagreed on many issues with but always thought down deep they were good people and doing what they believed was best interest for their country.. But this guy I find a despicable self centered egotistical bigot (I could go on) who's main interest is himself and feeding his ego. For first time in my life (I am over 50) I am concerned about well being of country due to commander in chief
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Arn on January 19, 2017, 10:18:00 AM
I have to say, and it's been seen before, where I expected he was using the persona to gain the victory in the election then once that was secured he would tone it down and become a bit more middle of the road.

Worryingly it looks like he may even get worse.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on January 20, 2017, 06:14:15 AM
Arlene Dickinson, formerly of CBC's "Dragon's Den", on O'Leary:

Since announcing his candidacy for the leader of the Conservative Party, I've been inundated with requests to comment on Kevin O'Leary. The question on everyone's mind is the same: "Is the cold, money-driven person we see on television what we will get as a potential political leader?"

It's the exact same question I've received from Canadians from coast to coast since we co-starred on Dragons' Den together. 

And the answer is: Yes, he's exactly the same person privately as he is on camera.

For seven years, I sat shoulder to shoulder with Kevin. We'd spend long hours together, listening to hardworking Canadian entrepreneurs pitch their businesses, which, all too often, led to real-life stories of enormous struggle.

You get a window into somebody's character by the way they treat people, particularly those who are vulnerable and need help or guidance.

Kevin's total lack of empathy toward these Canadians who put their heart and soul on the line, I can assure you, was genuine. Kevin is funny. I often enjoyed a glass of wine with him. He's also intelligent and a savvy self-promoter. But at his core, he's an opportunist. He doesn't do anything that doesn't offer a path to power, fame or fortune — and that should have us all afraid. 

He's the business community's worst spokesperson. Why? Because he represents capitalism in its very worst form — a soulless system that bases decisions solely on dollars and cents, profit and margin.

But this isn't the reality.

After 30 years of being an entrepreneur, I've learned that business is about people. It's a series of relationships between you and your customers, your employees, your partners, and ultimately, the public. Business is  personal. One of the more revealing moments I've experienced with Kevin was when a group of inner-city kids from Halifax came on Dragons' Den to pitch their not-for-profit business, Hope Blooms.

Here was a group of vulnerable kids who took an abandoned lot in Halifax and turned it into a garden to grow herbs and vegetables to then turn into salad dressing. Some took on the role of tending the garden, others packaged and some sold the product at the local market.

These kids embody hard work, grit, and determination. They courageously entered the Den to ask for $10,000 for a 5 per cent royalty.

In the end, Jim, David, Bruce and I gave them $10,000 each — no royalties. It was the right thing to do, and the best $10,000 I ever invested on the show.

Kevin, not surprisingly, didn't give them anything except for an utter lack of consideration for what these kids were doing, and why it mattered.

Looking back, it's plain to see that he didn't participate because there was nothing in it for Kevin. He only saw how he'd lose $10,000 instead of seeing how he might change a kid's life.

Now, the self-professed billionaire, who couldn't part with $10,000, thinks he's the best person to lead our country. A person that's genuinely unconcerned with the lives of others wants a position that is solely about the lives of others.

More:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/kevin-o-leary-conservative-run-arlene-dickinson-opinion-1.3942349
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Zee on January 20, 2017, 09:30:40 AM
Quote from: hockeyfan1 on January 20, 2017, 06:14:15 AM
Arlene Dickinson, formerly of CBC's "Dragon's Den", on O'Leary:

Since announcing his candidacy for the leader of the Conservative Party, I've been inundated with requests to comment on Kevin O'Leary. The question on everyone's mind is the same: "Is the cold, money-driven person we see on television what we will get as a potential political leader?"

It's the exact same question I've received from Canadians from coast to coast since we co-starred on Dragons' Den together.

And the answer is: Yes, he's exactly the same person privately as he is on camera.

For seven years, I sat shoulder to shoulder with Kevin. We'd spend long hours together, listening to hardworking Canadian entrepreneurs pitch their businesses, which, all too often, led to real-life stories of enormous struggle.

You get a window into somebody's character by the way they treat people, particularly those who are vulnerable and need help or guidance.

Kevin's total lack of empathy toward these Canadians who put their heart and soul on the line, I can assure you, was genuine. Kevin is funny. I often enjoyed a glass of wine with him. He's also intelligent and a savvy self-promoter. But at his core, he's an opportunist. He doesn't do anything that doesn't offer a path to power, fame or fortune — and that should have us all afraid.

He's the business community's worst spokesperson. Why? Because he represents capitalism in its very worst form — a soulless system that bases decisions solely on dollars and cents, profit and margin.

But this isn't the reality.

After 30 years of being an entrepreneur, I've learned that business is about people. It's a series of relationships between you and your customers, your employees, your partners, and ultimately, the public. Business is  personal. One of the more revealing moments I've experienced with Kevin was when a group of inner-city kids from Halifax came on Dragons' Den to pitch their not-for-profit business, Hope Blooms.

Here was a group of vulnerable kids who took an abandoned lot in Halifax and turned it into a garden to grow herbs and vegetables to then turn into salad dressing. Some took on the role of tending the garden, others packaged and some sold the product at the local market.

These kids embody hard work, grit, and determination. They courageously entered the Den to ask for $10,000 for a 5 per cent royalty.

In the end, Jim, David, Bruce and I gave them $10,000 each — no royalties. It was the right thing to do, and the best $10,000 I ever invested on the show.

Kevin, not surprisingly, didn't give them anything except for an utter lack of consideration for what these kids were doing, and why it mattered.

Looking back, it's plain to see that he didn't participate because there was nothing in it for Kevin. He only saw how he'd lose $10,000 instead of seeing how he might change a kid's life.

Now, the self-professed billionaire, who couldn't part with $10,000, thinks he's the best person to lead our country. A person that's genuinely unconcerned with the lives of others wants a position that is solely about the lives of others.

More:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/kevin-o-leary-conservative-run-arlene-dickinson-opinion-1.3942349
I have to give the PC party more credit than getting a guy like O'Leary as leader. We'll see how it goes.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: TBLeafer on January 20, 2017, 11:13:14 AM
Quote from: hockeyfan1 on January 20, 2017, 06:14:15 AM
Arlene Dickinson, formerly of CBC's "Dragon's Den", on O'Leary:

Since announcing his candidacy for the leader of the Conservative Party, I've been inundated with requests to comment on Kevin O'Leary. The question on everyone's mind is the same: "Is the cold, money-driven person we see on television what we will get as a potential political leader?"

It's the exact same question I've received from Canadians from coast to coast since we co-starred on Dragons' Den together.

And the answer is: Yes, he's exactly the same person privately as he is on camera.

For seven years, I sat shoulder to shoulder with Kevin. We'd spend long hours together, listening to hardworking Canadian entrepreneurs pitch their businesses, which, all too often, led to real-life stories of enormous struggle.

You get a window into somebody's character by the way they treat people, particularly those who are vulnerable and need help or guidance.

Kevin's total lack of empathy toward these Canadians who put their heart and soul on the line, I can assure you, was genuine. Kevin is funny. I often enjoyed a glass of wine with him. He's also intelligent and a savvy self-promoter. But at his core, he's an opportunist. He doesn't do anything that doesn't offer a path to power, fame or fortune — and that should have us all afraid.

He's the business community's worst spokesperson. Why? Because he represents capitalism in its very worst form — a soulless system that bases decisions solely on dollars and cents, profit and margin.

But this isn't the reality.

After 30 years of being an entrepreneur, I've learned that business is about people. It's a series of relationships between you and your customers, your employees, your partners, and ultimately, the public. Business is  personal. One of the more revealing moments I've experienced with Kevin was when a group of inner-city kids from Halifax came on Dragons' Den to pitch their not-for-profit business, Hope Blooms.

Here was a group of vulnerable kids who took an abandoned lot in Halifax and turned it into a garden to grow herbs and vegetables to then turn into salad dressing. Some took on the role of tending the garden, others packaged and some sold the product at the local market.

These kids embody hard work, grit, and determination. They courageously entered the Den to ask for $10,000 for a 5 per cent royalty.

In the end, Jim, David, Bruce and I gave them $10,000 each — no royalties. It was the right thing to do, and the best $10,000 I ever invested on the show.

Kevin, not surprisingly, didn't give them anything except for an utter lack of consideration for what these kids were doing, and why it mattered.

Looking back, it's plain to see that he didn't participate because there was nothing in it for Kevin. He only saw how he'd lose $10,000 instead of seeing how he might change a kid's life.

Now, the self-professed billionaire, who couldn't part with $10,000, thinks he's the best person to lead our country. A person that's genuinely unconcerned with the lives of others wants a position that is solely about the lives of others.

More:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/kevin-o-leary-conservative-run-arlene-dickinson-opinion-1.3942349

Informed perspective is our friend.

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on January 20, 2017, 12:32:26 PM

Well, I'll say it. I'm bummed. Today could have been a very exciting and historic day where, despite the fact that I'm not a big fan of hers, Clinton could have made some history. Not so much for me but for my Grandmother. 84 years old, born in Brooklyn, worked on both of Adlai Stevenson's Presidential campaigns...she'd like to see a Woman president and I don't blame her.

Now, mind you, she's got some years left in her and that day still might come but it was her birthday a couple days ago and we're celebrating it at our Shabbos dinner tonight and just the comparison between how happy she would have been with a Clinton win vs. how crummy this day is definitely unfortunate.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bender on January 20, 2017, 01:20:04 PM
It sounds like Trump is still campaigning. America is shit except not anymore. I'm president! Sounds like a fascist.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on January 20, 2017, 01:40:33 PM
https://twitter.com/Slate/status/822497716991303681
www.twitter.com/Slate/status/822497716991303681
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Peter D. on January 20, 2017, 03:17:58 PM
People are actually going to protest tomorrow in Toronto over this?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on January 20, 2017, 03:25:09 PM
Quote from: Peter D. on January 20, 2017, 03:17:58 PM
People are actually going to protest tomorrow in Toronto over this?

I see it less as a protest, and more along the lines of solidarity for our neighbours who are out there in protest of some of Trump and his cabinet's proposed/expected policies.

Or, you could see it as a proactive demonstration to try to show those running for the leadership of the Conservative party that Canadians won't stand for Trump-esque politics.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on January 21, 2017, 05:16:50 AM
The Clintons attend Trump's inauguration:

Hillary Clinton stood stoic on Friday...She was not rattled as chants of "lock her up" emanated from the crowd below the inauguration podium, and betrayed no emotion as Trump, who defeated her with an electoral college win, declared an end to the era of politicians who were "all talk and no action".


Addressing both Hillary and Bill Clinton at the inaugural luncheon on Friday, Trump said he was "honored" they even attended the inauguration.

"I think it's very important," Trump told the luncheon. "And I'd like you to stand up. I'd like you to stand up."

The Clintons stood and were soon joined by the other guests, who applauded.

"And honestly, there's nothing more I can say, because I have great respect for those two people," Trump said.

Read more here:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/20/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-inauguration
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on January 22, 2017, 05:43:59 AM
Hillary Clinton still under investigation,  probe will continue vows Republican Rep...

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee that has investigated Hillary Clinton's actions as secretary of state, including her private email server...has previously pledged to keep going with the probe of Clinton's activities.

"Just because there was a political election doesn't mean it goes away," he said of the investigation last week, saying that classified emails that surfaced on Clinton's server were "the largest breach of security in the history of the State Department."

Brian Fallon, a former spokesman for Clinton's campaign, simply tweeted, "Subhuman."

Story:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/chaffetz-clinton-investigation/index.html
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on January 23, 2017, 10:45:04 AM
http://www.newsweek.com/us-legal-watchdog-file-lawsuit-donald-trumps-foreign-payments-546916

Let the lawsuits begin!
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Mostar on January 23, 2017, 11:03:18 AM
Quote from: hockeyfan1 on January 22, 2017, 05:43:59 AM
Hillary Clinton still under investigation,  probe will continue vows Republican Rep...

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee that has investigated Hillary Clinton's actions as secretary of state, including her private email server...has previously pledged to keep going with the probe of Clinton's activities.

"Just because there was a political election doesn't mean it goes away," he said of the investigation last week, saying that classified emails that surfaced on Clinton's server were "the largest breach of security in the history of the State Department."

Brian Fallon, a former spokesman for Clinton's campaign, simply tweeted, "Subhuman."

Story:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/chaffetz-clinton-investigation/index.html

The republicans have been responsible for this investigation all along. It seems to have been used as a weapon against the democrats as opposed to a chance to learn anything.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Highlander on January 25, 2017, 11:51:20 AM
Strange the Canadian dollar is having an upward leap the past day. Wonder why  as one would think The Donalds policies would be putting it in the shi_ter
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on January 25, 2017, 11:58:37 AM
Quote from: Highlander on January 25, 2017, 11:51:20 AM
Strange the Canadian dollar is having an upward leap the past day. Wonder why  as one would think The Donalds policies would be putting it in the shi_ter

Our dollar is tied pretty heavily to the oil market, and his policies towards the pipeline help the oil industry.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: pnjunction on January 25, 2017, 12:30:03 PM
Quote from: Highlander on January 25, 2017, 11:51:20 AM
Strange the Canadian dollar is having an upward leap the past day. Wonder why  as one would think The Donalds policies would be putting it in the shi_ter

Which policies?  Far as I know the only thing he's actually signed that would affect us is the pipeline approval, which would be a good thing.

The effect of any NAFTA changes on Canada seems overblown for a bunch of reasons, we have fallback agreements and the focus is mainly on Mexico which actually makes sense in terms of helping the labour market.  Even if Canada was affected the fact that Silicon Valley and other tech centers might have to send back some or all of the hundreds of thousands of Canadian tech workers would even things out a bit.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on January 25, 2017, 06:35:26 PM
Quote from: hockeyfan1 on January 22, 2017, 05:43:59 AM
Hillary Clinton still under investigation,  probe will continue vows Republican Rep...

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee that has investigated Hillary Clinton's actions as secretary of state, including her private email server...has previously pledged to keep going with the probe of Clinton's activities.

"Just because there was a political election doesn't mean it goes away," he said of the investigation last week, saying that classified emails that surfaced on Clinton's server were "the largest breach of security in the history of the State Department."

Brian Fallon, a former spokesman for Clinton's campaign, simply tweeted, "Subhuman."

Story:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/chaffetz-clinton-investigation/index.html

Note when the hack rolls out the tough talk: Because what makes these conservative ghouls "subhuman" is actually their treatment of Mother, not, you know, policies to turn away refugees, while immiserating whoever's within our borders, stripping the place for parts, and hastening the freakin apocalypse.

I think everyone involved in Clinton's campaign should be probed. Largest political failure in our history.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on January 26, 2017, 01:25:21 AM
I haven't even been able to go through the whole thing, but Jesus this interview with him and ABC's David Muir is something else:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-abc-news-anchor-david-muir-interviews-president/story?id=45047602
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: crazyperfectdevil on January 26, 2017, 01:42:55 AM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on January 26, 2017, 01:25:21 AM
I haven't even been able to go through the whole thing, but Jesus this interview with him and ABC's David Muir is something else:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-abc-news-anchor-david-muir-interviews-president/story?id=45047602

he never read the letter, did he?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on January 26, 2017, 09:53:10 AM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on January 26, 2017, 01:25:21 AM
I haven't even been able to go through the whole thing, but Jesus this interview with him and ABC's David Muir is something else:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-abc-news-anchor-david-muir-interviews-president/story?id=45047602

That is so absurd I actually stopped halfway to make sure it wasn't the Onion.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on January 26, 2017, 10:25:07 AM
Quote from: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on January 26, 2017, 09:53:10 AM
That is so absurd I actually stopped halfway to make sure it wasn't the Onion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_personality_disorder

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on January 27, 2017, 01:03:20 PM
https://twitter.com/RoguePOTUSStaff

I don't know how real this is, but it's pretty amazeballs.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bender on January 27, 2017, 02:00:49 PM
I love this.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on January 27, 2017, 04:33:40 PM
Quote from: herman on January 27, 2017, 01:03:20 PM
https://twitter.com/RoguePOTUSStaff

I don't know how real this is, but it's pretty amazeballs.


Whoa!  If this is for real, then bless whoever it is!
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on January 27, 2017, 04:44:30 PM
Quote from: crazyperfectdevil on January 26, 2017, 01:42:55 AM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on January 26, 2017, 01:25:21 AM
I haven't even been able to go through the whole thing, but Jesus this interview with him and ABC's David Muir is something else:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-abc-news-anchor-david-muir-interviews-president/story?id=45047602

he never read the letter, did he?


It seems to me that he wants to whitewash Barack Obama's existence in the analysis of Presidential history.

I feel sorry for those (Americans) who didn't vote for him. 
Hillary Clinton had it in the bag to make history but blew it away.  In a way I blame her almost entirely on account of that scandal.  If it hadn't happened...

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on January 27, 2017, 11:36:20 PM
https://twitter.com/RoguePOTUSStaff/status/825147501695086592
www.twitter.com/RoguePOTUSStaff/status/825147501695086592

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_column
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on January 28, 2017, 11:00:47 AM
The amount of damage the U.S. has done and continues to do to itself in the wake of 9/11 dwarfs the losses it suffered on 9/11.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on January 28, 2017, 02:22:45 PM
Muslim ban. This is disgusting.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: OrangeBlack on January 28, 2017, 03:03:33 PM
It's not really a ban, it's a temporary travel restriction for 4 months.  The idea is to make sure that refugees & immigrants that come into this country are properly vetted.  Certainly, it's not a perfect system....they're trying to figure it out as they go along.  Hopefully, this leads to a clean process that's acceptable to both sides.  It's not unreasonable to state that if you allow hundreds of thousands of people free entry into the US from both Mexico & the travel banned countries....it will lead to bad risks that will infiltrate those ranks.  Yes, 99% of the people that come in to the US are good people....vetting keeps out the other 1%.  Is it profiling....probably.
Is there a better way to do it?   It's very unfortunate that innocents at JFK right now are caught in the wide net that was cast.  I feel bad for them & their families.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on January 28, 2017, 03:33:00 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 28, 2017, 03:03:33 PM
It's not really a ban, it's a temporary travel restriction for 4 months.  The idea is to make sure that refugees & immigrants that come into this country are properly vetted.  Certainly, it's not a perfect system....they're trying to figure it out as they go along.  Hopefully, this leads to a clean process that's acceptable to both sides.  It's not unreasonable to state that if you allow hundreds of thousands of people free entry into the US from both Mexico & the travel banned countries....it will lead to bad risks that will infiltrate those ranks.  Yes, 99% of the people that come in to the US are good people....vetting keeps out the other 1%.  Is it profiling....probably.
Is there a better way to do it?   It's very unfortunate that innocents at JFK right now are caught in the wide net that was cast.  I feel bad for them & their families.

Any student of history can see that all of this is going in a very bad direction that will be catastrophic to thousands and thousands of innocent people.  In the end, to Americans as well.  The vetting process is already extremely tough.  This is not making America great again, it's a reckless action out of fear and cowardice.  Same with the border wall.  A sufficient number of people elected an shockingly ignorant, petty, narcissist, and his party doesn't have the courage to challenge this intellectual and emotional toddler.  I'm truly embarrassed for the U.S. right now.

https://twitter.com/Stl_Manifest
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on January 28, 2017, 04:16:30 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 28, 2017, 03:03:33 PM
It's not really a ban, it's a temporary travel restriction for 4 months.  The idea is to make sure that refugees & immigrants that come into this country are properly vetted.  Certainly, it's not a perfect system....they're trying to figure it out as they go along.  Hopefully, this leads to a clean process that's acceptable to both sides.  It's not unreasonable to state that if you allow hundreds of thousands of people free entry into the US from both Mexico & the travel banned countries....it will lead to bad risks that will infiltrate those ranks.  Yes, 99% of the people that come in to the US are good people....vetting keeps out the other 1%.  Is it profiling....probably.
Is there a better way to do it?   It's very unfortunate that innocents at JFK right now are caught in the wide net that was cast.  I feel bad for them & their families.

You are right, it isn't an outright ban on Muslims:

Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia - The seven countries placed on the ban list.  Number of terrorists from these countries that perpetrated 9/11 = zero.

Saudi Arabia - no ban.  15 of 19 were from here.
Lebanon - 1 of the 19
Egypt - 1 of the 19
UAE - 2 of the 19

Trump conveniently does a fair amount of business with Egypt and Saudia Arabia.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on January 28, 2017, 04:23:38 PM
Quote from: L K on January 28, 2017, 04:16:30 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 28, 2017, 03:03:33 PM
It's not really a ban, it's a temporary travel restriction for 4 months.  The idea is to make sure that refugees & immigrants that come into this country are properly vetted.  Certainly, it's not a perfect system....they're trying to figure it out as they go along.  Hopefully, this leads to a clean process that's acceptable to both sides.  It's not unreasonable to state that if you allow hundreds of thousands of people free entry into the US from both Mexico & the travel banned countries....it will lead to bad risks that will infiltrate those ranks.  Yes, 99% of the people that come in to the US are good people....vetting keeps out the other 1%.  Is it profiling....probably.
Is there a better way to do it?   It's very unfortunate that innocents at JFK right now are caught in the wide net that was cast.  I feel bad for them & their families.

You are right, it isn't an outright ban on Muslims:

Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia - The seven countries placed on the ban list.  Number of terrorists from these countries that perpetrated 9/11 = zero.

Saudi Arabia - no ban.  15 of 19 were from here.
Lebanon - 1 of the 19
Egypt - 1 of the 19
UAE - 2 of the 19

Trump conveniently does a fair amount of business with Egypt and Saudia Arabia.

And, if it needed observing (and it probably shouldn't...), Trump also has no business in the 7 banned countries.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on January 28, 2017, 04:39:44 PM
Well worth reading to the end of the Tweet-thread:

https://twitter.com/dyllyp/status/825397560126824448
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on January 28, 2017, 05:45:49 PM
Quote from: Heroic Shrimp on January 28, 2017, 04:39:44 PM
Well worth reading to the end of the Tweet-thread:

https://twitter.com/dyllyp/status/825397560126824448

That's the kind of stuff that makes your heart break and uplift you at the same time.  The far more common reality is that Brahim becomes another statistic.

The John Oliver special on this is pertinent at this time:


Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on January 28, 2017, 06:56:34 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 28, 2017, 03:03:33 PM
It's not unreasonable to state that if you allow hundreds of thousands of people free entry into the US from both Mexico & the travel banned countries....it will lead to bad risks that will infiltrate those ranks.

It is unreasonable, however, to insinuate this will in anyway make anyone safer. There are thousands of border guards along the Mexican border. Everyone who immigrates to the US or seeks refugee status is already vetted. You make it sound like thousands of Iranians are showing up at Ellis Island.

As already mentioned, you can't really point to any particular act of terrorism committed by someone who illegally came to the US from one of these countries. The shooters in San Bernadino, for instance, were someone born in America and an immigrant from Pakistan, another country not on the list.

Supporters of this sort of ridiculous thing can't have it both ways. Either there aren't massive efforts from terrorists to illegally get into into America from these countries or there are and the existing safeguards have been incredibly successful at preventing them.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on January 28, 2017, 09:24:51 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on January 28, 2017, 02:22:45 PM
Muslim ban. This is disgusting.

Signed into law on Holocaust Remembrance Day, no less. Just appalling.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: louisstamos on January 28, 2017, 11:21:35 PM
Overturned by a federal court thanks to an ACLU appeal.  Temporary, but helpful for now.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on January 29, 2017, 01:38:39 AM
What Trump did (the ban) will fall right into the hands of the terrorist groups.  They will gleefully be able to convince the many (confused Muslims about the West),  and use it as 'proof' that the West (namely America) hates them.  Don't think that Trump's actions will make America any safer, because it won't.

...counterterrorism experts say that the policy could backfire by providing more fodder for propaganda and recruiting by jihadist groups that aim to demonize the United States.

In interviews, analysts and former counterterrorism officials said the proposed immigration restrictions would reinforce the jihadists' binary worldview in which a monolithic West conspires to oppress Muslims across the planet...

"There is no doubt in my mind that, wherever they are, propagandists for groups of the likes of the Islamic State will be looking at what's happening and rubbing their hands with glee. Because this is exactly the kind of world they want to inhabit. It's a world that reifies their ideology," says Charlie Winter, a senior research fellow at the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence in London.

Groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda could to use the new restrictions to sway new followers around the world, says Clint Watts, a former FBI counterterrorism special agent and U.S. Army infantry officer.


http://time.com/4651729/president-trump-refugee-suspension-backfire/ (http://time.com/4651729/president-trump-refugee-suspension-backfire/)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on January 29, 2017, 10:56:19 AM
Quote from: louisstamos on January 28, 2017, 11:21:35 PM
Overturned by a federal court thanks to an ACLU appeal.  Temporary, but helpful for now.

Only for those already on US soil. It's a step forward, but just the beginning of the fight.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on January 29, 2017, 10:59:21 AM
Quote from: bustaheims on January 28, 2017, 09:24:51 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on January 28, 2017, 02:22:45 PM
Muslim ban. This is disgusting.

Signed into law on Holocaust Remembrance Day, no less. Just appalling.

It's almost as if one of his chief advisors is a literal Nazi.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on January 29, 2017, 12:40:26 PM
I met the Resident from the Cleveland Clinic at a conference last summer.  Wonderful person with a bright future.  She got kicked out of the country despite being on a J1 visa and involved in active medical practice/training. 

Trump......unbelievable. 
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on January 29, 2017, 12:52:47 PM
I'm pretty sure that with the state of the rich/poor gap in the states, and given the racial tension, that at some point we are going to see a civil war in the states.     
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 12:58:02 PM
I agree with a lot of what you guys are saying.  I didn't look at it with the perspective that this may help ISIS recruiting.  After taking the time to digest all the unintended consequences of this, it seems that this initiative was very poorly planned.  How can you institute something like this only 7 days after taking office.  It would seem that just the research & planning stage for all the ins & outs of what could happen under this travel restriction would take at least a few months.  This was definitely rushed to his desk for signature.

With that said, I definitely believe that we need to do something to tighten up immigration from terrorist nations.   When we see what happens in France, Germany & Belgium on an increased basis...that's not what we want the US to be.   It can be said that those countries seem very lax in regards to who they let across their borders.  Hopefully, there is some US intelligence that was gathered which backs up singling out the 7 countries on the list.  I can live with the fact that he didn't list any countries he's already doing business in.  I mean.......everyone knew that going in that there would be definite conflicts of interest. 

Just to qualify my statements.....I'm generally Democratic on social issues, & lean to the right on national security/defense and economic issues.  I saw Trump as the lesser of two evils...and agreed with the general perception that Hillary was a corrupt, evil b****.  The evidence that she worked with the DNC to steal the nomination from Bernie was definitely compelling....along with the long list of other dirty laundry.

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 01:15:50 PM
Quote from: Significantly Insignificant on January 29, 2017, 12:52:47 PM
I'm pretty sure that with the state of the rich/poor gap in the states, and given the racial tension, that at some point we are going to see a civil war in the states.   
I can see that too.  I read that the murder rate in Chicago was more than the combined murder rate of NY & LA.  The reason I brought this up was because I was watching a show where they interviewed Chicago police.  The Chicago officers are literally just responding to 911 calls & call in's now (reactive policing), while doing aggressive proactive policing much, much less.  It's basically the Ferguson effect....no wants to be the next poster example on the news.  That type of policing in the big cities leads to increased crime & racial animosity....along with of course the 1% of cops that are bad.  The government needs to find a solution where the police are allowed to do their jobs, & at the same time are trusted by the black community.  Not an easy feat. 
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on January 29, 2017, 01:22:15 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 01:15:50 PM
Quote from: Significantly Insignificant on January 29, 2017, 12:52:47 PM
I'm pretty sure that with the state of the rich/poor gap in the states, and given the racial tension, that at some point we are going to see a civil war in the states.   
I can see that too.  I read that the murder rate in Chicago was more than the combined murder rate of NY & LA.  The reason I brought this up was because I was watching a show where they interviewed Chicago police.  The Chicago officers are literally just responding to 911 calls & call in's now (reactive policing), while doing aggressive proactive policing much, much less.  It's basically the Ferguson effect....no wants to be the next poster example on the news.  That type of policing in the big cities leads to increased crime & racial animosity....along with of course the 1% of cops that are bad.  The government needs to find a solution where the police are allowed to do their jobs, & at the same time are trusted by the black community.  Not an easy feat.

A good starting point would be actual prosecution of the 1% who destroy the reputation of everyone else.   You have people going to jail for weed possession and then an officer can beat the living snot out of someone who essentially did nothing wrong and he gets 2 weeks of administrative leave followed by a month of desk duty before going back out on the roads.    I grew up in a police family.  I certainly lean in the direction of what a crappy job it can be when you go to a call for a domestic and then have both parties attack you because you go to arrest the person who actually committed an assault.  But the police/unions/DAs need to grow up and start tossing out the dirty bath water instead of protecting it.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bender on January 29, 2017, 01:27:32 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 28, 2017, 03:03:33 PM
It's not really a ban, it's a temporary travel restriction for 4 months.  The idea is to make sure that refugees & immigrants that come into this country are properly vetted.  Certainly, it's not a perfect system....they're trying to figure it out as they go along.  Hopefully, this leads to a clean process that's acceptable to both sides.  It's not unreasonable to state that if you allow hundreds of thousands of people free entry into the US from both Mexico & the travel banned countries....it will lead to bad risks that will infiltrate those ranks.  Yes, 99% of the people that come in to the US are good people....vetting keeps out the other 1%.  Is it profiling....probably.
Is there a better way to do it?   It's very unfortunate that innocents at JFK right now are caught in the wide net that was cast.  I feel bad for them & their families.
It's causing issues far beyond its intentions. None of the 9/11 attackers were from listed countries, countries that Trump has dealings with are not part of the ban. Refugees are already strongly vetted without random additional restriction. Even well to do people like Oscar nominated director & British politician are banned. Likelihood of getting murdered by fellow American is far higher but very little support for a temporary ban on sale of firearms to properly vet purchasers.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Arn on January 29, 2017, 01:44:07 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 12:58:02 PM
With that said, I definitely believe that we need to do something to tighten up immigration from terrorist nations.   When we see what happens in France, Germany & Belgium on an increased basis...that's not what we want the US to be.   

What about this kind of US?

(https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4132110/gun%20deaths%20vs%20other%20problems.jpg)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Arn on January 29, 2017, 01:45:24 PM
Quote from: Bender on January 29, 2017, 01:27:32 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 28, 2017, 03:03:33 PM
It's not really a ban, it's a temporary travel restriction for 4 months.  The idea is to make sure that refugees & immigrants that come into this country are properly vetted.  Certainly, it's not a perfect system....they're trying to figure it out as they go along.  Hopefully, this leads to a clean process that's acceptable to both sides.  It's not unreasonable to state that if you allow hundreds of thousands of people free entry into the US from both Mexico & the travel banned countries....it will lead to bad risks that will infiltrate those ranks.  Yes, 99% of the people that come in to the US are good people....vetting keeps out the other 1%.  Is it profiling....probably.
Is there a better way to do it?   It's very unfortunate that innocents at JFK right now are caught in the wide net that was cast.  I feel bad for them & their families.
It's causing issues far beyond its intentions. None of the 9/11 attackers were from listed countries, countries that Trump has dealings with are not part of the ban. Refugees are already strongly vetted without random additional restriction. Even well to do people like Oscar nominated director & British politician are banned. Likelihood of getting murdered by fellow American is far higher but very little support for a temporary ban on sale of firearms to properly vet purchasers.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

A multi Olympic gold winning medallist and Knighted British national can't get back to stay with his family

https://www.thestar.com/sports/amateur/2017/01/29/mo-farah-slams-us-travel-ban-trump-seems-to-have-made-me-an-alien.html
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on January 29, 2017, 01:50:16 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on January 29, 2017, 10:59:21 AM
Quote from: bustaheims on January 28, 2017, 09:24:51 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on January 28, 2017, 02:22:45 PM
Muslim ban. This is disgusting.

Signed into law on Holocaust Remembrance Day, no less. Just appalling.

It's almost as if one of his chief advisors is a literal Nazi.

You might just be on to something . . .

I mean, their statement about Holocaust Remembrance Day #AllLivesMattered the Holocaust.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 01:51:13 PM
Quote from: L K on January 29, 2017, 01:22:15 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 01:15:50 PM
Quote from: Significantly Insignificant on January 29, 2017, 12:52:47 PM
I'm pretty sure that with the state of the rich/poor gap in the states, and given the racial tension, that at some point we are going to see a civil war in the states.   
I can see that too.  I read that the murder rate in Chicago was more than the combined murder rate of NY & LA.  The reason I brought this up was because I was watching a show where they interviewed Chicago police.  The Chicago officers are literally just responding to 911 calls & call in's now (reactive policing), while doing aggressive proactive policing much, much less.  It's basically the Ferguson effect....no wants to be the next poster example on the news.  That type of policing in the big cities leads to increased crime & racial animosity....along with of course the 1% of cops that are bad.  The government needs to find a solution where the police are allowed to do their jobs, & at the same time are trusted by the black community.  Not an easy feat.

A good starting point would be actual prosecution of the 1% who destroy the reputation of everyone else.   You have people going to jail for weed possession and then an officer can beat the living snot out of someone who essentially did nothing wrong and he gets 2 weeks of administrative leave followed by a month of desk duty before going back out on the roads.    I grew up in a police family.  I certainly lean in the direction of what a crappy job it can be when you go to a call for a domestic and then have both parties attack you because you go to arrest the person who actually committed an assault.  But the police/unions/DAs need to grow up and start tossing out the dirty bath water instead of protecting it.
Agreed.  That would definitely be a good starting point.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 01:59:47 PM
Quote from: Arn on January 29, 2017, 01:44:07 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 12:58:02 PM
With that said, I definitely believe that we need to do something to tighten up immigration from terrorist nations.   When we see what happens in France, Germany & Belgium on an increased basis...that's not what we want the US to be.   


What about this kind of US?

(https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4132110/gun%20deaths%20vs%20other%20problems.jpg)
Gun control is a very complex issue.   People should have right to purchase guns, with a mechanism in place where guns don't get into the wrong hands.  I'm all for strong vetting in regards to who is allowed to purchase a gun.....strong background checks & mental health checks.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: crazyperfectdevil on January 29, 2017, 02:13:23 PM
so now trump is creating crises that only he can solve...wonderful
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 02:43:56 PM
Quote from: Arn on January 29, 2017, 01:45:24 PM
Quote from: Bender on January 29, 2017, 01:27:32 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 28, 2017, 03:03:33 PM
It's not really a ban, it's a temporary travel restriction for 4 months.  The idea is to make sure that refugees & immigrants that come into this country are properly vetted.  Certainly, it's not a perfect system....they're trying to figure it out as they go along.  Hopefully, this leads to a clean process that's acceptable to both sides.  It's not unreasonable to state that if you allow hundreds of thousands of people free entry into the US from both Mexico & the travel banned countries....it will lead to bad risks that will infiltrate those ranks.  Yes, 99% of the people that come in to the US are good people....vetting keeps out the other 1%.  Is it profiling....probably.
Is there a better way to do it?   It's very unfortunate that innocents at JFK right now are caught in the wide net that was cast.  I feel bad for them & their families.
It's causing issues far beyond its intentions. None of the 9/11 attackers were from listed countries, countries that Trump has dealings with are not part of the ban. Refugees are already strongly vetted without random additional restriction. Even well to do people like Oscar nominated director & British politician are banned. Likelihood of getting murdered by fellow American is far higher but very little support for a temporary ban on sale of firearms to properly vet purchasers.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

A multi Olympic gold winning medallist and Knighted British national can't get back to stay with his family

https://www.thestar.com/sports/amateur/2017/01/29/mo-farah-slams-us-travel-ban-trump-seems-to-have-made-me-an-alien.html
I don't see that he'll have any issues getting back into the US.  He's clearly a British citizen, not a Somali or dual citizen.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on January 29, 2017, 03:12:23 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 02:43:56 PM
Quote from: Arn on January 29, 2017, 01:45:24 PM
Quote from: Bender on January 29, 2017, 01:27:32 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 28, 2017, 03:03:33 PM
It's not really a ban, it's a temporary travel restriction for 4 months.  The idea is to make sure that refugees & immigrants that come into this country are properly vetted.  Certainly, it's not a perfect system....they're trying to figure it out as they go along.  Hopefully, this leads to a clean process that's acceptable to both sides.  It's not unreasonable to state that if you allow hundreds of thousands of people free entry into the US from both Mexico & the travel banned countries....it will lead to bad risks that will infiltrate those ranks.  Yes, 99% of the people that come in to the US are good people....vetting keeps out the other 1%.  Is it profiling....probably.
Is there a better way to do it?   It's very unfortunate that innocents at JFK right now are caught in the wide net that was cast.  I feel bad for them & their families.
It's causing issues far beyond its intentions. None of the 9/11 attackers were from listed countries, countries that Trump has dealings with are not part of the ban. Refugees are already strongly vetted without random additional restriction. Even well to do people like Oscar nominated director & British politician are banned. Likelihood of getting murdered by fellow American is far higher but very little support for a temporary ban on sale of firearms to properly vet purchasers.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

A multi Olympic gold winning medallist and Knighted British national can't get back to stay with his family

https://www.thestar.com/sports/amateur/2017/01/29/mo-farah-slams-us-travel-ban-trump-seems-to-have-made-me-an-alien.html
I don't see that he'll have any issues getting back into the US.  He's clearly a British citizen, not a Somali or dual citizen.

That he's provided with any resistance in the first place is the problem.  Creating this kind of climate for an imagined problem is grossly negligent.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on January 29, 2017, 06:33:16 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 02:43:56 PM
Quote from: Arn on January 29, 2017, 01:45:24 PM
Quote from: Bender on January 29, 2017, 01:27:32 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 28, 2017, 03:03:33 PM
It's not really a ban, it's a temporary travel restriction for 4 months.  The idea is to make sure that refugees & immigrants that come into this country are properly vetted.  Certainly, it's not a perfect system....they're trying to figure it out as they go along.  Hopefully, this leads to a clean process that's acceptable to both sides.  It's not unreasonable to state that if you allow hundreds of thousands of people free entry into the US from both Mexico & the travel banned countries....it will lead to bad risks that will infiltrate those ranks.  Yes, 99% of the people that come in to the US are good people....vetting keeps out the other 1%.  Is it profiling....probably.
Is there a better way to do it?   It's very unfortunate that innocents at JFK right now are caught in the wide net that was cast.  I feel bad for them & their families.
It's causing issues far beyond its intentions. None of the 9/11 attackers were from listed countries, countries that Trump has dealings with are not part of the ban. Refugees are already strongly vetted without random additional restriction. Even well to do people like Oscar nominated director & British politician are banned. Likelihood of getting murdered by fellow American is far higher but very little support for a temporary ban on sale of firearms to properly vet purchasers.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

A multi Olympic gold winning medallist and Knighted British national can't get back to stay with his family

https://www.thestar.com/sports/amateur/2017/01/29/mo-farah-slams-us-travel-ban-trump-seems-to-have-made-me-an-alien.html

I don't see that he'll have any issues getting back into the US.  He's clearly a British citizen, not a Somali or dual citizen.

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: AvroArrow on January 29, 2017, 06:57:10 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 12:58:02 PM
terrorist nations

Can you please clarify, what exactly are "terrorist nations"?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on January 29, 2017, 07:09:37 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 01:15:50 PMI read that the murder rate in Chicago was more than the combined murder rate of NY & LA.

I think it's important to be careful with statistics like that because the implication there is that Chicago is poorly run or it's an issue that stretches beyond the only real contributing factor to a murder rate, which is poverty.

I mean I think it's somewhat telling that the Right in the United States is very quickly to point to Chicago(where a certain now ex-President is from) as being some sort of crazy murder hellhole when Chicago's ranking in terms of murder rate among America cities isn't top 5 or top 10 or even top 20. Chicago's murder rate is 24th behind places like Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis and some probably surprising places like Hartford, Milwaukee and West Palm Beach.

Chicago gets a lot of press because it's a huge city so the raw total of murders is very high but in terms of rate it's below a bunch of large American cities like Washington, Philadelphia, Memphis...effectively it's just where there are poor people. All those numbers about New York and LA say is they've effectively pushed poor people out of their cities, they haven't solved crime.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on January 29, 2017, 07:10:42 PM
Quote from: AvroArrow on January 29, 2017, 06:57:10 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 12:58:02 PM
terrorist nations

Can you please clarify, what exactly are "terrorist nations"?

Nationalities of the 19 hijackers on 9/11

Saudi Arabia   15
United Arab Emirates   2
Egypt   1
Lebanon   1

Donny has personal business interests in several of those countries, none of whom have been named on the list of 7 terrorist countries.

Seriously, please don't let this guy destroy what's left of the country.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: AvroArrow on January 29, 2017, 07:22:19 PM
Quote from: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on January 29, 2017, 07:10:42 PM
Quote from: AvroArrow on January 29, 2017, 06:57:10 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 12:58:02 PM
terrorist nations

Can you please clarify, what exactly are "terrorist nations"?

Nationalities of the 19 hijackers on 9/11

Saudi Arabia   15
United Arab Emirates   2
Egypt   1
Lebanon   1

Donny has personal business interests in several of those countries, none of whom have been named on the list of 7 terrorist countries.

Seriously, please don't let this guy destroy what's left of the country.

I genuinely want to know if he has criteria or definition for "terrorist nations".
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 07:51:04 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on January 29, 2017, 07:09:37 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 01:15:50 PMI read that the murder rate in Chicago was more than the combined murder rate of NY & LA.

I think it's important to be careful with statistics like that because the implication there is that Chicago is poorly run or it's an issue that stretches beyond the only real contributing factor to a murder rate, which is poverty.

I mean I think it's somewhat telling that the Right in the United States is very quickly to point to Chicago(where a certain now ex-President is from) as being some sort of crazy murder hellhole when Chicago's ranking in terms of murder rate among America cities isn't top 5 or top 10 or even top 20. Chicago's murder rate is 24th behind places like Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis and some probably surprising places like Hartford, Milwaukee and West Palm Beach.

Chicago gets a lot of press because it's a huge city so the raw total of murders is very high but in terms of rate it's below a bunch of large American cities like Washington, Philadelphia, Memphis...effectively it's just where there are poor people. All those numbers about New York and LA say is they've effectively pushed poor people out of their cities, they haven't solved crime.
I used the example of Chicago because it was directly referenced in the TV report that I referred to.  It wasn't meant to be an Obama slap, nor a murder rate comparison to the entire country.  I used Chicago to illustrate the point where police are taking an indifferent approach to policing given the current racial climate & media spotlight on policing.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 07:58:26 PM
Quote from: AvroArrow on January 29, 2017, 06:57:10 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 12:58:02 PM
terrorist nations

Can you please clarify, what exactly are "terrorist nations"?
Sorry, I'll clarify.....didn't mean any offense.  What I meant were nations where a large number of terrorists reside.  It's already been stated that a few of these type of countries are conspicuous by their absence....we can all agree on that.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: AvroArrow on January 29, 2017, 08:09:53 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 07:58:26 PM
Quote from: AvroArrow on January 29, 2017, 06:57:10 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 12:58:02 PM
terrorist nations

Can you please clarify, what exactly are "terrorist nations"?
What I meant were nations where a large number of terrorists reside.

And how, exactly, is this being quantified?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on January 29, 2017, 08:13:08 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 07:51:04 PM
I used the example of Chicago because it was directly referenced in the TV report that I referred to.  It wasn't meant to be an Obama slap, nor a murder rate comparison to the entire country.  I used Chicago to illustrate the point where police are taking an indifferent approach to policing given the current racial climate & media spotlight on policing.

Right and I'm pretty sure what I wrote was refuting the idea that Chicago's murder rate is in any way connected to any particular policing strategy or approach and simply a by-product of economic conditions. Unless you want to argue that all of the cities above Chicago on that list are all policing in the exact same way(and, conversely, that Los Angeles which has a long and violent history of conflict between citizens and police has somehow solved it) it seems pretty clear that you're tying two unconnected things together
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 08:16:55 PM
Quote from: Heroic Shrimp on January 29, 2017, 06:33:16 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 02:43:56 PM
Quote from: Arn on January 29, 2017, 01:45:24 PM
Quote from: Bender on January 29, 2017, 01:27:32 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 28, 2017, 03:03:33 PM
It's not really a ban, it's a temporary travel restriction for 4 months.  The idea is to make sure that refugees & immigrants that come into this country are properly vetted.  Certainly, it's not a perfect system....they're trying to figure it out as they go along.  Hopefully, this leads to a clean process that's acceptable to both sides.  It's not unreasonable to state that if you allow hundreds of thousands of people free entry into the US from both Mexico & the travel banned countries....it will lead to bad risks that will infiltrate those ranks.  Yes, 99% of the people that come in to the US are good people....vetting keeps out the other 1%.  Is it profiling....probably.
Is there a better way to do it?   It's very unfortunate that innocents at JFK right now are caught in the wide net that was cast.  I feel bad for them & their families.
It's causing issues far beyond its intentions. None of the 9/11 attackers were from listed countries, countries that Trump has dealings with are not part of the ban. Refugees are already strongly vetted without random additional restriction. Even well to do people like Oscar nominated director & British politician are banned. Likelihood of getting murdered by fellow American is far higher but very little support for a temporary ban on sale of firearms to properly vet purchasers.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

A multi Olympic gold winning medallist and Knighted British national can't get back to stay with his family

https://www.thestar.com/sports/amateur/2017/01/29/mo-farah-slams-us-travel-ban-trump-seems-to-have-made-me-an-alien.html

I don't see that he'll have any issues getting back into the US.  He's clearly a British citizen, not a Somali or dual citizen.


Great find......awesome movie.   I didn't mean to come across like that....I was just trying to apply the rule of common sense in this scenario...he'll be fine.  I think what Mo Farah was trying to accomplish by going to the media was to lay the groundwork ...so that his travel back to the US is smooth & event free.  He's famous, he's a British Citizen, & he's made his case to the media...I'm sure every effort will be made to make sure his travel to the US isn't screwed up.   
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 08:27:49 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on January 29, 2017, 08:13:08 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 07:51:04 PM
I used the example of Chicago because it was directly referenced in the TV report that I referred to.  It wasn't meant to be an Obama slap, nor a murder rate comparison to the entire country.  I used Chicago to illustrate the point where police are taking an indifferent approach to policing given the current racial climate & media spotlight on policing.

Right and I'm pretty sure what I wrote was refuting the idea that Chicago's murder rate is in any way connected to any particular policing strategy or approach and simply a by-product of economic conditions. Unless you want to argue that all of the cities above Chicago on that list are all policing in the exact same way(and, conversely, that Los Angeles which has a long and violent history of conflict between citizens and police has somehow solved it) it seems pretty clear that you're tying two unconnected things together
Check this out, it's the point that I was trying to make:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/12/29/60-minutes-report-chicago-crime-up-police-response-down/ (http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/12/29/60-minutes-report-chicago-crime-up-police-response-down/)
The most alarming find was that in the last year while Chicago's crime rate has gone up, police activity has gone down, by 80 percent. Former Chicago Police Supt. Garry McCarthy calls that "horrific."
Former Chicago police officer Brian Warner says police are holding back because of the increased scrutiny on — and regulation of — officers. He says officers are responding to 9-1-1 calls, but they are not aggressively patrolling and looking for law-breakers as they once did

Basically, the current state of policing in Chicago is the unfortunate end result of situations like what happened in Ferguson.

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 08:35:21 PM
Quote from: AvroArrow on January 29, 2017, 08:09:53 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 07:58:26 PM
Quote from: AvroArrow on January 29, 2017, 06:57:10 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 12:58:02 PM
terrorist nations

Can you please clarify, what exactly are "terrorist nations"?
What I meant were nations where a large number of terrorists reside.

And how, exactly, is this being quantified?
You got me there.  One would think that there is some type of US intelligence that's been gathered to support this action, and/or there's some type of classified database that confirms named terrorists in these countries.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on January 29, 2017, 08:44:29 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 08:27:49 PM
Basically, the current state of policing in Chicago is the unfortunate end result of situations like what happened in Ferguson.

I understand the point you're trying to make. What I'm saying is that it's not supported by evidence(and what you linked to doesn't have any beyond one ex-cop's opinion on why cops are behaving a certain way).

The shooting in Ferguson didn't invent racial tension between cops and the people in communities with high crime rates and the DOJ investigation proved that even if you want to ignore the mountains of historical evidence that point to that.

I don't know what the current state of policing is in Chicago and I'm guessing you don't either. I'm guessing there are some people in Chicago who might have a different opinion than one particular ex-police officer.

I do know however that "what happened in Ferguson" is not responsible for the city's murder rate like you implied.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on January 29, 2017, 08:55:22 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 08:35:21 PM
Quote from: AvroArrow on January 29, 2017, 08:09:53 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 07:58:26 PM
Quote from: AvroArrow on January 29, 2017, 06:57:10 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 12:58:02 PM
terrorist nations

Can you please clarify, what exactly are "terrorist nations"?
What I meant were nations where a large number of terrorists reside.

And how, exactly, is this being quantified?
You got me there.  One would think that there is some type of US intelligence that's been gathered to support this action, and/or there's some type of classified database that confirms named terrorists in these countries.

I'm sure the German people thought the Third Reich must have intelligence on all those pesky Jews back in the 1930's.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 08:58:48 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on January 29, 2017, 08:44:29 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 08:27:49 PM
Basically, the current state of policing in Chicago is the unfortunate end result of situations like what happened in Ferguson.

I understand the point you're trying to make. What I'm saying is that it's not supported by evidence(and what you linked to doesn't have any beyond one ex-cop's opinion on why cops are behaving a certain way).

The shooting in Ferguson didn't invent racial tension between cops and the people in communities with high crime rates and the DOJ investigation proved that even if you want to ignore the mountains of historical evidence that point to that.

I don't know what the current state of policing is in Chicago and I'm guessing you don't either. I'm guessing there are some people in Chicago who might have a different opinion than one particular ex-police officer.

I do know however that "what happened in Ferguson" is not responsible for the city's murder rate like you implied.
It can be assumed though that if police activity has gone down by an incredible 80%, this has to be at least a contributing factor to the surge in Chicago crime.  Why have police attitudes changed....because of the media coverage re: events like Ferguson, etc.  Yes, this is one officer making these statements; but, you would have to assume a reputable show like 60 Minutes did their due diligence during their one week in Chicago.  I'm not saying Ferguson invented racial tension....I'm just using Ferguson as an example of why police have backed off, instead of continuing to be proactive.  This relaxed policing in turn creates racial tension in minority neighborhoods where cops now police reactively, no longer proactively. 
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 09:03:57 PM
Quote from: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on January 29, 2017, 08:55:22 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 08:35:21 PM
Quote from: AvroArrow on January 29, 2017, 08:09:53 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 07:58:26 PM
Quote from: AvroArrow on January 29, 2017, 06:57:10 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 12:58:02 PM
terrorist nations

Can you please clarify, what exactly are "terrorist nations"?
What I meant were nations where a large number of terrorists reside.

And how, exactly, is this being quantified?
You got me there.  One would think that there is some type of US intelligence that's been gathered to support this action, and/or there's some type of classified database that confirms named terrorists in these countries.

I'm sure the German people thought the Third Reich must have intelligence on all those pesky Jews back in the 1930's.
Hitler comparison is duly noted.  Let's see how this unfolds before we make that leap.  I'm open minded...I'll jump there with you if that's how this turns out.  We're only 8 days in.  I would think that we have enough checks & balances in place within our Senate, House, Supreme Court, etc. where a Hitler 2.0 could never happen.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on January 29, 2017, 09:17:25 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 08:58:48 PMWhy have police attitudes changed....because of the media coverage re: events like Ferguson, etc.  Yes, this is one officer making these statements; but, you would have to assume a reputable show like 60 Minutes did their due diligence during their one week in Chicago.

I don't have to assume that, 60 Minutes' reputation has some pretty big blemishes on it: 60 Minutes Apologizes for Benghazi report (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-apologizes-for-benghazi-report/).

Also, did you know Chicago's police force has 300 fewer detectives on it than it did 7 years ago? Think that might contribute to a rise in crime?

Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 08:58:48 PM
  I'm not saying Ferguson invented racial tension....I'm just using Ferguson as an example of why police have backed off, instead of continuing to be proactive.  This relaxed policing in turn creates racial tension in minority neighborhoods where cops now police reactively, no longer proactively.

I think if you asked people in those neighbourhoods if "pro-active" policing really helped them out you might get a different answer than what you're assuming. If, in fact, you listened to the people in Ferguson who were protesting they'd say that prior to the shooting there the Cops being "pro-active" generally amounted to hassling them and treated them unfairly and that's what created the tension. The shooting was simply the boiling point.

Again, the DOJ investigation pretty conclusively proved that there was some pretty ugly racism in the Ferguson police department well before the protests.

Seriously, you want a reputable news source?

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/03/ferguson-as-a-criminal-conspiracy-against-its-black-residents-michael-brown-department-of-justice-report/386887/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/03/ferguson-as-a-criminal-conspiracy-against-its-black-residents-michael-brown-department-of-justice-report/386887/)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on January 29, 2017, 09:48:59 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 09:03:57 PM
I would think that we have enough checks & balances in place within our Senate, House, Supreme Court, etc. where a Hitler 2.0 could never happen.

So did the German political system.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 09:54:19 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on January 29, 2017, 09:17:25 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 08:58:48 PMWhy have police attitudes changed....because of the media coverage re: events like Ferguson, etc.  Yes, this is one officer making these statements; but, you would have to assume a reputable show like 60 Minutes did their due diligence during their one week in Chicago.

I don't have to assume that, 60 Minutes' reputation has some pretty big blemishes on it: 60 Minutes Apologizes for Benghazi report (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-apologizes-for-benghazi-report/).

Also, did you know Chicago's police force has 300 fewer detectives on it than it did 7 years ago? Think that might contribute to a rise in crime?

Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 08:58:48 PM
  I'm not saying Ferguson invented racial tension....I'm just using Ferguson as an example of why police have backed off, instead of continuing to be proactive.  This relaxed policing in turn creates racial tension in minority neighborhoods where cops now police reactively, no longer proactively.

I think if you asked people in those neighbourhoods if "pro-active" policing really helped them out you might get a different answer than what you're assuming. If, in fact, you listened to the people in Ferguson who were protesting they'd say that prior to the shooting there the Cops being "pro-active" generally amounted to hassling them and treated them unfairly and that's what created the tension. The shooting was simply the boiling point.

Again, the DOJ investigation pretty conclusively proved that there was some pretty ugly racism in the Ferguson police department well before the protests.

Seriously, you want a reputable news source?

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/03/ferguson-as-a-criminal-conspiracy-against-its-black-residents-michael-brown-department-of-justice-report/386887/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/03/ferguson-as-a-criminal-conspiracy-against-its-black-residents-michael-brown-department-of-justice-report/386887/)
My definition of proactive isn't "hassling"....it's meant to define the opposite of reactive, which is how I define the bare minimum policing that 60 Minutes was reporting.   Proactive policing to the majority of good cops...is just that, being proactive.  Looking for signs of crime before it happens or policing in such a way where you are trying to deter...not arrest after the fact.  Whether we agree or disagree, you have to admit that being a Police Officer in today's climate is more of a thankless, difficult job than ever before.   
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on January 29, 2017, 10:20:46 PM
Just wanted to point out that the Obama Administration picked the Countries, Trump just suspended their Visa program.  Its still dumb buts its not just on Trump.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on January 29, 2017, 10:31:23 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 09:54:19 PM
My definition of proactive isn't "hassling"

That's terrific but your definition isn't really the issue. It's how people in communities like Ferguson are treated by police and the idea that pre-shooting there wasn't tension being created by the day to day actions of the Ferguson PD is on its face false. Seriously, just listen to the people from there. That's how they felt. Hassled, unfairly targeted, disproportionately punished. The DOJ investigation lent those feelings real weight rooted in discovered evidence.

So the police response is to huffily say "Well, if you don't like how we were treating you badly before we just won't do our jobs at all"? And you think it's that pullback creating the tension?

The DOJ report makes it clear, the impression you have of the policing going on in these communities prior to the civil unrest did not exist.

Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 09:54:19 PM
Whether we agree or disagree, you have to admit that being a Police Officer in today's climate is more of a thankless, difficult job than ever before.

I honestly don't have to admit that because as I see it there is a large subset of people who are constantly thanking the police and refusing to ever admit any wrong doing on their part.

I'm not anti-police and I think they have a tremendously difficult job and occasionally get treated unfairly. I think a serious argument can be made that other elements of government services have devolved to the point that they're expected to shoulder the majority of the burden of, say, dealing with the mentally ill or homeless.

But what I see from people who "support the cops" isn't broad based support for investment in programs that would lessen their work load or even just pay them better, it's instead inventing the idea that pre-riots there aren't problems between the police and predominantly minority communities and justifying police shootings whether they're borderline or outright murder.

And here, it's looking at a dereliction of duty brought on by...hurt feelings about frank media coverage and cheering them for it.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bender on January 29, 2017, 10:35:55 PM
Quote from: Bates on January 29, 2017, 10:20:46 PM
Just wanted to point out that the Obama Administration picked the Countries, Trump just suspended their Visa program.  Its still dumb buts its not just on Trump.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program
Implementation of a loose policy makes it not just Trump, but mostly Trump.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on January 29, 2017, 10:37:08 PM
No objection but people were asking why these Countries were chosen and implied it was about Trump business interest. 
Quote from: Bender on January 29, 2017, 10:35:55 PM
Quote from: Bates on January 29, 2017, 10:20:46 PM
Just wanted to point out that the Obama Administration picked the Countries, Trump just suspended their Visa program.  Its still dumb buts its not just on Trump.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program
Implementation of a loose policy makes it not just Trump, but mostly Trump.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on January 29, 2017, 10:50:58 PM
Quote from: Bates on January 29, 2017, 10:37:08 PM
No objection but people were asking why these Countries were chosen and implied it was about Trump business interest.

Sure, because Trump's standard message about the Obama administration and it's prevention of terrorism was that they were wrong, feckless and weak. Then he gets into office and bases a ridiculous policy on the basis that they were absolutely right about which nations needed the most scrutiny?

There's an obvious disconnect there and it's not ridiculous to connect those dots.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on January 29, 2017, 11:01:04 PM
I take little of what Trump said as actual fact.  The only fact in this scenario is that the same group of Countries that were targeted by previous US Administration are still being targeted by current US Administration.   You can guess why all you want.
Quote from: Nik the Trik on January 29, 2017, 10:50:58 PM
Quote from: Bates on January 29, 2017, 10:37:08 PM
No objection but people were asking why these Countries were chosen and implied it was about Trump business interest.

Sure, because Trump's standard message about the Obama administration and it's prevention of terrorism was that they were wrong, feckless and weak. Then he gets into office and bases a ridiculous policy on the basis that they were absolutely right about which nations needed the most scrutiny?

There's an obvious disconnect there and it's not ridiculous to connect those dots.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on January 29, 2017, 11:17:20 PM
Quote from: Bates on January 29, 2017, 10:20:46 PM
Just wanted to point out that the Obama Administration picked the Countries, Trump just suspended their Visa program.  Its still dumb buts its not just on Trump.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program

This is correct. And it was disheartening when the American left shrugged off that -- and all the other continuations, extensions, and insufficient reversals of Bush's horrible policies. At least now, there's a mass movement against this garbage.

Also, all those pointing out that none of ban-list countries sent any terrorists: please stop.

[tweet]825404118776815617[/tweet]
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on January 30, 2017, 12:23:34 AM
Quote from: Bates on January 29, 2017, 11:01:04 PM
I take little of what Trump said as actual fact.  The only fact in this scenario is that the same group of Countries that were targeted by previous US Administration are still being targeted by current US Administration.

Sure, but that's just ignoring the actual substance of the policy which is the real issue. "Targeting" is not a catch all that can equally apply to any grouping.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bender on January 30, 2017, 12:29:24 AM
Quote from: Bates on January 29, 2017, 10:37:08 PM
No objection but people were asking why these Countries were chosen and implied it was about Trump business interest. 
Quote from: Bender on January 29, 2017, 10:35:55 PM
Quote from: Bates on January 29, 2017, 10:20:46 PM
Just wanted to point out that the Obama Administration picked the Countries, Trump just suspended their Visa program.  Its still dumb buts its not just on Trump.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program
Implementation of a loose policy makes it not just Trump, but mostly Trump.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk
I don't think it didn't cross his mind that the ban and his dealings didn't intersect.

Further Reading:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/no-barack-obama-jimmy-carter-9717520

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bender on January 30, 2017, 12:34:24 AM
Quote from: mr grieves on January 29, 2017, 11:17:20 PM
Quote from: Bates on January 29, 2017, 10:20:46 PM
Just wanted to point out that the Obama Administration picked the Countries, Trump just suspended their Visa program.  Its still dumb buts its not just on Trump.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program

This is correct. And it was disheartening when the American left shrugged off that -- and all the other continuations, extensions, and insufficient reversals of Bush's horrible policies. At least now, there's a mass movement against this garbage.

Also, all those pointing out that none of ban-list countries sent any terrorists: please stop.

[tweet]825404118776815617[/tweet]
Can't open the link. I think it's in reference to 9/11 and I believe no 9/11 terrorists came from regions banned outright. Either way the net effect is precision surgery with a machete rather than a scalpel. I wouldn't be surprised if this made the world more dangerous for Americans of all types, not safer.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on January 30, 2017, 01:12:20 AM
I think you are taking my post to mean I support or even think the policy makes sense?   Neither is true I was just posting in response to folks who asked how Trump picked his Countries, he didn't,  he just used the previous list. 
Quote from: Nik the Trik on January 30, 2017, 12:23:34 AM
Quote from: Bates on January 29, 2017, 11:01:04 PM
I take little of what Trump said as actual fact.  The only fact in this scenario is that the same group of Countries that were targeted by previous US Administration are still being targeted by current US Administration.

Sure, but that's just ignoring the actual substance of the policy which is the real issue. "Targeting" is not a catch all that can equally apply to any grouping.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on January 30, 2017, 01:19:14 AM
Quote from: Bender on January 30, 2017, 12:34:24 AM
Can't open the link. I think it's in reference to 9/11 and I believe no 9/11 terrorists came from regions banned outright. Either way the net effect is precision surgery with a machete rather than a scalpel. I wouldn't be surprised if this made the world more dangerous for Americans of all types, not safer.

I think it's in reference to countries where extremist groups were operating and where those with passports from countries in the VWP would, presumably, travel only to get radicalized and receive terror training.

Incidentally, each of the countries added in February 2016 -- Libya, Somalia, and Yemen -- were on the receiving end of dozens of US drone strikes, which certainly did make the world more dangerous.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on January 30, 2017, 01:35:40 AM
Worth reading the tweetstorm:

https://twitter.com/KirkWJohnson/status/825830075278823424
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on January 30, 2017, 02:07:53 AM
All these years I wondered if I'd see the Leafs win a Cup before I die.  Then finally when things are looking up, I now have to wonder whether the Leafs will win a Cup before Trump precipitates the end of civilization as we know it.  Bummer.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on January 30, 2017, 03:30:46 AM
Quote from: Bates on January 30, 2017, 01:12:20 AM
I think you are taking my post to mean I support or even think the policy makes sense?   Neither is true I was just posting in response to folks who asked how Trump picked his Countries, he didn't,  he just used the previous list. 

No, what I'm saying is that the two policies are unrelated to each other so there is no "previous list".

To use an extreme example to highlight my point, let's say tomorrow Trump announces he's going to build golden statues of himself on the roof of the US embassies of every NATO member. If you or I or anyone else then asked "Why do that only in those countries?" then it would be kind of unsatisfactory to hear back "Trump didn't invent NATO, he just used the previous list of NATO countries".

Regardless of whether or not those 7 countries were grouped together under an existing, fairly non-inflammatory policy Trump still did select them for his new fairly unconnected super-inflammatory policy and he is still responsible for their grouping/selection and has to justify it independently of "Yeah but Obama grouped them for a different reason".
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on January 30, 2017, 03:32:45 AM
Quote from: Heroic Shrimp on January 30, 2017, 02:07:53 AM
All these years I wondered if I'd see the Leafs win a Cup before I die.  Then finally when things are looking up, I now have to wonder whether the Leafs will win a Cup before Trump precipitates the end of civilization as we know it.  Bummer.

I've been calling that since last summer:

Quote from: Nik the Trik on June 24, 2016, 09:38:04 AMScotland's saying they're going to have a second referendum, the PM resigned, Sinn Féin is talking about a border poll...figures that the Leafs get the first overall pick and we start living in the end times.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Arn on January 30, 2017, 07:30:33 AM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 07:58:26 PM
Quote from: AvroArrow on January 29, 2017, 06:57:10 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 29, 2017, 12:58:02 PM
terrorist nations

Can you please clarify, what exactly are "terrorist nations"?
Sorry, I'll clarify.....didn't mean any offense.  What I meant were nations where a large number of terrorists reside.  It's already been stated that a few of these type of countries are conspicuous by their absence....we can all agree on that.

Is Ireland a terrorist nation? There's a load of terrorists here.

But hang on, your presidents love to hang out with them

(https://ansionnachfionn.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/sinn-fc3a9in-president-gerry-adams-and-the-president-of-the-united-states-of-america-bill-clinton.jpg?w=840)
(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/media/images/66504000/jpg/_66504487_719.jpg)
[img
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on January 30, 2017, 08:49:11 AM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on January 30, 2017, 03:32:45 AM
Quote from: Heroic Shrimp on January 30, 2017, 02:07:53 AM
All these years I wondered if I'd see the Leafs win a Cup before I die.  Then finally when things are looking up, I now have to wonder whether the Leafs will win a Cup before Trump precipitates the end of civilization as we know it.  Bummer.

I've been calling that since last summer:

Quote from: Nik the Trik on June 24, 2016, 09:38:04 AMScotland's saying they're going to have a second referendum, the PM resigned, Sinn Féin is talking about a border poll...figures that the Leafs get the first overall pick and we start living in the end times.

Apocalypster.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: OrangeBlack on January 30, 2017, 08:55:26 AM
Quote from: Heroic Shrimp on January 30, 2017, 01:35:40 AM
Worth reading the tweetstorm:

https://twitter.com/KirkWJohnson/status/825830075278823424
Good read.  I agree, many of those people deserve a place in America.  I don't disagree with that, & believe that President Trump feels the same way.  The key is having a process where bad people aren't allowed admittance, those already vetted retain their status, & refugees that need our assistance are welcomed.  Like I said before....this initiative was rushed forward without much planning.  Basically, it was a mess.  The fine tuning has already started with the green card consideration (last night).   Let's see how this plays out once they work out all the kinks in the process.  I can certainly understand & sympathize how this was a shock to the system for many Americans, Canadians, etc. 
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on January 30, 2017, 09:35:44 AM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 30, 2017, 08:55:26 AM
Quote from: Heroic Shrimp on January 30, 2017, 01:35:40 AM
Worth reading the tweetstorm:

https://twitter.com/KirkWJohnson/status/825830075278823424

Good read.  I agree, many of those people deserve a place in America.  I don't disagree with that, & believe that President Trump feels the same way.  The key is having a process where bad people aren't allowed admittance, those already vetted retain their status, & refugees that need our assistance are welcomed.  Like I said before....this initiative was rushed forward without much planning.  Basically, it was a mess.  The fine tuning has already started with the green card consideration (last night).   Let's see how this plays out once they work out all the kinks in the process.  I can certainly understand & sympathize how this was a shock to the system for many Americans, Canadians, etc.

I don't think there's any way to overstate that Trump's policies are not just guided but rather dictated to him by white nationalist Steve Bannon.  Bannon does not want any Muslims admitted into the U.S., no matter how deserving or in need of help, and his long game is to bring down the U.S. government as we know it and instigate a cultural and religious war.  This is the first step.  People and elected officials in the U.S. need to step up immediately and aggressively against this kind of action, because Bannon and his puppet Trump are leading their country and the world towards catastrophe.  This isn't conspiracy material, this is very real.

This is your true president, Steve Bannon:

https://twitter.com/JessikaJayne/status/825622046453424129
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on January 30, 2017, 09:37:44 AM
https://twitter.com/Green_Footballs/status/825918206128840709
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on January 30, 2017, 09:58:19 AM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 30, 2017, 08:55:26 AMThe key is having a process where bad people aren't allowed admittance, those already vetted retain their status, & refugees that need our assistance are welcomed. 

There is no evidence that the systems already in place for that weren't working.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on January 30, 2017, 10:03:01 AM
That comparable makes no sense??  He literally took a list that the previous administration had put conditions on for entering the US and kept that list of Countries and expanded the conditions by refusing those same Countries entry at all.  Same list, worse sanctions.  The previous administration saw a reason to put further scrutiny on these particular Countries and the resident idiot decided he's better that Obama and will just refuse them entry totally. 
Quote from: Nik the Trik on January 30, 2017, 03:30:46 AM
Quote from: Bates on January 30, 2017, 01:12:20 AM
I think you are taking my post to mean I support or even think the policy makes sense?   Neither is true I was just posting in response to folks who asked how Trump picked his Countries, he didn't,  he just used the previous list. 

No, what I'm saying is that the two policies are unrelated to each other so there is no "previous list".

To use an extreme example to highlight my point, let's say tomorrow Trump announces he's going to build golden statues of himself on the roof of the US embassies of every NATO member. If you or I or anyone else then asked "Why do that only in those countries?" then it would be kind of unsatisfactory to hear back "Trump didn't invent NATO, he just used the previous list of NATO countries".

Regardless of whether or not those 7 countries were grouped together under an existing, fairly non-inflammatory policy Trump still did select them for his new fairly unconnected super-inflammatory policy and he is still responsible for their grouping/selection and has to justify it independently of "Yeah but Obama grouped them for a different reason".
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on January 30, 2017, 10:58:17 AM
Quote from: Arn on January 30, 2017, 07:30:33 AM
Is Ireland a terrorist nation? There's a load of terrorists here.

Never mind Ireland, once you factor in white supremacist groups like the KKK, all the neo-Nazis, the religious zealots who shoot up abortion clinics, etc., there are likely more people who should be considered terrorists within the US than there are in the 7 banned countries combined.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on January 30, 2017, 01:24:23 PM
I'd be fairly confident that ISIS membership would be higher than the list you put forward and every member of that group is a threat to human safety while being a member of the groups you mentioned doesn't necessarily make them dangerous.   The plan is still dumb.
Quote from: bustaheims on January 30, 2017, 10:58:17 AM
Quote from: Arn on January 30, 2017, 07:30:33 AM
Is Ireland a terrorist nation? There's a load of terrorists here.

Never mind Ireland, once you factor in white supremacist groups like the KKK, all the neo-Nazis, the religious zealots who shoot up abortion clinics, etc., there are likely more people who should be considered terrorists within the US than there are in the 7 banned countries combined.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on January 30, 2017, 02:04:20 PM
Quote from: Bates on January 30, 2017, 01:24:23 PM
I'd be fairly confident that ISIS membership would be higher than the list you put forward and every member of that group is a threat to human safety while being a member of the groups you mentioned doesn't necessarily make them dangerous.   The plan is still dumb.

I disagree. Members of those groups have just as much potential to be a threat to human safety. The difference is that ISIS members are mobilized, and groups like the KKK, etc., aren't in the same way. Anyone with the kind of extremist beliefs that leads to you not valuing all human life equally is dangerous and a threat to human safety. I mean, you don't become a member of the KKK for the health benefits . . .
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on January 30, 2017, 02:17:26 PM
When was their last attack?  They aren't comparable to ISIS in any meaningful way except they have backwards beliefs.
Quote from: bustaheims on January 30, 2017, 02:04:20 PM
Quote from: Bates on January 30, 2017, 01:24:23 PM
I'd be fairly confident that ISIS membership would be higher than the list you put forward and every member of that group is a threat to human safety while being a member of the groups you mentioned doesn't necessarily make them dangerous.   The plan is still dumb.

I disagree. Members of those groups have just as much potential to be a threat to human safety. The difference is that ISIS members are mobilized, and groups like the KKK, etc., aren't in the same way. Anyone with the kind of extremist beliefs that leads to you not valuing all human life equally is dangerous and a threat to human safety. I mean, you don't become a member of the KKK for the health benefits . . .
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: louisstamos on January 30, 2017, 02:26:55 PM
Quote from: Bates on January 30, 2017, 02:17:26 PM
When was their last attack?  They aren't comparable to ISIS in any meaningful way except they have backwards beliefs.

Dylann Roof?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on January 30, 2017, 02:29:40 PM
Wanna compare that with ISIS?
Quote from: louisstamos on January 30, 2017, 02:26:55 PM
Quote from: Bates on January 30, 2017, 02:17:26 PM
When was their last attack?  They aren't comparable to ISIS in any meaningful way except they have backwards beliefs.

Dylann Roof?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: princedpw on January 30, 2017, 02:41:07 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 30, 2017, 08:55:26 AM
Quote from: Heroic Shrimp on January 30, 2017, 01:35:40 AM
Worth reading the tweetstorm:

https://twitter.com/KirkWJohnson/status/825830075278823424
Good read.  I agree, many of those people deserve a place in America.  I don't disagree with that, & believe that President Trump feels the same way.  The key is having a process where bad people aren't allowed admittance, those already vetted retain their status, & refugees that need our assistance are welcomed.  Like I said before....this initiative was rushed forward without much planning.  Basically, it was a mess.  The fine tuning has already started with the green card consideration (last night).   Let's see how this plays out once they work out all the kinks in the process.  I can certainly understand & sympathize how this was a shock to the system for many Americans, Canadians, etc.

I'm guilty of jumping into the middle of this thread without reading much of the context.

Something like this immigration ban can seem pretty abstract if you don't know anyone who is personally affected.  Unfortunately, it really does have a severe impact on the lives of individuals unfortunate enough to get caught up in it.  I attached a note from Facebook from one of my friends. He's a professor at MIT and without a doubt, one of the top researchers in the world when it comes to the design, implementation and optimization of data center networks.  At MIT, he teaches the brightest american kids about networking research.  Before MIT, he worked for CISCO, helping that American company develop the technology that will make it outcompete competitors from around the world.  On a personal level, he is incredible humble, friendly and soft spoken.  I can't really imagine him even raising his voice.  He's that kind of person.

A snippet from Mohammad Alizadeh on Facebook:

My wife wept uncontrollably on Friday night. And there was nothing I could do about it. I sat there, shell-shocked, trying to figure out how to comfort her while shielding our four-month-old son from the sight of his mother weeping. Our son had just gone to sleep. He jolted awake at the sound of his mother's wails. He stared at her, silently, eyes wide. He did not cry or fuss. They say babies instinctively understand human emotion. I think this is accurate.
My mother-in-law had just been denied permission to board a flight to the United States at Abu Dhabi International Airport. We had been glued to our phones, waiting anxiously for two hours to hear from her. "I'm being deported," her message on WhatsApp eventually read. The rest of that nightmarish night will haunt me for a long time.

Our ordeal did not begin with President Trump's Executive Order to ban citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries, including Iran, from entering the United States. It began almost a year ago when my mother-in-law started a lengthy visa application process so she could be with her daughter for her first pregnancy. Her first application was denied in the summer. I remember that night well too. They had denied my mother-in-law's application without explanation. We were disappointed but not surprised. We had been through this before. In 2011, it took my mother-in-law two attempts to secure a visa before visiting us for the first and only time in the ten years that we have lived in the United States.

My mother-in-law would apply for a visa again a few months later at the U.S. Embassy in Dubai. This time, her application was approved, pending a security clearance check. Alas, her security clearance took until a couple of weeks ago to go through.

My wife delivered our son without her mother by her side. We raised our new-born baby without family by our side. Our parents have yet to meet their grandchild --- the first on either side --- in person.

This long-overdue family gathering was supposed to happen next month. We had it all planned out. Our family had been making arrangements for weeks. They bought a crib for our son. They bought him a bath tub. They even tracked down his favorite Fisher's Price sleeper. Our extended family, who live in four different cities across Iran, had made plans to travel to Tehran to reunite with us.

All this planning was for nothing. Mr. Trump's blanket travel ban, his so-called "Muslim ban," is so extreme, so draconian, that it does not even spare people like us who have been permanent U.S. residents for several years. So we canceled our trip and scrambled to get my mother-in-law here instead. You already know the rest.

I'm not writing this story to over-dramatize our situation. Sadly, there is nothing special about our situation. Our family is but one of thousands already affected by this nonsensical ban. If anything, our story is mild. I fear that we'll be hearing much more harrowing stories over the next weeks and months.
I'm writing this story to do my part to put a face to this tragedy and urge us all to act.

I want to end on an important note: My wife and I are not victims. America has been very good to us. This country has given us the opportunity to get a first-rate education and reach heights that we never dreamed possible. I go to work every day to a job that I love, privileged to be surrounded by some of the best and brightest people on the planet.

No, we're not victims. We're going to be just fine.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: princedpw on January 30, 2017, 02:56:36 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 30, 2017, 08:55:26 AM
The key is having a process where bad people aren't allowed admittance, those already vetted retain their status, & refugees that need our assistance are welcomed. 

The unfortunate thing is that the myth that refugees are admitted into the country with insufficient vetting has been pushed over and over again.  Unfortunately, when that is all one hears, people begin to believe it.  And once people begin to believe something like this, they simply discard facts and data that don't align with their beliefs unfortunately.  (I'm of course the same -- I probably have a bunch of beliefs that aren't backed by the facts.)

No security system is ever going to be perfect, but US security under Obama has been pretty good --- better than under George W Bush by some metrics.  As has been mentioned by others, upheaval of the system is likely to cause a lot more harm than good.

There is a very strong national security argument that we need to vote for Democrats up and down the ticket in the 2018 elections.  The political reality is that when Trump makes a mistake like this, it is very difficult for well-meaning Republicans to stand up to him because he has such a powerful base in the Republican party.  It is necessary to elect Democrats so there are some checks and balances in government.

O&B -- is there anything I can do to convince you to vote Democrats in 2018?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on January 30, 2017, 03:08:24 PM
Quote from: Bates on January 30, 2017, 02:17:26 PM
When was their last attack?  They aren't comparable to ISIS in any meaningful way except they have backwards beliefs.

When was the last time ISIS - not an ISIS sympathizer - attack anyone on US soil? There have been ZERO terrorist attacks on US soil committed by refugees. ZERO.

Meanwhile, there's been a string of anti-abortion terrorist attacks over the last 30 years, murders by the KKK have occurred as recently as this past summer, etc. They may not have committed a large scale publicized attack, but, reports link significantly more deaths in the US to these groups than to Islamic terrorists. They have been - and continue to be - the bigger threat to American lives..
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: louisstamos on January 30, 2017, 03:11:40 PM
Quote from: Bates on January 30, 2017, 02:29:40 PM
Wanna compare that with ISIS?
Quote from: louisstamos on January 30, 2017, 02:26:55 PM
Quote from: Bates on January 30, 2017, 02:17:26 PM
When was their last attack?  They aren't comparable to ISIS in any meaningful way except they have backwards beliefs.

Dylann Roof?

Sure.

Number of Americans killed on American Soil by Dylann Roof in 2015 = 9.
Number of Americans killed on American Soil by ISIS in 2015 = 14 (all in the San Bernadino attack)

That is not to say that ISIS isn't a real threat, or shouldn't be taken seriously.  They absolutely should be, and any attempts for them to mobilize properly should be met with resistance.  But what Trump is doing with his executive orders is like trying to perform surgery with a chainsaw rather than a scalpel.  He's doing a lot more harm than good with it, and is alienating American citizens/people with PR.

To be honest, with the expansive intelligence networks and high level of scrutiny with refugees - you're more likely to have someone who was born and raised in the US, or immigrated a long time ago, perform a terrorist attack in the name of ISIS rather than a refugee gaining admittance as a "secret soldier."
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on January 30, 2017, 03:15:27 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on January 30, 2017, 08:55:26 AM
The key is having a process where bad people aren't allowed admittance, those already vetted retain their status, & refugees that need our assistance are welcomed. 

The process exists already. Refugees are vetted by multiple government agencies on multiple occasions before they're given a ticket to the US (and, we're talking about refugees that can't afford tickets on their own, so, this is the only way they're getting to the US). This process can take up to two years, and already does an excellent job of filtering out the "bad people."
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on January 30, 2017, 06:47:17 PM
I don't recall  making any such claim??  I simply refuted your claim that there are more possible terrorists in the US from those organizations that the 7 Countries now restricted combined, which is really quite silly.  Now would you suggest because there are already plenty of possible terrorists in the US they should just abandon the Border?  The plan is still silly and will change little.
Quote from: bustaheims on January 30, 2017, 03:08:24 PM
Quote from: Bates on January 30, 2017, 02:17:26 PM
When was their last attack?  They aren't comparable to ISIS in any meaningful way except they have backwards beliefs.

When was the last time ISIS - not an ISIS sympathizer - attack anyone on US soil? There have been ZERO terrorist attacks on US soil committed by refugees. ZERO.

Meanwhile, there's been a string of anti-abortion terrorist attacks over the last 30 years, murders by the KKK have occurred as recently as this past summer, etc. They may not have committed a large scale publicized attack, but, reports link significantly more deaths in the US to these groups than to Islamic terrorists. They have been - and continue to be - the bigger threat to American lives..
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on January 30, 2017, 07:44:31 PM
Quote from: Bates on January 30, 2017, 10:03:01 AM
That comparable makes no sense??

It makes perfect sense. Regardless of his rationale for choosing those 7 countries he still chose them. Whether it was based on a previous policy or not, the choosing of those 7 countries is still on him.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on January 30, 2017, 08:24:09 PM
Still really doesn't.  He used the intelligence community's list of Countries that they thought should require extra vetting before entering the US for the security of the US.  He just happened to have jumped the shark with a program that seems to have actually been working. 
Quote from: Nik the Trik on January 30, 2017, 07:44:31 PM
Quote from: Bates on January 30, 2017, 10:03:01 AM
That comparable makes no sense??

It makes perfect sense. Regardless of his rationale for choosing those 7 countries he still chose them. Whether it was based on a previous policy or not, the choosing of those 7 countries is still on him.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on January 30, 2017, 08:40:32 PM
Quote from: Bates on January 30, 2017, 08:24:09 PM
Still really doesn't.  He used the intelligence community's list of Countries that they thought should require extra vetting before entering the US for the security of the US.

It doesn't matter what his justification is. He is still the one making the choice. And given that during the campaign he not only repeatedly disparaged the intelligence communities but also called the former president literally the founder of ISIS the "Well, he's just going by what the last guy did" can't be seen as honest justification for just coincidentally agreeing whole-heartedly with him on the one matter that doesn't put his business interests at risk.

Or you can believe that's all a coincidence and we can start talking about the lovely bridge in Brooklyn I can get for you at a reasonable price.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on January 30, 2017, 08:44:49 PM
So if Trump picked these Countries over others because of his business interests why do you think the Obama Administration picked them??  Were they also looking out for Trump's business interests?
Quote from: Nik the Trik on January 30, 2017, 08:40:32 PM
Quote from: Bates on January 30, 2017, 08:24:09 PM
Still really doesn't.  He used the intelligence community's list of Countries that they thought should require extra vetting before entering the US for the security of the US.

It doesn't matter what his justification is. He is still the one making the choice. And given that during the campaign he not only repeatedly disparaged the intelligence communities but also called the former president literally the founder of ISIS the "Well, he's just going by what the last guy did" can't be seen as honest justification for just coincidentally agreeing whole-heartedly with him on the one matter that doesn't put his business interests at risk.

Or you can believe that's all a coincidence and we can start talking about the lovely bridge in Brooklyn I can get for you at a reasonable price.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on January 30, 2017, 08:57:05 PM
Quote from: Bates on January 30, 2017, 08:44:49 PM
So if Trump picked these Countries over others because of his business interests why do you think the Obama Administration picked them??  Were they also looking out for Trump's business interests?

I can't say for certain but there is absolutely a possibility that Obama and previous Administrations have sculpted some of their mid-east policy with inconsistent standards meant to protect American business interests in the region. I'm afraid it's not quite the "gotcha" moment you were hoping for for me to say that Centrist Democrats are also too tied to corporate interests because I say that on an almost hourly basis.

The difference of course is that there's no direct conflict of interest the way there is with Trump and "added scrutiny" is an entirely different policy with far fewer ramifications than what we're seeing. The Obama administration's policy isn't and wasn't one likely to be met with reprisals from other countries whereas if Trump were to include countries he did business with on this list it would almost certainly hurt him financially directly.

This is why having direct conflicts of interest completely reshape the landscape. Nothing can be looked at innocently.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on January 30, 2017, 09:02:39 PM
I have no idea how when I answered "How did he pick these Countries" question, which was insinuating that Trump did it with ulterior motives, I pointed out that it's the same list of apparent risky Countries that previous Govt used I'm apparently looking for a gotcha moment.  If anything I kinda spoiled that moment.   
Quote from: Nik the Trik on January 30, 2017, 08:57:05 PM
Quote from: Bates on January 30, 2017, 08:44:49 PM
So if Trump picked these Countries over others because of his business interests why do you think the Obama Administration picked them??  Were they also looking out for Trump's business interests?

I can't say for certain but there is absolutely a possibility that Obama and previous Administrations have sculpted some of their mid-east policy with inconsistent standards meant to protect American business interests in the region. I'm afraid it's not quite the "gotcha" moment you were hoping for for me to say that Centrist Democrats are also too tied to corporate interests because I say that on an almost hourly basis.

The difference of course is that there's no direct conflict of interest the way there is with Trump and "added scrutiny" is an entirely different policy with far fewer ramifications than what we're seeing. The Obama administration's policy isn't and wasn't one likely to be met with reprisals from other countries whereas if Trump were to include countries he did business with on this list it would almost certainly hurt him financially directly.

This is why having direct conflicts of interest completely reshape the landscape. Nothing can be looked at innocently.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on January 30, 2017, 09:06:04 PM
Quote from: Bates on January 30, 2017, 09:02:39 PM
I have no idea how when I answered "How did he pick these Countries" question, which was insinuating that Trump did it with ulterior motives, I pointed out that it's the same list of apparent risky Countries that previous Govt used for an entirely different, non-inflammatory policy I'm apparently looking for a gotcha moment.  If anything I kinda spoiled that moment.

FTFY.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on January 30, 2017, 09:35:36 PM
You can spin it, twist it, turn it, or completely rewrite it if you want but if you want to know where Trump got the list of Countries on his plan it was just sitting there on the desk waiting for him. 
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Arn on January 31, 2017, 05:44:50 AM
So was last night the first step in the Trump Rohm-putsch/ Night of the Long Knives?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on January 31, 2017, 09:35:40 AM
Quote from: princedpw on January 30, 2017, 02:41:07 PM
I'm guilty of jumping into the middle of this thread without reading much of the context.

Something like this immigration ban can seem pretty abstract if you don't know anyone who is personally affected.  Unfortunately, it really does have a severe impact on the lives of individuals unfortunate enough to get caught up in it.  I attached a note from Facebook from one of my friends. He's a professor at MIT and without a doubt, one of the top researchers in the world when it comes to the design, implementation and optimization of data center networks.  At MIT, he teaches the brightest american kids about networking research.  Before MIT, he worked for CISCO, helping that American company develop the technology that will make it outcompete competitors from around the world.  On a personal level, he is incredible humble, friendly and soft spoken.  I can't really imagine him even raising his voice.  He's that kind of person.

A snippet from Mohammad Alizadeh on Facebook:

My wife wept uncontrollably on Friday night. And there was nothing I could do about it. I sat there, shell-shocked, trying to figure out how to comfort her while shielding our four-month-old son from the sight of his mother weeping. Our son had just gone to sleep. He jolted awake at the sound of his mother's wails. He stared at her, silently, eyes wide. He did not cry or fuss. They say babies instinctively understand human emotion. I think this is accurate.
My mother-in-law had just been denied permission to board a flight to the United States at Abu Dhabi International Airport. We had been glued to our phones, waiting anxiously for two hours to hear from her. "I'm being deported," her message on WhatsApp eventually read. The rest of that nightmarish night will haunt me for a long time.

Our ordeal did not begin with President Trump's Executive Order to ban citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries, including Iran, from entering the United States. It began almost a year ago when my mother-in-law started a lengthy visa application process so she could be with her daughter for her first pregnancy. Her first application was denied in the summer. I remember that night well too. They had denied my mother-in-law's application without explanation. We were disappointed but not surprised. We had been through this before. In 2011, it took my mother-in-law two attempts to secure a visa before visiting us for the first and only time in the ten years that we have lived in the United States.

My mother-in-law would apply for a visa again a few months later at the U.S. Embassy in Dubai. This time, her application was approved, pending a security clearance check. Alas, her security clearance took until a couple of weeks ago to go through.

My wife delivered our son without her mother by her side. We raised our new-born baby without family by our side. Our parents have yet to meet their grandchild --- the first on either side --- in person.

This long-overdue family gathering was supposed to happen next month. We had it all planned out. Our family had been making arrangements for weeks. They bought a crib for our son. They bought him a bath tub. They even tracked down his favorite Fisher's Price sleeper. Our extended family, who live in four different cities across Iran, had made plans to travel to Tehran to reunite with us.

All this planning was for nothing. Mr. Trump's blanket travel ban, his so-called "Muslim ban," is so extreme, so draconian, that it does not even spare people like us who have been permanent U.S. residents for several years. So we canceled our trip and scrambled to get my mother-in-law here instead. You already know the rest.

I'm not writing this story to over-dramatize our situation. Sadly, there is nothing special about our situation. Our family is but one of thousands already affected by this nonsensical ban. If anything, our story is mild. I fear that we'll be hearing much more harrowing stories over the next weeks and months.
I'm writing this story to do my part to put a face to this tragedy and urge us all to act.

I want to end on an important note: My wife and I are not victims. America has been very good to us. This country has given us the opportunity to get a first-rate education and reach heights that we never dreamed possible. I go to work every day to a job that I love, privileged to be surrounded by some of the best and brightest people on the planet.

No, we're not victims. We're going to be just fine.

Thanks for sharing, princedpw.  It's a sad story and one that is being experienced in so many ways by so many innocent people.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on January 31, 2017, 09:39:43 AM
http://www.salon.com/2017/01/30/white-nationalists-praise-trumps-muslim-ban_partner/

QuoteDaily Stormer Feels "Ecstatic Joy," Suggests Trump Should Arrest Federal Judge And Kill Protesters. The Daily Stormer is a neo-Nazi website that celebrates Hitler and frequently attacks Jewish people. The site is ecstatic over Trump's Muslim ban.

Writer "Azzmador" wrote a post headlined "Glorious Leader Wreaks Havoc on Filthy Moslem Would-Be Invaders." He added (emphasis original): "Of course, it is a Muslim ban. We just can't call it that...yet. But it's definitely subhuman raghead heathens at the shit end of Glorious Leader's big stick, and they are taking a walloping, bigly." The writer concluded by hoping that Trump would put Muslims in gas chambers:

So everything just keeps getting better and better. President Trump is working at breakneck speed to not only meet, but to exceed his campaign promises.

It's already been one helluva first week.

By the end of the month, we should have the rails laid, the camps built, and the gas flowing like Febreze.


Site editor Andrew Anglin wrote that he is feeling "ecstatic joy" and feels "like crying." From his post:

So I'm really feeling a lot of different emotions right now. I feel ecstatic joy. I feel admiration for our GLORIOUS LEADER. I feel shame for having doubted him. I feel sadness at the loss my city has suffered. I feel rage at the people who allowed the home I knew as a child to be ravaged by these disgusting animals when they could have just as easily said "Somalians? uh, yeah, no – they're totally banned."

But most of all?

I'm feeling comfy, fam.

And also, I feel like crying.

God bless you, Donald Trump.

May you never die.


Anglin also called on Trump to "arrest treasonous federal judge Ann Donnelly for trying to flood America with terrorists" after she issued an emergency order temporarily halting Trump's travel ban. He wrote: "I am hereby calling on Trump to issue a warrant for her arrest. ... Trump needs to arrest this woman immediately and have her charged with treason. If other judges protest, he needs to declare martial law and have them all rounded up and interned. We are at war here. This isn't a game." He also called on Trump to raid ACLU offices "with all head figures arrested and charged with conspiracy to undermine America and the promotion of terrorism against America."

Anglin suggested that Trump should kill protesters in the same fashion that Ohio National Guardsmen did when they killed four students at Kent State University in 1970. He wrote: "All we need is one Kent State-style incident, and this crap is going to end real quick. But maybe putting the DC rioters in prison for ten years will do the trick."

I've always wondered how the more rational portion of Trump supporters deal with being on the same side as this type of disgusting filth.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: iwas11in67 on January 31, 2017, 12:27:25 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/30/blm-anti-trump-protest-in-seattle-we-need-to-start-killing-people/ (http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/30/blm-anti-trump-protest-in-seattle-we-need-to-start-killing-people/)

I've always wondered how the more rational portion of the left supporters deal with being on the same side as this type of disgusting filth.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: louisstamos on January 31, 2017, 12:34:44 PM
Quote from: iwas11in67 on January 31, 2017, 12:27:25 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/30/blm-anti-trump-protest-in-seattle-we-need-to-start-killing-people/ (http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/30/blm-anti-trump-protest-in-seattle-we-need-to-start-killing-people/)

I've always wondered how the more rational portion of the left supporters deal with being on the same side as this type of disgusting filth.

Every ideology, be it political, religion, socioeconomic, etc, has it's share of extremists and/or assholes.  The right have Richard Spencer.  The left have people like ^.  Islam has ISIL.  Christians have Westboro Baptist Church.

All you can do as a rational whatever is disavow the exteremes.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on January 31, 2017, 12:42:44 PM
Quote from: iwas11in67 on January 31, 2017, 12:27:25 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/30/blm-anti-trump-protest-in-seattle-we-need-to-start-killing-people/ (http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/30/blm-anti-trump-protest-in-seattle-we-need-to-start-killing-people/)

I've always wondered how the more rational portion of the left supporters deal with being on the same side as this type of disgusting filth.

Easily. We don't vote for candidates the espouse those beliefs. The people who feel the way those on the fringes of the BLM movement do aren't voting for mainstream candidates - and, if they do, it's not because they represent their ideology, but, rather, because they're the least far from it.

Conservatives in the US, on the other hand, did the opposite, and voted for a candidate that frequently made racist, bigoted, misogynistic, and otherwise offensive statements. They actively supported the fringes, rather than having the fringes come along with them.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on January 31, 2017, 01:10:33 PM
Yes, keep thinking that's comparable. Sure.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on January 31, 2017, 01:16:23 PM
Quote from: louisstamos on January 31, 2017, 12:34:44 PM
Every ideology, be it political, religion, socioeconomic, etc, has it's share of extremists and/or assholes.  The right have Richard Spencer.  The left have people like ^.  Islam has ISIL.  Christians have Westboro Baptist Church.

The difference being that Richard Spencer heads an actual organization, ISIL is a massive organization and the WBC has dozens of members.

Conversely, this is one person yelling into a megaphone.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on January 31, 2017, 01:23:55 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on January 31, 2017, 01:16:23 PM
Conversely, this is one person yelling into a megaphone.

Found on Youtube.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: iwas11in67 on January 31, 2017, 01:40:25 PM
One person? It was Black Lives Matter. Remember them, they got the police kicked out of the Pride Parade.

I was comparing them as extremists to the Neo Nazi paper that was quoted.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on January 31, 2017, 01:45:41 PM
Quote from: iwas11in67 on January 31, 2017, 01:40:25 PM
One person? It was Black Lives Matter.

Really? So who was the person yelling and what is their official connection to that group?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on January 31, 2017, 01:51:53 PM
Quote from: iwas11in67 on January 31, 2017, 01:40:25 PM
One person? It was Black Lives Matter. Remember them, they got the police kicked out of the Pride Parade.

I was comparing them as extremists to the Neo Nazi paper that was quoted.

Yeah . . . no, it wasn't. It was one or two people who were at a BLM event. It's not the group's official - or even unofficial - position on these issues. It's not their mission or vision. The opinions expressed in that video have nothing to do with the Black Lives Matter organization.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on January 31, 2017, 01:56:46 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on January 31, 2017, 01:51:53 PM
It was one or two people who were at a BLM event.

Also, to be clear we can't even really say as a fact that it was a BLM event. We literally just have a video of a random, unknown person shouting into a microphone in front of other random, unknown people.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: louisstamos on January 31, 2017, 02:32:05 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on January 31, 2017, 01:56:46 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on January 31, 2017, 01:51:53 PM
It was one or two people who were at a BLM event.

Also, to be clear we can't even really say as a fact that it was a BLM event. We literally just have a video of a random, unknown person shouting into a microphone in front of other random, unknown people.

That's a good point - it's not as if the Daily Caller is the most reputable news media:

(https://i.redditmedia.com/6FyRdhpMvQNm1KGFxiqo06QXEp8AQeWerEugFwVpID4.jpg?w=960&s=abd4cfc9f2a5b6370630dae6b44a1f90)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Joe on January 31, 2017, 02:51:55 PM
I'm listening to the Attorney General committee Senate Judiciary hearing - Cruz is speaking and this is painful.

I've never been fearful about what the future holds... but I'm quite uneasy about what we're witnessing...
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on January 31, 2017, 04:30:28 PM
Some quotes from Americans who actually support Trump's actions:

They say they have no problem with refugees and they're not un-American. They just want to protect the US against terror attacks, and they think President Trump's travel ban is a good first step.

"We love refugees, but we want only those coming here who love us and want to assimilate into our culture and way of life."

"We're not mean, we're not anti-American," said Herrmann, who is part of a military family. "It's kind of sad that we're going to automatically assume that what Trump's doing is a horrible thing when we're just checking who's coming in (to the country)."

Even some former refugees support Trump's actions. Helen Megido, a 43-year-old registered nurse in Federal Way, Washington, is herself a refugee who came to the US from Latvia in 1989.
She said she waited six to nine months to get refugee status.
"[If] you want to get here, you wait your chance. You wait your turn," she said. "If they want to get to America, 3 months, 6 months -- it's nothing. They can wait."

Robert Lastra told CNN he was born and reared in South Florida after his father fled Cuba in 1960. He said a wave of Cubans who came to Florida in 1980, many of them released convicts, ruined the place where he grew up.

"I sat there and watched my entire community turn into a literal Dodge City because of all the violence and killing and drug trade," said Lastra, who now lives in east Texas. "I've seen that happening in Texas too.."

He supports Trump's plan to build a wall along the Texas-Mexico border, saying it will be a deterrent to people coming into the United States illegally.
"Thank god that somebody is tightening the borders and they're going to properly vet these people, even if it means keeping most of them out," Lastra said. "They don't have the right to be here to begin with. They don't have constitutional rights to be here. They're here by the grace of God, just like I'm here by the grace of God."

Rhea, who calls herself part of "average Middle America," also lived in South Florida and said she witnessed the dangers of illegal immigration when she saw people arriving on boats. Trump's executive order will make America safer, she said.

"Just as people came way back when and came through Ellis Island -- they were vetted," the Tennessee woman said. "They weren't just allowed to flood our borders."


http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/travel-ban-supporters-trump/index.html]
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bullfrog on January 31, 2017, 05:44:11 PM
I'm so pleased to see Natural News and David Wolfe in the "don't read this crap" section. People actually believe stuff on those sites.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on January 31, 2017, 06:16:27 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3gm0XyWAAACfyu.jpg)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Captain Canuck on January 31, 2017, 09:17:48 PM
I read an article that listed every terrorist attack on U.S. soil from 9/11 to present day. Not a single fatal attack was carried out by anyone from the 7 countries on Trump's list (there were 2 non-fatal attacks carried out by people with some tie to one of the 7 countries on the list). A large number of the fatal attacks were carried out by American citizens on fellow American citizens.
The facts don't seem to support Trump's stance on this matter.
Quelle surprise!
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on February 01, 2017, 01:31:54 AM
Kind of harsh...




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bill-burr-hillary-clinton-conan_us_58906a5ee4b0522c7d3ce6c4
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on February 01, 2017, 02:40:12 AM
Quote from: hockeyfan1 on January 31, 2017, 04:30:28 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/travel-ban-supporters-trump/index.html]

It's really absurd.  This notion that people think there isn't an existing vetting process for immigration.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Zee on February 01, 2017, 10:07:57 AM
Quote from: L K on February 01, 2017, 02:40:12 AM
Quote from: hockeyfan1 on January 31, 2017, 04:30:28 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/travel-ban-supporters-trump/index.html]

It's really absurd.  This notion that people think there isn't an existing vetting process for immigration.

It's scary how Trump has empowered all these closet bigots who are now coming out of the woodwork and speaking up.  Frightening times in the U.S. and the rest of the world with all that's happening there.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on February 01, 2017, 10:53:34 AM
Would you rather they remained hidden in the woodwork and weeds? They exist and they are part of every country's fabric. It's going to really suck for a lot of people, but I have to hope that there are so many parents and school teachers and influencers using these dark moments as lessons for the future. Open and exposed, there is a chance to break the cycle.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on February 01, 2017, 10:55:37 AM
Quote from: herman on February 01, 2017, 10:53:34 AM
Would you rather they remained hidden in the woodwork and weeds?

Vs. being given seats of power in the government? Yeah, probably.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on February 01, 2017, 11:15:52 AM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on February 01, 2017, 10:55:37 AM
Quote from: herman on February 01, 2017, 10:53:34 AM
Would you rather they remained hidden in the woodwork and weeds?

Vs. being given seats of power in the government? Yeah, probably.

Touché, touché.

As much as this election result (and subsequent use of the Constitution as a butt wipe) has been depressing/horrifying, I'm the kind of person that would prefer to try to make the best of the hand dealt. Is there a greater unifier and mobilizer than a common enemy?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on February 01, 2017, 01:51:01 PM
Quote from: herman on February 01, 2017, 11:15:52 AM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on February 01, 2017, 10:55:37 AM
Quote from: herman on February 01, 2017, 10:53:34 AM
Would you rather they remained hidden in the woodwork and weeds?

Vs. being given seats of power in the government? Yeah, probably.

Touché, touché.

As much as this election result (and subsequent use of the Constitution as a butt wipe) has been depressing/horrifying, I'm the kind of person that would prefer to try to make the best of the hand dealt. Is there a greater unifier and mobilizer than a common enemy?

Yeah I mean I think the dirty underbelly was perfectly exposed when Trump became a viable candidate.  We didn't need him to win.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on February 01, 2017, 10:51:12 PM
Speaking of this dirty underbelly:
http://gizmodo.com/reddit-says-goodnight-to-alt-right-community-1791895544
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: iwas11in67 on February 02, 2017, 11:13:34 AM
Quote from: louisstamos on January 31, 2017, 02:32:05 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on January 31, 2017, 01:56:46 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on January 31, 2017, 01:51:53 PM
It was one or two people who were at a BLM event.

Also, to be clear we can't even really say as a fact that it was a BLM event. We literally just have a video of a random, unknown person shouting into a microphone in front of other random, unknown people.

That's a good point - it's not as if the Daily Caller is the most reputable news media:

(https://i.redditmedia.com/6FyRdhpMvQNm1KGFxiqo06QXEp8AQeWerEugFwVpID4.jpg?w=960&s=abd4cfc9f2a5b6370630dae6b44a1f90)

...and the Neo Nazi paper is a reputable news outlet?

Sorry I have a different viewpoint.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: louisstamos on February 02, 2017, 11:16:30 AM
Quote from: iwas11in67 on February 02, 2017, 11:13:34 AM
Quote from: louisstamos on January 31, 2017, 02:32:05 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on January 31, 2017, 01:56:46 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on January 31, 2017, 01:51:53 PM
It was one or two people who were at a BLM event.

Also, to be clear we can't even really say as a fact that it was a BLM event. We literally just have a video of a random, unknown person shouting into a microphone in front of other random, unknown people.

That's a good point - it's not as if the Daily Caller is the most reputable news media:

(https://i.redditmedia.com/6FyRdhpMvQNm1KGFxiqo06QXEp8AQeWerEugFwVpID4.jpg?w=960&s=abd4cfc9f2a5b6370630dae6b44a1f90)

...and the Neo Nazi paper is a reputable news outlet?

Sorry I have a different viewpoint.

Breitbart?  They're in the bottom right corner.  Which means in terms of of partisanship, it's "Conservative Utter Garbage/Conspiracy Theories" and in terms quality, they're under "sensationalist/clickbait."

They're right where they're supposed to be.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: harps64 on February 02, 2017, 11:25:58 AM
Quote from: louisstamos on February 02, 2017, 11:16:30 AM
Quote from: iwas11in67 on February 02, 2017, 11:13:34 AM
Quote from: louisstamos on January 31, 2017, 02:32:05 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on January 31, 2017, 01:56:46 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on January 31, 2017, 01:51:53 PM
It was one or two people who were at a BLM event.

Also, to be clear we can't even really say as a fact that it was a BLM event. We literally just have a video of a random, unknown person shouting into a microphone in front of other random, unknown people.

That's a good point - it's not as if the Daily Caller is the most reputable news media:

(https://i.redditmedia.com/6FyRdhpMvQNm1KGFxiqo06QXEp8AQeWerEugFwVpID4.jpg?w=960&s=abd4cfc9f2a5b6370630dae6b44a1f90)

...and the Neo Nazi paper is a reputable news outlet?

Sorry I have a different viewpoint.

Breitbart?  They're in the bottom right corner.  Which means in terms of of partisanship, it's "Conservative Utter Garbage/Conspiracy Theories" and in terms quality, they're under "sensationalist/clickbait."

They're right where they're supposed to be.

This chart is a joke.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on February 02, 2017, 11:44:54 AM
Quote from: iwas11in67 on February 02, 2017, 11:13:34 AM
...and the Neo Nazi paper is a reputable news outlet?

Nobody is citing them as a reputable news outlet whose reporting is solid. What's being said is they're a reliable source for how Neo Nazis feel about things.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on February 02, 2017, 02:25:27 PM

Transcript (http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/a-full-transcript-of-donald-trumps-black-history-month-1791871370)
This is funny because... nope.

https://twitter.com/GrainneMaguire/status/826868300856586241
www.twitter.com/GrainneMaguire/status/826868300856586241

It's funny because it's true.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: McGarnagle on February 02, 2017, 07:45:28 PM
Quote from: harps64 on February 02, 2017, 11:25:58 AM
This chart is a joke.

Really? I thought it wasn't all that far off.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on February 02, 2017, 08:00:18 PM
Quote from: McGarnagle on February 02, 2017, 07:45:28 PM
Really? I thought it wasn't all that far off.

It is, unless, of course, you rely on one of the more extreme sources for your info, in which case, you'd probably see it as fake news.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on February 03, 2017, 02:24:53 PM
Quote from: herman on February 01, 2017, 11:15:52 AM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on February 01, 2017, 10:55:37 AM
Quote from: herman on February 01, 2017, 10:53:34 AM
Would you rather they remained hidden in the woodwork and weeds?

Vs. being given seats of power in the government? Yeah, probably.

Touché, touché.

As much as this election result (and subsequent use of the Constitution as a butt wipe) has been depressing/horrifying, I'm the kind of person that would prefer to try to make the best of the hand dealt. Is there a greater unifier and mobilizer than a common enemy?

Mobilizer, no -- can't beat a common enemy.

But unifier? Well, around what and for how long? By 2006, everyone was unified against Bush, but once he was gone in 2009, folks lost the thread. A lot of the things I thought undergirded opposition to Bush (resistance to: torture, spying, expansive state power, austerity, centering finance, etc) sort of weren't thought to be a problem once he was gone, though those things all lived on or weren't purged from the system.   

Unifying around opposition to a particular villain doesn't really prefigure sustained political success.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on February 05, 2017, 11:14:01 AM
Melissa McCarthy as Sean Spicer on SNL.  Watch it before it's taken down by NBC:

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 05, 2017, 11:36:26 AM
That's incredible. Amazing work too by McCarthy to not break during any of that.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on February 05, 2017, 02:38:26 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on February 05, 2017, 11:36:26 AM
That's incredible. Amazing work too by McCarthy to not break during any of that.

Not only did I howl through the whole thing last night, but then also when watching it again this morning, I had to pause it every time I wanted a sip of my coffee for fear of spitting it out.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: RedLeaf on February 05, 2017, 11:24:09 PM
Here's what really happened at The Donald's inauguration...

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/blogs/compost/wp/2017/01/24/the-true-correct-story-of-what-happened-at-donald-trumps-inauguration/?client=safari
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on February 06, 2017, 11:18:10 AM
Quote from: Heroic Shrimp on February 05, 2017, 11:14:01 AM
Melissa McCarthy as Sean Spicer on SNL.  Watch it before it's taken down by NBC:

Reddit's got our backs
http://streamable.com/etn5v
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 07, 2017, 09:30:37 AM
Quote from: herman on February 06, 2017, 11:18:10 AM
Quote from: Heroic Shrimp on February 05, 2017, 11:14:01 AM
Melissa McCarthy as Sean Spicer on SNL.  Watch it before it's taken down by NBC:

Reddit's got our backs
http://streamable.com/etn5v

If you watch this again with the knowledge that Trump is reportedly butt-hurt over Spicer being played by a woman it's 100x more funny.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on February 07, 2017, 10:03:10 AM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on February 07, 2017, 09:30:37 AM
Quote from: herman on February 06, 2017, 11:18:10 AM
Quote from: Heroic Shrimp on February 05, 2017, 11:14:01 AM
Melissa McCarthy as Sean Spicer on SNL.  Watch it before it's taken down by NBC:

Reddit's got our backs
http://streamable.com/etn5v

If you watch this again with the knowledge that Trump is reportedly butt-hurt over Spicer being played by a woman it's 100x more funny.

He's going to explode when Rosie plays Bannon!
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on February 07, 2017, 10:18:46 AM
Quote from: bustaheims on February 07, 2017, 10:03:10 AM
He's going to explode when Rosie plays Bannon!

https://twitter.com/Rosie/status/828792995591888896
www.twitter.com/Rosie/status/828792995591888896
And when Baldwin and Rosie make out after... with Chris Christie kind of standing in the background, mouth agape.

Word on the newswire is that Trump signed the EO to get Bannon on the NSC but didn't know that was in there (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-steve-bannon-nsc-national-security-council-order-a7565191.html) (because he didn't/can't read (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LFkN7QGp2c)) and is now miffed. I think the best way forward for the Resistance is to turn the two of them against each other (and in turn, against the GOP).

My read on the situation is that they're both playing each other, and they know it. Bannon is grooming Trump with effusive compliments and feeding his paranoia and has all the strategic ideas to change public opinion (propaganda). Trump is wielding Bannon as a threat to the Republican base. He is already bristling at the #PresidentBannon attention and will probably start to undermine Bannon's influence.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on February 07, 2017, 10:26:08 AM
An interesting article in attempting to explain the Trump victory, Clinton vs Trump supporters, and the why and wherefore as it stands:

For many Americans, Hillary Clinton personified the corruption and self-dealing of the elites. But Trump's election wasn't just a rejection of Clinton, it was a rejection of politics as usual. If the media and political establishment see Trump's first couple of weeks in office as a whirlwind of chaos and incompetence, his supporters see an outsider taking on a sclerotic system that needs to be dismantled. That's precisely what many Americans thought they were doing eight years ago, when they put a freshman senator from Illinois in the White House. Obama promised a new way of governing – he would be a "post-partisan" president, he would "fundamentally transform" the country, he would look out for the middle class. In the throes of the great recession, that resonated. Something was clearly wrong with our political system and the American people wanted someone to fix it.

After all, the Tea Party didn't begin as a reaction against Obama's presidency but that of George W Bush. As far as most Americans were concerned, the financial crisis was brought on by the excesses of Wall Street bankers and the incompetency of our political leaders....Americans who felt the system was rigged against them and they wanted But change didn't come.

What they got was more of the same. Obama offered a series of massive government programmes, from an $830bn financial stimulus, to the Affordable Care Act, to Dodd-Frank, none of which did much to assuage the economic anxieties of the middle class. Americans watched as the federal government bailed out the banks, then the auto industry and then passed healthcare reform that transferred billions of taxpayer dollars to major health insurance companies. Meanwhile, premiums went up, economic recovery remained sluggish and millions dropped out of the workforce and turned to food stamps and welfare programmes just to get by.

Part of Obama's appeal was that he promised to end the unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, restore America's standing in the international community and pursue multilateral agreements that would bring stability. Instead, Americans watched Isis step into the vacuum created by the US withdrawal from Iraq in 2011. They watched the Syrian civil war trigger a migrant crisis in Europe that many Americans now view as a cautionary tale. At home, Isis-inspired terrorist attacks took their toll, as they did in Europe. And all the while Obama's White House insisted that everything was going well.

Amid all this, along came Trump. Here was a rough character, a boisterous celebrity billionaire with an axe to grind. He had palpable disdain for both political parties, which he said had failed the American people. He showed contempt for political correctness that was strangling public debate over contentious issues such as terrorism. He struck many of the same populist notes, both in his campaign and in his recent inaugural address, that Senator Bernie Sanders did among his young socialist acolytes, sometimes word for word.

In many ways, the 2016 election wasn't just a referendum on Obama's eight years in the White House, it was a rejection of the entire political system that gave us Iraq, the financial crisis, a botched healthcare law and shocking income inequality during a slow economic recovery. From Akron to Alaska, millions of Americans had simply lost confidence in their leaders and the institutions that were supposed to serve them. In their desperation, they turned to a man who had no regard for the elites – and no use for them

...populism of this kind can be dangerous and unpredictable, But it doesn't arise from nowhere. Only a corrupt political establishment could have provoked a political revolt of this scale. Instead of blaming Trump's rise on racism or xenophobia, blame it on those who never saw this coming and still don't understand why so many Americans would rather have Donald Trump in the White House than suffer the rule of their elites.

Full article:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/05/trump-not-fascist-champion-for-forgotten-millions (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/05/trump-not-fascist-champion-for-forgotten-millions)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on February 07, 2017, 11:59:00 AM
Quote from: herman on February 07, 2017, 10:18:46 AM
Word on the newswire is that Trump signed the EO to get Bannon on the NSC but didn't know that was in there (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-steve-bannon-nsc-national-security-council-order-a7565191.html) (because he didn't/can't read (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LFkN7QGp2c)) and is now miffed. I think the best way forward for the Resistance is to turn the two of them against each other (and in turn, against the GOP).

Sad, but hardly surprising. It's been clear for some time that Trump is really just a puppet, and that he'll basically sign anything that's being put in front of him if someone he trusts says it's good.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on February 07, 2017, 02:07:39 PM
Quote from: herman on February 07, 2017, 10:18:46 AM
Word on the newswire is that Trump signed the EO to get Bannon on the NSC but didn't know that was in there (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-steve-bannon-nsc-national-security-council-order-a7565191.html) (because he didn't/can't read (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LFkN7QGp2c)) and is now miffed. I think the best way forward for the Resistance is to turn the two of them against each other (and in turn, against the GOP).

Yes. Under/unemployed midwesterners who didn't care enough about the 2016 election to vote will surely respond to Politico articles about disorder in the White House and divisions in the GOP camp.

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on February 07, 2017, 02:17:51 PM
Quote from: mr grieves on February 07, 2017, 02:07:39 PM
Yes. Under/unemployed midwesterners who didn't care enough about the 2016 election to vote will surely respond to Politico articles about disorder in the White House and divisions in the GOP camp.

No need to move the base when one can simply poke the fragile ego through Twitter from the comfort of his mom's basement. Say a few Heil President Bannons and we'll be on our merry way.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on February 07, 2017, 02:24:11 PM
Quote from: hockeyfan1 on February 07, 2017, 10:26:08 AM
An interesting article in attempting to explain the Trump victory, Clinton vs Trump supporters, and the why and wherefore as it stands:
[...snip...]
Full article:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/05/trump-not-fascist-champion-for-forgotten-millions (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/05/trump-not-fascist-champion-for-forgotten-millions)

Yeah, the Guardian has been publishing some great writers who have a pretty good handle on the American scene.

Some favorites:

Quote
Thomas Frank, "Donald Trump is moving to the White House, and liberals put him there"
Start at the top. Why, oh why, did it have to be Hillary Clinton? Yes, she has an impressive resume; yes, she worked hard on the campaign trail. But she was exactly the wrong candidate for this angry, populist moment. An insider when the country was screaming for an outsider. A technocrat who offered fine-tuning when the country wanted to take a sledgehammer to the machine...

To try to put over such a nominee while screaming that the Republican is a rightwing monster is to court disbelief. If Trump is a fascist, as liberals often said, Democrats should have put in their strongest player to stop him, not a party hack they'd chosen because it was her turn. Choosing her indicated either that Democrats didn't mean what they said about Trump's riskiness, that their opportunism took precedence over the country's well-being, or maybe both.
link: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/donald-trump-white-house-hillary-clinton-liberals

QuoteGary Younge, "How Barack Obama paved the way for Donald Trump"
As Obama passes the keys and the codes to Donald Trump at the end of this week, so many liberals mourn the passing of what has been, remain in a state of disbelief for what has happened, and express deep anxiety about what is to come. It is a steep cliff – politically, rhetorically and aesthetically – from the mocha-complexioned consensual intellectual to the permatanned, "pussy-grabbing" vulgarian.

But there is a connection between the "new normal" and the old that must be understood if resistance in the Trump era is going to amount to more than Twitter memes driven by impotent rage and fuelled by flawed nostalgia. This transition is not simply a matter of sequence – one bad president following a good one – but consequence: one horrendous agenda made possible by the failure of its predecessor.
link: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/16/how-barack-obama-paved-way-donald-trump-racism

Quote
Chris Arnade, "What I learned after 100,000 miles on the road talking to Trump supporters"
America has changed fundamentally over the last 35 years, and I saw and heard the impact of those changes. America had finally started upending a longstanding and ugly racial hierarchy, removing legal barriers that had made the playing field anything but level. For this, minorities overwhelmingly supported the new system, despite still suffering economically and socially more than white Americans.

Yet we replaced that system with one based on schooling, building a playing field that was tilted dramatically towards anyone with the "right" education. The jobs requiring muscle decreased (many going overseas) while the jobs requiring school increased. Compounding the pain from this, we started giving the winners a much larger share of the profits.

The early Trump voters I met were the losers from these changes. Their once superior status – based only on being white – was being dismantled, while their lack of education was also being punished. They lived in towns and communities devastated by economic upheaval. They were born in them and stayed in them, despite their fall. For many, who had focused on their community over career, it felt like their entire world was collapsing.
link: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/03/trump-supporters-us-elections
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on February 07, 2017, 02:29:21 PM
Quote from: herman on February 07, 2017, 02:17:51 PM
Quote from: mr grieves on February 07, 2017, 02:07:39 PM
Yes. Under/unemployed midwesterners who didn't care enough about the 2016 election to vote will surely respond to Politico articles about disorder in the White House and divisions in the GOP camp.

No need to move the base when one can simply poke the fragile ego through Twitter from the comfort of his mom's basement. Say a few Heil President Bannons and we'll be on our merry way.

Of course, the base did turn out. That's not the problem.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on February 08, 2017, 09:05:31 AM
(http://i939.photobucket.com/albums/ad239/fotogalri/putin_zpsr5bsu5mn.jpg)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on February 08, 2017, 11:52:04 AM
Betsy DeVos getting confirmed has to go down as one of the biggest shams in US political history.  She is profoundly under qualified and showed an absolutely lack of regard for anything related to the knowledge of the education portfolio.  She also donated massive sums of money to Republicans prior to the vote to buy her confirmation.  The Republican Party is an amoral disgrace.

I feel devastated for the children who are going to suffer the consequences of this decision.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 08, 2017, 01:05:55 PM
Quote from: L K on February 08, 2017, 11:52:04 AM
Betsy DeVos getting confirmed has to go down as one of the biggest shams in US political history.  She is profoundly under qualified and showed an absolutely lack of regard for anything related to the knowledge of the education portfolio.  She also donated massive sums of money to Republicans prior to the vote to buy her confirmation.  The Republican Party is an amoral disgrace.

I feel devastated for the children who are going to suffer the consequences of this decision.

I think it was Schumer who said something like if the GOP senators vote in DeVos it basically proves there's literally nobody Trump could have appointed that wouldn't have received their blessing.

Good on the two Republican senators who didn't vote for her. And it's sad that Trump-critics like Graham and McCain couldn't have grown a big enough backbone to get 1 more vote.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on February 08, 2017, 01:28:04 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/politics/elizabeth-warren-silenced/

QuoteWarren cited the letter during a debate on the nomination of Sessions -- now an Alabama senator -- as Donald Trump's attorney general. Reading from King's letter to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1986, Warren said: "Mr. Sessions has used the awesome power of his office to chill the free exercise of the vote by black citizens in the district he now seeks to serve as a federal judge."

Republicans cried foul -- charging that Warren violated Senate rules against impugning another senator. A vote along party lines upheld that decision, turning what could have been an ordinary late-night partisan floor speech for political devotees into a national story.

[...]


Adding fuel to the backlash, supporters noted the apparent hypocrisy that Warren's male colleagues were able to read from the letter uninterrupted. Sen. Mark Udall read the letter to enter it into the congressional record Wednesday morning and Sen. Jeff Merkley was allowed to read from King's letter Tuesday night, though he couched his remarks as only reading portions of the letter and with the context to be in line with Senate rules.

Warren is now forbidden from participating in the floor debate over Sessions' nomination ahead of a confirmation vote expected Wednesday.

"I literally can't be recognized on the floor of the Senate," she told Lemon. "I have become a nonperson during the discussion of Jeff Sessions."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell defended evoking Rule 19, a rarely evoked chamber regulation that prohibits senators from impugning each other.

"She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted," the Kentucky Republican said on the Senate floor, delivering an instantly classic line -- the kind liberals imagine being replayed ad nauseum in TV ads in a future presidential campaign.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on February 08, 2017, 02:05:20 PM
McCain is only a Maverick when it's not time to make decisions.  McCain has one of the lowest voting rates for going against party lines.  The average is something like 2.7% and McCain is at 1.8% over his career.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on February 08, 2017, 02:13:49 PM

It's interesting because if you asked me in a context neutral sense I'd say that Senate Confirmations shouldn't really be job interviews. I think there's a responsibility on the part of the Senate to make sure there aren't gross conflict of interests or something but traditionally the President has had a fairly wide latitude to select their cabinet and I'm fairly sympathetic to the idea that if you don't want Donald Trump's pick for Secretary of Education or the Treasure or State then the time to stop it is on election day.

That said after all these years of senate obstructionism during the Obama administration and the spectacularly unqualified candidates he's choosing it does feel like it's a fairly different ball game.

The real problem with the American system though is that if there's no middle ground, really nothing is ever going to be done.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on February 08, 2017, 03:57:00 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on February 08, 2017, 02:13:49 PM
The real problem with the American system though is that if there's no middle ground, really nothing is ever going to be done.

Nail on head.

I have friends calling for a boycott of Tesla because Elon Musk dares to try to talk to him and improve the country.

It's a real problem for the far left in America, they've become authoritarian and are stifling discussion.


Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on February 08, 2017, 04:16:40 PM
Quote from: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on February 08, 2017, 03:57:00 PM
I have friends calling for a boycott of Tesla because Elon Musk dares to try to talk to him and improve the country.

It's a real problem for the far left in America, they've become authoritarian and are stifling discussion.

Yeah. Both sides have become way too dogmatic. I mean, there's no way Elon Musk supports a wide range of Trump's policies, but, he recognizes that it's in everyone's best interests to at least see if he can get him to take a more measured approach in areas like energy, the environment, etc.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on February 08, 2017, 04:39:45 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on February 08, 2017, 04:16:40 PM
Quote from: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on February 08, 2017, 03:57:00 PM
I have friends calling for a boycott of Tesla because Elon Musk dares to try to talk to him and improve the country.

It's a real problem for the far left in America, they've become authoritarian and are stifling discussion.

Yeah. Both sides have become way too dogmatic. I mean, there's no way Elon Musk supports a wide range of Trump's policies, but, he recognizes that it's in everyone's best interests to at least see if he can get him to take a more measured approach in areas like energy, the environment, etc.

I really don't buy that the Left has become too dogmatic. If anything the reverse is true. Republicans have empirically taken positions further and further to the right and then expected Democrats to meet them in a new middle. The first President Bush was willing to discuss cap and trade to deal with carbon emissions, the current Republican president thinks Global Warming is a Chinese Hoax. Likewise, the Insurance Markets that make up the bulk of the ACA were ideas put forth by Bob Dole and adopted by Mitt Romney when he was running Massachussetts.

There's really been very little where Democrats have held firm. Certainly not to the point of dogma.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on February 08, 2017, 04:45:34 PM
Quote from: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on February 08, 2017, 03:57:00 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on February 08, 2017, 02:13:49 PM
The real problem with the American system though is that if there's no middle ground, really nothing is ever going to be done.

Nail on head.

I have friends calling for a boycott of Tesla because Elon Musk dares to try to talk to him and improve the country.

It's a real problem for the far left in America, they've become authoritarian and are stifling discussion.

No, the problem with America is that it's a two-party system wherein, at present, we have a neoliberal party that's pro-diversity and anti-racism and a neoliberal party that's primarily a home for white supremacists. And, when you take the basic economic/material issues that used to be "politics" out of the political sphere, a lot of people don't see much point in voting.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on February 08, 2017, 04:57:47 PM

I have to think that if there's one thing we can all agree on is that there's certainly more than one problem with America these days.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: McGarnagle on February 08, 2017, 07:32:03 PM
If there's anything even approaching a silver lining in the last few months, I'd wager that a lot of average people have learned a lot more about the mechanisms of the American government.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 08, 2017, 09:04:43 PM
Quote from: McGarnagle on February 08, 2017, 07:32:03 PM
If there's anything even approaching a silver lining in the last few months, I'd wager that a lot of average people have learned a lot more about the mechanisms of the American government.

They'll be able to tell their kids about them after they've ceased to exist.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Frank E on February 08, 2017, 09:16:54 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on February 08, 2017, 09:04:43 PM
Quote from: McGarnagle on February 08, 2017, 07:32:03 PM
If there's anything even approaching a silver lining in the last few months, I'd wager that a lot of average people have learned a lot more about the mechanisms of the American government.

They'll be able to tell their kids about them after they've ceased to exist.

We can't be too judgy here in Canada.  We've got our own liars up here, saying whatever it takes to get into office. 
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on February 08, 2017, 11:01:41 PM
Quote from: Frank E on February 08, 2017, 09:16:54 PM
We can't be too judgy here in Canada.  We've got our own liars up here, saying whatever it takes to get into office.

Every country with free elections has those. Only some have the type that disregard/disrespect/don't understand the system after they get into office.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bender on February 09, 2017, 01:54:16 PM
Quote from: Frank E on February 08, 2017, 09:16:54 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on February 08, 2017, 09:04:43 PM
Quote from: McGarnagle on February 08, 2017, 07:32:03 PM
If there's anything even approaching a silver lining in the last few months, I'd wager that a lot of average people have learned a lot more about the mechanisms of the American government.

They'll be able to tell their kids about them after they've ceased to exist.

We can't be too judgy here in Canada.  We've got our own liars up here, saying whatever it takes to get into office.
The extent of which this is happening in the US is bordering on the surreal. I don't think we have to worry about Trudeau's aides telling people very publicly to boycott Nordstrom's because his wife's goods were dropped. We've seen a lot of borderline impeachable offenses to an extent that I've never seen in North America. When you're dealing with such a precedent I don't see how we can't be voices of reason. I don't think that makes us judgmental, just engaged.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 09, 2017, 09:44:58 PM
Oh god he's tweeting in all caps now.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on February 09, 2017, 09:48:28 PM

Seriously. Saying that we can't judge Trump because some Canadian politicians lie is like saying you can't judge Jeffrey Dahmer because you have bad table manners.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on February 09, 2017, 10:02:48 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on February 09, 2017, 09:44:58 PM
Oh god he's tweeting in all caps now.

He's not going to last through the spring at this rate.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on February 10, 2017, 10:47:01 AM
https://twitter.com/Rosie
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on February 10, 2017, 11:33:16 AM
[tweet]829938806891556864[/tweet]
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on February 10, 2017, 03:19:30 PM
Prime Minister Abe of Japan:

[tweet]830121323603042304[/tweet]
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: OrangeBlack on February 11, 2017, 09:44:18 AM
Quote from: hockeyfan1 on February 07, 2017, 10:26:08 AM
An interesting article in attempting to explain the Trump victory, Clinton vs Trump supporters, and the why and wherefore as it stands:

For many Americans, Hillary Clinton personified the corruption and self-dealing of the elites. But Trump's election wasn't just a rejection of Clinton, it was a rejection of politics as usual. If the media and political establishment see Trump's first couple of weeks in office as a whirlwind of chaos and incompetence, his supporters see an outsider taking on a sclerotic system that needs to be dismantled. That's precisely what many Americans thought they were doing eight years ago, when they put a freshman senator from Illinois in the White House. Obama promised a new way of governing – he would be a "post-partisan" president, he would "fundamentally transform" the country, he would look out for the middle class. In the throes of the great recession, that resonated. Something was clearly wrong with our political system and the American people wanted someone to fix it.

After all, the Tea Party didn't begin as a reaction against Obama's presidency but that of George W Bush. As far as most Americans were concerned, the financial crisis was brought on by the excesses of Wall Street bankers and the incompetency of our political leaders....Americans who felt the system was rigged against them and they wanted But change didn't come.

What they got was more of the same. Obama offered a series of massive government programmes, from an $830bn financial stimulus, to the Affordable Care Act, to Dodd-Frank, none of which did much to assuage the economic anxieties of the middle class. Americans watched as the federal government bailed out the banks, then the auto industry and then passed healthcare reform that transferred billions of taxpayer dollars to major health insurance companies. Meanwhile, premiums went up, economic recovery remained sluggish and millions dropped out of the workforce and turned to food stamps and welfare programmes just to get by.

Part of Obama's appeal was that he promised to end the unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, restore America's standing in the international community and pursue multilateral agreements that would bring stability. Instead, Americans watched Isis step into the vacuum created by the US withdrawal from Iraq in 2011. They watched the Syrian civil war trigger a migrant crisis in Europe that many Americans now view as a cautionary tale. At home, Isis-inspired terrorist attacks took their toll, as they did in Europe. And all the while Obama's White House insisted that everything was going well.

Amid all this, along came Trump. Here was a rough character, a boisterous celebrity billionaire with an axe to grind. He had palpable disdain for both political parties, which he said had failed the American people. He showed contempt for political correctness that was strangling public debate over contentious issues such as terrorism. He struck many of the same populist notes, both in his campaign and in his recent inaugural address, that Senator Bernie Sanders did among his young socialist acolytes, sometimes word for word.

In many ways, the 2016 election wasn't just a referendum on Obama's eight years in the White House, it was a rejection of the entire political system that gave us Iraq, the financial crisis, a botched healthcare law and shocking income inequality during a slow economic recovery. From Akron to Alaska, millions of Americans had simply lost confidence in their leaders and the institutions that were supposed to serve them. In their desperation, they turned to a man who had no regard for the elites – and no use for them

...populism of this kind can be dangerous and unpredictable, But it doesn't arise from nowhere. Only a corrupt political establishment could have provoked a political revolt of this scale. Instead of blaming Trump's rise on racism or xenophobia, blame it on those who never saw this coming and still don't understand why so many Americans would rather have Donald Trump in the White House than suffer the rule of their elites.

Full article:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/05/trump-not-fascist-champion-for-forgotten-millions (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/05/trump-not-fascist-champion-for-forgotten-millions)
Great article.   Many Americans see Hilary Clinton as a corrupt, elite, evil woman that would do anything to enrich herself & Bill.  Politically, Clinton would have been more of the same. As well, as mentioned in the article....many Americans tired of years of political correctness being shoved down their throats, most often by the perceived elites in power.  Trumps style & rhetoric were a breath of fresh air to many of those people.  All in all, to many....the left now represents an authoritarian elitist culture that only represents NYC, & the left coast.  Bernie seemed to be an exception to that rule.   Seems like a role reversal of sorts for the parties.  However, I would argue that Trump himself is almost like a 3rd party.  He got in under the Republican umbrella; however, he is different from the GOP in many ways.  Still, he's going to have to throw Ryan & the GOP a bone often to be able to be effective in office.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on February 11, 2017, 11:44:44 AM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on February 11, 2017, 09:44:18 AM
Great article.   Many Americans see Hilary Clinton as a corrupt, elite, evil woman that would do anything to enrich herself & Bill.

So many Americans saw Hillary Clinton as someone who would do unethical things to enrich herself and her family and so instead turned to someone who regularly cheated small business people, duped people with outright cons like Trump University and stuck his name on all manner of terrible products. Someone who, in the office of the Presidency, refuses to put his assets in a blind trust, disclose his financial conflicts and tweets criticisms at private companies for cutting business ties with his family members.

No, yeah, that makes tons of sense.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Andy on February 11, 2017, 11:57:43 AM
You know what I don't get? The notion that being ignorant, bigoted, spiteful and insulting is somehow a justified counter-balance to political correctness.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on February 11, 2017, 12:02:32 PM

I don't even know what political correctness means as a broad term. People seem to just blame any criticism of their lousy behaviour on "political correctness".
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on February 11, 2017, 04:21:14 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on February 11, 2017, 12:02:32 PMI don't even know what political correctness means as a broad term. People seem to just blame any criticism of their lousy behaviour on "political correctness".

Very true.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on February 11, 2017, 04:45:28 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on February 11, 2017, 09:44:18 AM
Great article.   Many Americans see Hilary Clinton as a corrupt, elite, evil woman that would do anything to enrich herself & Bill.  Politically, Clinton would have been more of the same. As well, as mentioned in the article....many Americans tired of years of political correctness being shoved down their throats, most often by the perceived elites in power.  Trumps style & rhetoric were a breath of fresh air to many of those people.  All in all, to many....the left now represents an authoritarian elitist culture that only represents NYC, & the left coast.  Bernie seemed to be an exception to that rule.   Seems like a role reversal of sorts for the parties.  However, I would argue that Trump himself is almost like a 3rd party.  He got in under the Republican umbrella; however, he is different from the GOP in many ways.  Still, he's going to have to throw Ryan & the GOP a bone often to be able to be effective in office.

I don't know. I guess his anti-business positions on immigration set him apart from most Republicans (tho the Pat Buchanans of the world have long been there), but he let the Heritage Foundation select his cabinet appointees, installing the most extreme sort of GOP orthodoxy to preside over education, health care, the treasury, the environment, and so on. That's so many bones tossed to Ryan & c. that I'd begin to wonder whether the qualities that make him seem independent aren't just flashy gilding covering a pretty typical Republican. -- But I sort of agree that the "style and rhetoric" have demonstrated themselves sufficiently appealing to enough voters that Democrats really oughta move on to another line of attack...

Quote from: Nik the Trik on February 11, 2017, 11:44:44 AM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on February 11, 2017, 09:44:18 AM
Great article.   Many Americans see Hilary Clinton as a corrupt, elite, evil woman that would do anything to enrich herself & Bill.

So many Americans saw Hillary Clinton as someone who would do unethical things to enrich herself and her family and so instead turned to someone who regularly cheated small business people, duped people with outright cons like Trump University and stuck his name on all manner of terrible products. Someone who, in the office of the Presidency, refuses to put his assets in a blind trust, disclose his financial conflicts and tweets criticisms at private companies for cutting business ties with his family members.

No, yeah, that makes tons of sense.

Several journalists who covered his supporters observed that many knew that he was a conman but were taking a chance on his being their conman.     
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on February 11, 2017, 04:46:03 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on February 11, 2017, 09:44:18 AM
Quote from: hockeyfan1 on February 07, 2017, 10:26:08 AM
An interesting article in attempting to explain the Trump victory, Clinton vs Trump supporters, and the why and wherefore as it stands:

For many Americans, Hillary Clinton personified the corruption and self-dealing of the elites. But Trump's election wasn't just a rejection of Clinton, it was a rejection of politics as usual. If the media and political establishment see Trump's first couple of weeks in office as a whirlwind of chaos and incompetence, his supporters see an outsider taking on a sclerotic system that needs to be dismantled. That's precisely what many Americans thought they were doing eight years ago, when they put a freshman senator from Illinois in the White House. Obama promised a new way of governing – he would be a "post-partisan" president, he would "fundamentally transform" the country, he would look out for the middle class. In the throes of the great recession, that resonated. Something was clearly wrong with our political system and the American people wanted someone to fix it.

After all, the Tea Party didn't begin as a reaction against Obama's presidency but that of George W Bush. As far as most Americans were concerned, the financial crisis was brought on by the excesses of Wall Street bankers and the incompetency of our political leaders....Americans who felt the system was rigged against them and they wanted But change didn't come.

What they got was more of the same. Obama offered a series of massive government programmes, from an $830bn financial stimulus, to the Affordable Care Act, to Dodd-Frank, none of which did much to assuage the economic anxieties of the middle class. Americans watched as the federal government bailed out the banks, then the auto industry and then passed healthcare reform that transferred billions of taxpayer dollars to major health insurance companies. Meanwhile, premiums went up, economic recovery remained sluggish and millions dropped out of the workforce and turned to food stamps and welfare programmes just to get by.

Part of Obama's appeal was that he promised to end the unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, restore America's standing in the international community and pursue multilateral agreements that would bring stability. Instead, Americans watched Isis step into the vacuum created by the US withdrawal from Iraq in 2011. They watched the Syrian civil war trigger a migrant crisis in Europe that many Americans now view as a cautionary tale. At home, Isis-inspired terrorist attacks took their toll, as they did in Europe. And all the while Obama's White House insisted that everything was going well.

Amid all this, along came Trump. Here was a rough character, a boisterous celebrity billionaire with an axe to grind. He had palpable disdain for both political parties, which he said had failed the American people. He showed contempt for political correctness that was strangling public debate over contentious issues such as terrorism. He struck many of the same populist notes, both in his campaign and in his recent inaugural address, that Senator Bernie Sanders did among his young socialist acolytes, sometimes word for word.

In many ways, the 2016 election wasn't just a referendum on Obama's eight years in the White House, it was a rejection of the entire political system that gave us Iraq, the financial crisis, a botched healthcare law and shocking income inequality during a slow economic recovery. From Akron to Alaska, millions of Americans had simply lost confidence in their leaders and the institutions that were supposed to serve them. In their desperation, they turned to a man who had no regard for the elites – and no use for them

...populism of this kind can be dangerous and unpredictable, But it doesn't arise from nowhere. Only a corrupt political establishment could have provoked a political revolt of this scale. Instead of blaming Trump's rise on racism or xenophobia, blame it on those who never saw this coming and still don't understand why so many Americans would rather have Donald Trump in the White House than suffer the rule of their elites.

Full article:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/05/trump-not-fascist-champion-for-forgotten-millions (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/05/trump-not-fascist-champion-for-forgotten-millions)

Great article.   Many Americans see Hilary Clinton as a corrupt, elite, evil woman that would do anything to enrich herself & Bill.  Politically, Clinton would have been more of the same. As well, as mentioned in the article....many Americans tired of years of political correctness being shoved down their throats, most often by the perceived elites in power.  Trumps style & rhetoric were a breath of fresh air to many of those people.  All in all, to many....the left now represents an authoritarian elitist culture that only represents NYC, & the left coast.  Bernie seemed to be an exception to that rule.   Seems like a role reversal of sorts for the parties.  However, I would argue that Trump himself is almost like a 3rd party.  He got in under the Republican umbrella; however, he is different from the GOP in many ways.  Still, he's going to have to throw Ryan & the GOP a bone often to be able to be effective in office.

Think of the U.S. like the Philadelphia Flyers.  They've had some outstanding years long ago, they've had some good and very good years since, and they've had some mediocre to bad years since, too.  They're presently neither great nor terrible.  The fans want to Make the Flyers Great Again #MFGA.  The present GM is retiring and they've got two choices for the new GM:  1) a hockey man who's been in NHL team management throughout most of his working life, and 2) a local wealthy businessman who's been a Flyers fan for years.

The hockey man is competent, and has been involved in both well-regarded and questionable drafts, trades and signings with moderately successful teams over the years, but he has a wealth of experience to understand how to run a hockey team at least competently.  Not everybody likes him, some people really don't like him or even hate him for a variety of reasons, both legitimate and proposterous, but he unquestionably has the experience to be an NHL GM.

The local wealthy businessman however, despite being a huge Flyers fan, on even cursory inspection clearly doesn't know much about hockey in general and how to run a hockey team in particular.  He proposes trades that any reasonable hockey fan would scoff at as ridiculous, he clearly doesn't understand how the salary cap works, he flouts tampering rules, he knows virtually nothing about the draft, and he's antagonistic toward other GMs and to the league office.  Further to that, he's repeatedly conducted illegal business practices, and he treats anybody who doesn't give him unreserved deference with contempt.  But he's a good salesman and he promises he's going to make the Flyers great again because he's been so successful in business.

Who do you want running the Flyers?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on February 11, 2017, 06:25:13 PM
Quote from: Heroic Shrimp on February 11, 2017, 04:46:03 PM
The local wealthy businessman however, despite being a huge Flyers fan, on even cursory inspection clearly doesn't know much about hockey in general and how to run a hockey team in particular.  He proposes trades that any reasonable hockey fan would scoff at as ridiculous, he clearly doesn't understand how the salary cap works, he flouts tampering rules, he knows virtually nothing about the draft, and he's antagonistic toward other GMs and to the league office.  Further to that, he's repeatedly conducted illegal business practices, and he treats anybody who doesn't give him unreserved deference with contempt.  But he's a good salesman and he promises he's going to make the Flyers great again because he's been so successful in business.

Brian Burke wants to run the Flyers?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on February 11, 2017, 06:58:18 PM
Quote from: mr grieves on February 11, 2017, 04:45:28 PM
Several journalists who covered his supporters observed that many knew that he was a conman but were taking a chance on his being their conman.   

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cwy32MgWQAEKQXA.jpg)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on February 14, 2017, 05:36:18 AM
Donald J. Trump  @realDonaldTrump
Wonderful meeting with Canadian PM @JustinTrudeau and a group of leading CEO's & business women from Canada🇨🇦and the United States🇺🇸

(http://i939.photobucket.com/albums/ad239/fotogalri/C4kQzAFVMAMQvsU_zpsoa7gsuaf.jpg)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on February 14, 2017, 05:53:27 AM
Ivanka Trump  @IvankaTrump
A great discussion with two world leaders about the importance of women having a seat at the table!  🇺🇸🇨🇦

(http://i939.photobucket.com/albums/ad239/fotogalri/C4lEaTkVYAA1AtP.jpg-large_zpsh8wx30f0.jpeg)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on February 14, 2017, 05:58:34 AM
Prime Minister Trudeau's meeting with President Trump: joint news conference...




Full Story:
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/trudeau-trump (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/trudeau-trump)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on February 14, 2017, 06:14:36 AM
Canada welcomes you Silicon Valley...

The war between Trump and Silicon Valley is set to escalate. Bloomberg reported that another executive order, still being drafted, will overhaul the entire work-visa program on which Silicon Valley relies. Here, too, is an opportunity for Canada. If the Americans don't want the highly skilled mobile people of the world, we do.

Canada has always defined itself with and against America. In the age of Trump, we are defining ourselves by our openness in a world closing off. Trudeau has explicitly defined Canada as a post-national country — the ideal place for the globalized tech sector to flourish. So if you want to live in a stable, liberal economy, open to immigrants and unafraid of otherness, start packing. Bring a warm coat.

More:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-marche-canada-trump-opportunity-20170214-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-marche-canada-trump-opportunity-20170214-story.html)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: louisstamos on February 14, 2017, 11:57:49 AM
So...how about that Michael Flynn?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bender on February 14, 2017, 01:35:17 PM
Quote from: hockeyfan1 on February 14, 2017, 05:53:27 AM
Ivanka Trump  @IvankaTrump
A great discussion with two world leaders about the importance of women having a seat at the table!  🇺🇸🇨🇦

(http://i939.photobucket.com/albums/ad239/fotogalri/C4lEaTkVYAA1AtP.jpg-large_zpsh8wx30f0.jpeg)
There would be a point to that if the family didn't attempt to enrich themselves through this. Why hand it to Ivanka? Ridiculous conflict of interest being dressed up as a good thing. Classic misdirection.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on February 14, 2017, 03:08:27 PM

Sean Spicer just told everyone that Trump had a very successful meeting yesterday with Joe Trudeau so all is right on track.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Zee on February 14, 2017, 03:29:44 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on February 14, 2017, 03:08:27 PM

Sean Spicer just told everyone that Trump had a very successful meeting yesterday with Joe Trudeau so all is right on track.

Aiya
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 15, 2017, 09:52:09 AM
[tweet]831859686269976576[/tweet]
www.twitter.com/dhm/status/831859686269976576
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: louisstamos on February 15, 2017, 10:40:00 AM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on February 15, 2017, 09:52:09 AM
[tweet]831859686269976576[/tweet]
www.twitter.com/dhm/status/831859686269976576

Hilariously enough - Linda McMahon as head of Small Business Administration was one of the least contested members of Donald Trump's cabinet by the Senate at 81-19, because she was one of the few of his picks that actually has, you know, experience in the field.

*adjusts nerd glasses*
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bender on February 15, 2017, 10:48:46 AM
Small business?

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on February 15, 2017, 12:57:34 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on February 15, 2017, 09:52:09 AM
[tweet]831859686269976576[/tweet]
www.twitter.com/dhm/status/831859686269976576

Sadly, I need somebody to explain this to me.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on February 15, 2017, 12:58:50 PM
Quote from: Significantly Insignificant on February 11, 2017, 06:25:13 PM
Quote from: Heroic Shrimp on February 11, 2017, 04:46:03 PM
The local wealthy businessman however, despite being a huge Flyers fan, on even cursory inspection clearly doesn't know much about hockey in general and how to run a hockey team in particular.  He proposes trades that any reasonable hockey fan would scoff at as ridiculous, he clearly doesn't understand how the salary cap works, he flouts tampering rules, he knows virtually nothing about the draft, and he's antagonistic toward other GMs and to the league office.  Further to that, he's repeatedly conducted illegal business practices, and he treats anybody who doesn't give him unreserved deference with contempt.  But he's a good salesman and he promises he's going to make the Flyers great again because he's been so successful in business.

Brian Burke wants to run the Flyers?

If you're going to pick a hockey guy anyway for that one-liner, I think the more obvious choice would be Don Cherry.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 15, 2017, 01:01:05 PM
Quote from: Heroic Shrimp on February 15, 2017, 12:57:34 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on February 15, 2017, 09:52:09 AM
[tweet]831859686269976576[/tweet]
www.twitter.com/dhm/status/831859686269976576

Sadly, I need somebody to explain this to me.

Which part? There's a lot to unpack depending on how much/little you know hah.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on February 15, 2017, 01:04:42 PM
Quote from: Heroic Shrimp on February 15, 2017, 12:57:34 PM
Sadly, I need somebody to explain this to me.

"Stone Cold" Steve Austin was a very popular professional wrestler. The family in the photo are the McMahons who own what the professional wrestling venture that was known as the WWF but now goes by the WWE. Various members of the family(and Trump) participated in the family business during the period when Austin was at the height of his popularity and Austin, whose character was always anti-authority, used his signature move, The Stone Cold Stunner, on various members of the McMahon family in their matches and on Trump during one of his appearances.

Here's a Deadspin article on the Stunner:

http://deadspin.com/the-stone-cold-stunner-is-the-most-important-wrestling-1566797510 (http://deadspin.com/the-stone-cold-stunner-is-the-most-important-wrestling-1566797510)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 15, 2017, 01:24:02 PM
Donald Trump was also featured in the WWF/WWE multiple times. At one point one of their weekly shows was "sold" to Trump. And at one of their WrestleMania's Stone Cold gave Trump the Stunner:

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 15, 2017, 01:26:16 PM
The photo that they're holding in that tweet is from this illustrious moment in Trump's career:

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Arn on February 15, 2017, 05:22:00 PM
That's probably how it's all going to end with Putin too
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on February 15, 2017, 11:46:00 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on February 15, 2017, 01:04:42 PM
Quote from: Heroic Shrimp on February 15, 2017, 12:57:34 PM
Sadly, I need somebody to explain this to me.

"Stone Cold" Steve Austin was a very popular professional wrestler. The family in the photo are the McMahons who own what the professional wrestling venture that was known as the WWF but now goes by the WWE. Various members of the family(and Trump) participated in the family business during the period when Austin was at the height of his popularity and Austin, whose character was always anti-authority, used his signature move, The Stone Cold Stunner, on various members of the McMahon family in their matches and on Trump during one of his appearances.

Here's a Deadspin article on the Stunner:

http://deadspin.com/the-stone-cold-stunner-is-the-most-important-wrestling-1566797510 (http://deadspin.com/the-stone-cold-stunner-is-the-most-important-wrestling-1566797510)

Things I knew:

- Steve Austin was a pro wrestler
- WWF became WWE
- Vince McMahon owned WWF/WWE

Things I didn't know:

- Austin's personality
- Stone Cold Stunner
- Austin's take-downs of those various figures
- what Linda McMahon had to do with any of this scene

I'm undecided whether I should be ashamed or proud of my ignorance.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Andy on February 16, 2017, 05:59:00 PM
Unless you're perpetually drunk/high and/or have always rocked a mullet, I'd say you should be proud ;)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on February 16, 2017, 11:13:25 PM
I assume it's only a matter of days before Trump explains that the reason Obama got more Electoral College votes than him, twice, is because of illegal voting.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on February 16, 2017, 11:36:25 PM
Instructive. And NSFW (coarse language)

Skip ahead to 2m-ish for bit pertinent to the reality of Trump's unreality.

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on February 17, 2017, 08:15:25 AM
Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull had some advice for Trump:

US president Donald Trump was wasting his time deriding the media over their coverage of his administration, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said on Friday, citing the example of British wartime leader Winston Churchill.

Mr. Turnbull...said the 45th American president should stop focusing on the media.

"A very great politician, Winston Churchill, once said that politicians complaining about the newspapers is like a sailor complaining about the sea," Mr Turnbull told reporters in New Zealand on Friday.


With his promise to put "America First", Mr Trump has also scrapped or promised to renegotiate trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the North American Free Trade Agreement since coming to office, but Mr Turnbull warned against a more protectionist US trade stance.

"Protectionism is not the ladder to get you out of the low growth track, it is the shovel to dig it deeper and deeper and deeper," he said.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/17/like-sailor-complaining-sea-australian-pm-quotes-winston-churchill/
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Boston Leaf on February 17, 2017, 09:18:25 AM
yesterday was a total embarrassment..
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 17, 2017, 03:17:19 PM
Quote from: Boston Leaf on February 17, 2017, 09:18:25 AM
yesterday was a total embarrassment..

Donald Trump said 17 false things at press conference where he called media 'dishonest' (https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/02/17/donald-trump-said-17-false-things-at-press-conference-where-he-called-media-dishonest.html)

QuoteWASHINGTON—U.S. President Donald Trump summoned reporters to the East Room of the White House on Thursday for a press conference. His primary purpose: bashing the media, an entity he called "so dishonest" and "out of control."

He did not model the kind of truthfulness he said he was seeking — making 17 separate false claims over 77 minutes.

...
[My favourite one]:
5. The claim: "We had a very smooth rollout of the travel ban."

In fact: We don't usually fact-check claims like "smooth" — it's vague, and it's a matter of opinion — but the rollout of the travel ban was so obviously not smooth that we're making an exception here. The implementation of the ban resulted in mass confusion among U.S. allies like Canada, caused travel problems for thousands of visa-holders and permanent residents, necessitated a series of clarifications and reversals by U.S. officials, and appeared so hasty that a federal appeals court has found that the administration may have violated residents' constitutional right to due process.

Per the author, Daniel Dale, Trump is on pace to say over 4,160 false claims over a four-year term.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on February 17, 2017, 08:44:31 PM
Lies/60 is through the roof.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on February 17, 2017, 08:51:57 PM
Quote from: herman on February 17, 2017, 08:44:31 PM
Lies/60 is through the roof.

And the cap hit is ridiclous:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/17/trumps-florida-trips-cost-taxpayer-money.html (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/17/trumps-florida-trips-cost-taxpayer-money.html)

QuoteThe Trump family's costs go well beyond the Mar-a-Lago trips. Police officials estimate that they spend $500,000 a day on security for Trump Tower in New York, where first lady Melania Trump and son Barron live.

The Secret Service also protects Trump's eldest sons Donald Jr. and Eric when they travel for Trump Organization business. The Post reported that Secret Service and U.S. Embassy officials paid almost $100,000 for hotel rooms when Eric Trump went to Uruguay to promote a Trump-branded property.

Trump's time in office could cost taxpayers "hundreds of millions of dollars or more," topping the estimated $97 million of travel-related expenses during the Obama administration, the Post reported.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 19, 2017, 10:56:44 PM
[tweet]833502278007058434[/tweet]
www.twitter.com/deray/status/833502278007058434

Good for Don.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on February 21, 2017, 05:15:02 PM
Let me get this straight.

Trump goes on a campaign rally his first month into his presidency, and makes passing mention of immigrant tensions in Sweden and refers to an incident the previous night.

Sweden responds with question marks. News media responds with question marks. Late night shows respond with ridicule. Twitter responds as Twitter does.

Trump clarifies that he was referring to a segment he saw on Fox News, which referenced the concerns of Ami Horowitz (http://www.thelocal.se/20170220/sweden-facts-a-closer-look-at-filmmaker-ami-horowitz-claims).

Last night, apparently a riot broke out near Stockholm (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/21/riots-erupt-in-swedens-capital-just-days-after-trump-comments/) following a drug-related arrest, and now Trump supporters are feeling extremely vindicated.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Arn on February 23, 2017, 07:14:55 AM
An interesting read on the potential impact of Trump and Brexit on the island of Ireland

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/23/ireland-border-brexit-trump-eu
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on February 23, 2017, 08:44:13 AM
Quote from: Arn on February 23, 2017, 07:14:55 AM
An interesting read on the potential impact of Trump and Brexit on the island of Ireland

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/23/ireland-border-brexit-trump-eu

That was a good read, thanks. I suppose I'm a bit confused as to how the proposed solution would work in real time. It strikes me as unlikely that Northern Ireland could get a sort of dispensation to still be a de facto member of the EU without creating a lot of tension in Scotland where support for remain was even stronger.

That said as an outsider with really only a passable knowledge of the relevant history the whole partition business has always struck me as being fairly unwieldy in a practical peaceful sense.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Arn on February 23, 2017, 11:33:51 AM
The situation as we are now is probably as peaceful as it's been in hundreds of years. Obviously in the course of my lifetime I've been (un?)lucky enough to have experienced what it was like when there was an armed struggle and virtual civil war and see that end and some kind of sense of normality begin to evolve.

Right now on the island of Ireland there is effectively no border. Apart from a change from MPH to KMPH on road signs and the lines painted on the roads changing from dashed to solid you don't even know when you go over the border on the motorway.

Thousands of people live on one side of the border and work in villages just up the street but across the border, so to all intents and purposes it doesn't really exist other than as an ideology.

The British government, despite the sycophancy of the largest party in NI, doesn't really care about NI. There just can't be a way that anyone with any sense can see that the border can stay open as is. The UK won't want the ability for goods  or "foreigners" to be able to arrive in Ireland, cross a non existent border into RoI and then walk openly into the UK via NI. The EU won't want goods imported into NI then easily walked into the EU via RoI.

And putting up a border, ideologically, could easily cause animosity and who knows where that could lead considering the simmering volatility that still lingers under the surface. And as you say, it could have repercussions on the whole United Kingdom union also. Worrying/interesting times ahead.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on February 23, 2017, 01:34:16 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-familys-elaborate-lifestyle-a-logistical-nightmare--at-taxpayer-expense/2017/02/16/763cce8e-f2ce-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html

QuoteTrump's three Mar-a-Lago trips since the inauguration have probably cost the federal treasury about $10 million, based on figures used in an October government report analyzing White House travel, including money for Coast Guard units to patrol the exposed shoreline and other military, security and staffing expenses associated with moving the apparatus of the presidency.

[...]

In New York, the city is paying $500,000 a day to guard Trump Tower, according to police officials' estimates, an amount that could reach $183 million a year.

This month, The Post reported that Secret Service and U.S. Embassy staffers paid nearly $100,000 in hotel-room bills to support Eric Trump's trip to promote a Trump-brand condo tower in Uruguay.

[...]

For Trump, the costs come with an additional perk: Some of the money flows into his own pocket. While Trump has removed himself from managing his company, he has refused to divest his ownership, meaning that he benefits from corporate successes such as government contracts.

[...]

Presidential families have for decades been guaranteed round-the-clock protection, no matter the expense or destination. Every presidency has brought new operational challenges and lifestyle habits, from George W. Bush's frequent stays at his remote ranch in Texas to Obama's annual trips to Martha's Vineyard and his native state of Hawaii. Judicial Watch estimated that Obama-related travel expenses totaled nearly $97 million over eight years.

TL;DR: In Trump's first month, his expenses have cost as much as, if not more than, one year of Obama's. Those expenses are also flowing into Trump's own pocket.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 23, 2017, 09:45:54 PM
It's early, but I think we have a front-runner for 'Best Tweet of 2017':

[tweet]834678063292116992[/tweet]
www.twitter.com/SammyAlbon/status/834678063292116992
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on February 25, 2017, 08:19:43 AM
Now this....

White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said in television interviews that he had been authorized "by the top levels of the intelligence community" to denounce reports on Trump campaign contacts as false.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-sought-to-enlist-intelligence-officials-key-lawmakers-to-counter-russia-stories/2017/02/24/c8487552-fa99-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.html
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 28, 2017, 12:35:45 AM
"Nobody knew that health care could be so complicated."

-The President of the United States
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on February 28, 2017, 01:17:50 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on February 28, 2017, 12:35:45 AM
"Nobody knew that health care could be so complicated."

-The President of the United States

I was a low level employee in the Ontario Ministry of Health's media division for a couple years and the one thing I took away from that job? "Health care is mind bogglingly complicated".

I honestly think a random person off the street would do a better job as President.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on February 28, 2017, 06:57:44 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on February 28, 2017, 01:17:50 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on February 28, 2017, 12:35:45 AM
"Nobody knew that health care could be so complicated."

-The President of the United States

I was a low level employee in the Ontario Ministry of Health's media division for a couple years and the one thing I took away from that job? "Health care is mind bogglingly complicated".

I honestly think a random person off the street would do a better job as President.

Personally I think he has it completely backwards.  Health care is easy to understand.  It's insanely complicated, is bogged down with excessive bureaucracy and when the majority party wants to actively prevent a large percentage of the country from accessing it, it becomes far more difficult.

Only idiots say stuff like Trump.  He is quite clearly an idiot.  The US elected an idiot to run their country.  The idiot does and says idiotic things.   It would be modestly amusing if it wasn't damning children and innocent people to a lack of education and a lifetime of medical debt.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bender on February 28, 2017, 11:33:41 PM
Yeah but America doesn't want taxes or government getting in the way of their hard earned beer and gun money.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on March 02, 2017, 03:19:58 PM
Is anyone else following this Jeff Sessions thing?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-spoke-twice-with-russian-ambassador-during-trumps-presidential-campaign-justice-officials-say/2017/03/01/77205eda-feac-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html

Also this:
Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/obama-trump-russia-election-hacking.html
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Zee on March 02, 2017, 03:27:28 PM
Sounds like fake news to me.  Sad.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: crazyperfectdevil on March 02, 2017, 03:27:48 PM
Quote from: herman on March 02, 2017, 03:19:58 PM
Is anyone else following this Jeff Sessions thing?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-spoke-twice-with-russian-ambassador-during-trumps-presidential-campaign-justice-officials-say/2017/03/01/77205eda-feac-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html

Also this:
Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/obama-trump-russia-election-hacking.html

Good timing.  The media seemed like they were ready to give him some kind of award for the fact that he made it through a speech without sounding completely unhinged. 
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Boston Leaf on March 02, 2017, 03:51:19 PM
I can only imagine what would have happened if Sessions what part of Obama's team and this stuff was going on.. Both sides are so hypocritical.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: crazyperfectdevil on March 02, 2017, 05:22:28 PM
Quote from: Boston Leaf on March 02, 2017, 03:51:19 PM
I can only imagine what would have happened if Sessions what part of Obama's team and this stuff was going on.. Both sides are so hypocritical.

hypocrisy is definitely part of the human condition.  The old adage of judging oneself by their intent and others by their actions.  But if you're saying that it makes both sides in this the same.  then I think you're wrong.  Somehow the democrats have lasted 8 years with a very hostile republican opposition looking for anything and everything to use against Obama and they weren't able to discover anything like the scandals that trump has wracked up in two months of office.  If the democrats are just as bad at the republicans then it's amazing how much better they are at keeping it under wraps. 
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Zee on March 02, 2017, 06:20:26 PM
Quote from: crazyperfectdevil on March 02, 2017, 05:22:28 PM
Quote from: Boston Leaf on March 02, 2017, 03:51:19 PM
I can only imagine what would have happened if Sessions what part of Obama's team and this stuff was going on.. Both sides are so hypocritical.

hypocrisy is definitely part of the human condition.  The old adage of judging oneself by their intent and others by their actions.  But if you're saying that it makes both sides in this the same.  then I think you're wrong.  Somehow the democrats have lasted 8 years with a very hostile republican opposition looking for anything and everything to use against Obama and they weren't able to discover anything like the scandals that trump has wracked up in two months of office.  If the democrats are just as bad at the republicans then it's amazing how much better they are at keeping it under wraps.

Republicans would argue it's due to the fact that the mainstream media is in the democrats court and don't go after them like they do republicans.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: crazyperfectdevil on March 02, 2017, 06:39:44 PM
Quote from: Zee on March 02, 2017, 06:20:26 PM
Quote from: crazyperfectdevil on March 02, 2017, 05:22:28 PM
Quote from: Boston Leaf on March 02, 2017, 03:51:19 PM
I can only imagine what would have happened if Sessions what part of Obama's team and this stuff was going on.. Both sides are so hypocritical.

hypocrisy is definitely part of the human condition.  The old adage of judging oneself by their intent and others by their actions.  But if you're saying that it makes both sides in this the same.  then I think you're wrong.  Somehow the democrats have lasted 8 years with a very hostile republican opposition looking for anything and everything to use against Obama and they weren't able to discover anything like the scandals that trump has wracked up in two months of office.  If the democrats are just as bad at the republicans then it's amazing how much better they are at keeping it under wraps.

Republicans would argue it's due to the fact that the mainstream media is in the democrats court and don't go after them like they do republicans.

And yet I think the republicans got more out of Benghazi then anyone else could have.  hell they even got a micheal bay movie.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on March 02, 2017, 08:30:05 PM
Quote from: Zee on March 02, 2017, 06:20:26 PM
Republicans would argue it's due to the fact that the mainstream media is in the democrats court and don't go after them like they do republicans.

And, they might be right about more traditional political stories, but, if the Democrats were seemingly in bed with the Russians, the media would be all over them in much the same way they have with Trump.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bender on March 03, 2017, 01:24:13 AM
 I think the media has some biases but what's more likely here: that the Dems had fewer scandals in the last 8 years than Republicans or that literally everyone in the media is conspiring against Trump? I think blaming the media for this is insane - the media had a field day when Clinton was being impeached.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on March 03, 2017, 08:06:45 AM
Quote from: Bender on March 03, 2017, 01:24:13 AM
I think the media has some biases but what's more likely here: that the Dems had fewer scandals in the last 8 years than Republicans or that literally everyone in the media is conspiring against Trump? I think blaming the media for this is insane - the media had a field day when Clinton was being impeached.

I think Jon Stewart had it right. The media does have biases but it's not along a typical left/right line. They have biases towards conflict and scandal and sensationalism.

Otherwise, how could you explain why when a star football player kills his wife or a malaysian plane goes missing these channels turn into 24/7 Missing Plane or Wife Murderer channels?

Otherwise you have to believe that General Electric(NBC), Viacom/Paramount(CBS) Disney(ABC) and Time Warner(CNN) are secretly banding together to push some sort of left-wing agenda which, let's be real, is ridiculous.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on March 03, 2017, 11:14:10 AM
https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/837413053981425669
www.twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/837413053981425669
Some pretty impressive work in this Twitter thread.

I need a yarn wall.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on March 03, 2017, 11:29:08 AM
I'm struggling to determine if I'm more entertained by the Trump/Sessions/Russian stuff or the GOP trying to hide their Healthcare replacement bill from absolutely everyone including their own party.

A lot of Middle Class/Low SES citizens are going to be in for a rude awakening when they are back to paying 10s of thousands of dollars for hospital and pharmaceutical profits.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on March 03, 2017, 12:49:05 PM
This Administration's MO is to cause paralysis by analysis. Like Netflix's menu. There will be scandals, but no one will have the time to digest its effect because lo, another one is on the ticker.

Add this to the pile:
Pence used personal email for state business — and was hacked
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/02/pence-used-personal-email-state-business----and-hacked/98604904/
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on March 03, 2017, 01:11:24 PM
Quote from: herman on March 03, 2017, 12:49:05 PM
This Administration's MO is to cause paralysis by analysis. Like Netflix's menu. There will be scandals, but no one will have the time to digest its effect because lo, another one is on the ticker.

That is definitely part of their playbook. However, they're also very prone to ending up being crushed under the weight of it all/getting trapped in the massive web they're spinning.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on March 03, 2017, 07:24:23 PM
https://twitter.com/thelastwalt/status/837783591253749760
www.twitter.com/thelastwalt/status/837783591253749760
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on March 04, 2017, 10:38:23 AM
Let's see what the new "Presidential" Trump is tweeting about on this fine Saturday morning.

Oh dear god.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on March 04, 2017, 11:57:38 AM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on March 04, 2017, 10:38:23 AM
Let's see what the new "Presidential" Trump is tweeting about on this fine Saturday morning.

Oh dear god.

Not the senile idiot.  Not the senile idiot.  You're the senile idiot

This nonsense of hypocrisy on both sides.  Sure, there are massive problems with ALL politicians but this is some next level stuff.  To paraphrase a line that the Trump parrots liked - he's playing 4-D chess.  X, Y, Z and lies.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on March 04, 2017, 12:09:20 PM
(https://media.tenor.co/images/e0a00aae7f6c0675e25ea832e5359a6b/tenor.gif)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on March 04, 2017, 02:48:32 PM
The two most hilarious points on this:

1) The President doesn't have the authority to unilaterally authorize wire taps
2) If there was a wire tap it was likely in relation to the FISA warrant that was investigating Trump's Russian ties.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on March 04, 2017, 07:48:01 PM
Ahem...

Donald J. Trump   @realDonaldTrump
Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

Ben Rhodes   @brhodes
No President can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you.

Dan Scavino Jr.  @DanScavino
Mark Levin to Congress: Investigate Obama's 'Silent Coup' vs. Trump:http://www.breitbart.com/big-government

...two former senior US officials quickly dismissed Trump's accusations out of hand.

"Just nonsense," said one former senior US intelligence official.

Another former senior US official with direct knowledge of investigations by the Justice Department under the Obama administration said Trump's phones were never tapped.

"A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice," Lewis said...

Warrants to tap into someone's phones in the course of a federal investigation would be sought by the Department of Justice, which conducts investigations independent of the White House and the president.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, an independent and secretive federal court, is responsible for issuing surveillance warrants in cases concerning foreign intelligence

former senior US official with direct knowledge of the Justice Department's investigations said Obama could not have ordered such a warrant. It would have been taken to a judge by investigators, but investigators never sought a warrant to monitor Trump's phones, the former official said.

A senior administration official in Washington said...colleagues don't believe Trump is trying to get ahead of any particular story that's about to come out, but rather he is furious about how the Russia storyline is playing out.

Well folks, welcome to the official opening of the circus.

Full story:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/04/politics/trump-obama-wiretap-tweet/index.html
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on March 07, 2017, 05:39:27 PM
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/839207037003313153
www.twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/839207037003313153

Pretty sure there's going to be a hand size joke riffed off this now.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on March 07, 2017, 06:57:06 PM

If ever a series of posts ever better represented the "Any source that disagrees with me is hopelessly biased" mentality that got Trump into office...

[tweet]839196207905845248[/tweet]
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on March 08, 2017, 10:09:46 AM
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/obamacare-vs-gop-replacement

Let me try:
(http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/photos/peter-holland-2015-38.jpg)(http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/photos/ben-smith-2013-35.jpg)

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on March 08, 2017, 03:38:12 PM
What should we call it?
Republicare? Trumpcare? RyanDoesn'tCare?

What about this (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1275/text)?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on March 08, 2017, 03:41:56 PM
Quote from: herman on March 08, 2017, 03:38:12 PM
What about this (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1275/text)?

Only the Trump administration. :o
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on March 08, 2017, 03:48:19 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on March 08, 2017, 03:41:56 PM
Quote from: herman on March 08, 2017, 03:38:12 PM
What about this (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1275/text)?

Only the Trump administration. :o

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It might be technically accurate (by default): most countries don't need a new health care plan, so they've got the monopoly on 2017.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on March 08, 2017, 04:02:55 PM
Quote from: herman on March 08, 2017, 03:48:19 PM
It might be technically accurate (by default): most countries don't need a new health care plan, so they've got the monopoly on 2017.

I'd disagree. If they called it the World's Greatest New Healthcare Plan, they might be technically correct. However, the way they've phrase it, it would still compete against all plans in existence in 2017 - in which case, it would be pretty near the bottom of the pile for developed nations.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on March 08, 2017, 04:37:55 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on March 08, 2017, 04:02:55 PM
I'd disagree. If they called it the World's Greatest New Healthcare Plan, they might be technically correct. However, the way they've phrase it, it would still compete against all plans in existence in 2017 - in which case, it would be pretty near the bottom of the pile for developed nations.

That logic checks out.

My favourite part has been that hard-right GOP groups have also denounced this bill for being still too similar to Obamacare.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on March 09, 2017, 08:02:25 AM
Wow. The plan is abjectly horrific.

It's a plan that is designed to fail, has a literal barrier on low SES accessing care.  Good job "Christians".
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on March 14, 2017, 08:39:25 PM
Rachel Maddow supposedly has 2005 Tax Returns on Trump.  Could be an interesting evening.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bender on March 14, 2017, 09:21:23 PM
More interesting than the leaf game. I was checking Twitter before switching over. I can't believe so many in the states are calling this fake news blah blah liberal media. What a bunch of thoughtless parrots.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on March 14, 2017, 09:50:48 PM
Quote from: Bender on March 14, 2017, 09:21:23 PM
More interesting than the leaf game. I was checking Twitter before switching over. I can't believe so many in the states are calling this fake news blah blah liberal media. What a bunch of thoughtless parrots.

I hate that fake news has basically become the Trump camp's shorthand for "facts that disprove my position or viewpoints that differ from what I consider to the the only acceptable ones." I mean, it makes them sound dumb, which I'm okay with, but it's minimizing a real issue (which obviously their goal - and a favourite tactic of fascists), and that's not alright.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on March 15, 2017, 01:13:53 AM
Juste pour rire...A take on the "Viral Professor" video..Tump parody:

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on March 15, 2017, 02:24:41 AM
Quote from: Bender on March 14, 2017, 09:21:23 PM
More interesting than the leaf game. I was checking Twitter before switching over. I can't believe so many in the states are calling this fake news blah blah liberal media. What a bunch of thoughtless parrots.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

Well, not "fake news," really. But, if you want to know anything meaningful about someone's finances, the first pages of a 1040 are non-news, as anyone who's done -- or even looked at -- their own taxes ought to know. But Maddow ran with it, hyped it, got her ratings, gifted Trump something he can spin as vindication, and pushed the health care news off the front page. She's a grifter. 
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on March 23, 2017, 11:59:49 AM
[tweet]844939488153522176[/tweet]
www.twitter.com/ddale8/status/844939488153522176
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bender on March 23, 2017, 12:22:46 PM
But dont you know? Even though this is from a news outlet outside of the US with no inherent bias on who we want as president.... FAKE NEWS!
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on March 24, 2017, 04:08:00 PM
Donald "We're going to win so much, you're going to be so sick and tired of winning" Trump's healthcare reform bill was such a guaranteed loss that it didn't even make it to the floor for a vote.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on March 24, 2017, 04:25:17 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on March 24, 2017, 04:08:00 PM
Donald "We're going to win so much, you're going to be so sick and tired of winning" Trump's healthcare reform bill was such a guaranteed loss that it didn't even make it to the floor for a vote.

I think this was a simple reporting error, like when people couldn't figure out if Trump was actually saying "bigly" or "big league" (not that either of them make any sense). In this case what Trump was probably ACTUALLY saying was "whining".
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on March 24, 2017, 04:41:29 PM
The other scary thing is what garbage Nunez is pulling with the House Intelligence Committee.  He's outright railroading investigation into Trump:Russia ties. 
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on April 11, 2017, 10:02:45 AM
QuoteDonald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump  2 hours ago
North Korea is looking for trouble. If China decides to help, that would be great. If not, we will solve the problem without them!  U.S.A.

We're so doomed.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on April 11, 2017, 10:06:27 AM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on April 11, 2017, 10:02:45 AM
QuoteDonald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump  2 hours ago
North Korea is looking for trouble. If China decides to help, that would be great. If not, we will solve the problem without them!  U.S.A.

We're so doomed.

He got a taste of what it's like to be able to pull the trigger. Clearly, he liked it. The Earth had a nice run. It was fun sharing it with most of you.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Frank E on April 11, 2017, 10:21:25 AM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on April 11, 2017, 10:02:45 AM
QuoteDonald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump  2 hours ago
North Korea is looking for trouble. If China decides to help, that would be great. If not, we will solve the problem without them!  U.S.A.

We're so doomed.

They're trying to force China to do something about Kim Jong-un...he should scare you too.  All the years of diplomacy and economic sanctions haven't done the job, and this guy is about to have a nuclear weapon.

They've got to change the strategy here, fast.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on April 11, 2017, 10:31:04 AM
Quote from: Frank E on April 11, 2017, 10:21:25 AM
They're trying to force China to do something about Kim Jong-un...he should scare you too.  All the years of diplomacy and economic sanctions haven't done the job, and this guy is about to have a nuclear weapon.

They've got to change the strategy here, fast.

Admittedly I'm not going to pretend like I know what the solution to this problem is, but I'd rather not see the leader of the free world starting a twitter beef over it.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on April 11, 2017, 10:57:19 AM
Quote from: Frank E on April 11, 2017, 10:21:25 AM
They're trying to force China to do something about Kim Jong-un...he should scare you too.  All the years of diplomacy and economic sanctions haven't done the job, and this guy is about to have a nuclear weapon.

North Korea isn't "about to" have nuclear weapons. They've had them for years.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Frank E on April 11, 2017, 11:07:46 AM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on April 11, 2017, 10:57:19 AM
Quote from: Frank E on April 11, 2017, 10:21:25 AM
They're trying to force China to do something about Kim Jong-un...he should scare you too.  All the years of diplomacy and economic sanctions haven't done the job, and this guy is about to have a nuclear weapon.

North Korea isn't "about to" have nuclear weapons. They've had them for years.

They haven't had reliable mobile long-range ones.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on April 11, 2017, 11:10:18 AM
Quote from: Frank E on April 11, 2017, 10:21:25 AM
They're trying to force China to do something about Kim Jong-un...he should scare you too.  All the years of diplomacy and economic sanctions haven't done the job, and this guy is about to have a nuclear weapon.

They've got to change the strategy here, fast.

I mean, yeah, something needs to be done about the situation in North Korea, but, is actively provoking a volatile and illogical authoritarian regime the way to go? Kind feels like trying to put out a fire with gasoline, you know?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on April 11, 2017, 11:18:14 AM
Quote from: Frank E on April 11, 2017, 11:07:46 AM
They haven't had reliable mobile long-range ones.

There's also virtually no evidence that they're motivated towards external conflict. Their "weapons program" is basically an ATM.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on April 11, 2017, 04:25:45 PM

So. Much. Cringe.

Happy Passover, friends who celebrate it.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on April 11, 2017, 04:31:11 PM
Quote from: herman on April 11, 2017, 04:25:45 PM
So. Much. Cringe.

Much anger. So much anger.

Quote from: herman on April 11, 2017, 04:25:45 PM
Happy Passover, friends who celebrate it.

Much thanks. So much thanks.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: OrangeBlack on April 11, 2017, 05:38:35 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on April 11, 2017, 11:18:14 AM
Quote from: Frank E on April 11, 2017, 11:07:46 AM
They haven't had reliable mobile long-range ones.

There's also virtually no evidence that they're motivated towards external conflict.
That's a big roll of the dice.  I'd rather their nuclear program be stopped before they have capability of reaching the US.  Once this guy has the capability....he'll do it.  Hopefully China steps in & takes care of business.  If not, somebody has to unfortunately.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: crazyperfectdevil on April 11, 2017, 06:16:23 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on April 11, 2017, 05:38:35 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on April 11, 2017, 11:18:14 AM
Quote from: Frank E on April 11, 2017, 11:07:46 AM
They haven't had reliable mobile long-range ones.

There's also virtually no evidence that they're motivated towards external conflict.
That's a big roll of the dice.  I'd rather their nuclear program be stopped before they have capability of reaching the US.  Once this guy has the capability....he'll do it.  Hopefully China steps in & takes care of business.  If not, somebody has to unfortunately.

It is pretty scary when someone who's proven themselves to be mentally unstable and has a poor grasp of the world at large is given access to a nuclear arsenal. 
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on April 11, 2017, 06:31:20 PM
Quote from: crazyperfectdevil on April 11, 2017, 06:16:23 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on April 11, 2017, 05:38:35 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on April 11, 2017, 11:18:14 AM
Quote from: Frank E on April 11, 2017, 11:07:46 AM
They haven't had reliable mobile long-range ones.

There's also virtually no evidence that they're motivated towards external conflict.
That's a big roll of the dice.  I'd rather their nuclear program be stopped before they have capability of reaching the US.  Once this guy has the capability....he'll do it.  Hopefully China steps in & takes care of business.  If not, somebody has to unfortunately.

It is pretty scary when someone who's proven themselves to be mentally unstable and has a poor grasp of the world at large is given access to a nuclear arsenal.

Sounds orange and familiar.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: OrangeBlack on April 11, 2017, 06:36:08 PM
I was just going to say....which guy are we talking about.   :). Still, my money is on us.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: McGarnagle on April 11, 2017, 08:53:36 PM
The best long term strategy to rein in NK is to encourage them to integrate them into the rest of the world. Diplomacy is always the best course, particularly in this instance, and unfortunately Trump's idiocy is likely to set that back decades.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on April 12, 2017, 09:10:00 AM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on April 11, 2017, 05:38:35 PM
That's a big roll of the dice.  I'd rather their nuclear program be stopped before they have capability of reaching the US.  Once this guy has the capability....he'll do it.  Hopefully China steps in & takes care of business.  If not, somebody has to unfortunately.

Yeah, I actually lived through the build up to the Iraq war and "We don't have evidence but we're certain of what will happen" didn't work on me then and it won't work on me now.

North Korea is a kleptocracy. They've figured out a way to extort the West. Thinking otherwise at this point is basically buying into their propaganda. Dopes like Trump think being a "tough guy" is by not paying while trying to charge NATO for protection.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: OrangeBlack on April 12, 2017, 03:39:23 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on April 12, 2017, 09:10:00 AM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on April 11, 2017, 05:38:35 PM
That's a big roll of the dice.  I'd rather their nuclear program be stopped before they have capability of reaching the US.  Once this guy has the capability....he'll do it.  Hopefully China steps in & takes care of business.  If not, somebody has to unfortunately.

Yeah, I actually lived through the build up to the Iraq war and "We don't have evidence but we're certain of what will happen" didn't work on me then and it won't work on me now.

North Korea is a kleptocracy. They've figured out a way to extort the West. Thinking otherwise at this point is basically buying into their propaganda. Dopes like Trump think being a "tough guy" is by not paying while trying to charge NATO for protection.
I think this is much different that the Iraq war.  The evidence seems more concrete & clearly defined in this instance, than it was in the GWB/Iraq era.  There were a lot more doubters going into the Iraq war.  The NK dictator isn't going to extort much out of Trump except for the missile that lands in his lap.

As for NATO, that's exactly what it is.  There are costs to running a military & being the policeman, big brother, etc.  Nothing wrong with the other countries chipping in a few quarters to put in the jar with our dollars.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on April 12, 2017, 04:16:57 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on April 12, 2017, 03:39:23 PM
As for NATO, that's exactly what it is.  There are costs to running a military & being the policeman, big brother, etc.  Nothing wrong with the other countries chipping in a few quarters to put in the jar with our dollars.

Except that it's not at all how NATO works. There's no NATO fund or anything like that. It's a partnership, but every country is 100% responsible covering their own military costs and always has. Demanding money for military services run directly in opposition to the reason NATO exists in the first place. Outside of exceptionally rare situations (once in the 70 years since the treaty was formed) are countries under any obligation to participate in military operations. The US doesn't chip a single penny into NATO. They pay for their own military, and choose to deploy them in NATO-related operations.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on April 12, 2017, 04:39:04 PM
Quote from: OrangeBlack on April 12, 2017, 03:39:23 PM
I think this is much different that the Iraq war.  The evidence seems more concrete & clearly defined in this instance, than it was in the GWB/Iraq era.

Ok. Then give me one piece of actual evidence that suggests that North Korea wants to instigate a conflict with anyone. Who have they attacked? What's their long term strategy for expansion?

Quote from: OrangeBlack on April 12, 2017, 03:39:23 PM
As for NATO, that's exactly what it is.  There are costs to running a military & being the policeman, big brother, etc.  Nothing wrong with the other countries chipping in a few quarters to put in the jar with our dollars.

As someone from one of those other countries I can tell you that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. When Canada takes part in NATO operations Canada funds its military, as do all other NATO members. It's not a protection racket being run by the American military.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: crazyperfectdevil on April 12, 2017, 05:53:46 PM
nice country you got here...shame if the russians were to invade it
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on April 13, 2017, 03:24:39 PM


I think this might be too subtle for the intended audience.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on April 19, 2017, 08:10:20 PM
Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - documents
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN17L2N3

I thought Samantha Bee broke this story (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OauLuWXD_RI) in October last year.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: cabber24 on April 25, 2017, 12:00:16 PM
This tariff BS is a complete "disgrace".
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on April 25, 2017, 12:04:48 PM
It is and it was a disgrace when last couple US Govt's did it as well. 
Quote from: cabber24 on April 25, 2017, 12:00:16 PM
This tariff BS is a complete "disgrace".
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: cabber24 on April 25, 2017, 12:13:11 PM
Quote from: Bates on April 25, 2017, 12:04:48 PM
It is and it was a disgrace when last couple US Govt's did it as well. 
Quote from: cabber24 on April 25, 2017, 12:00:16 PM
This tariff BS is a complete "disgrace".
Hopefully it's just some pre NAFTA negotiating posturing... but in the interim the pain is real.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on April 25, 2017, 12:21:50 PM
It seems in the past that the US has no problem going against NAFTA and even ignoring losses in the World Court so I have no doubt they will be winning the NAFTA renegotiating either, they hold the power.
Quote from: cabber24 on April 25, 2017, 12:13:11 PM
Quote from: Bates on April 25, 2017, 12:04:48 PM
It is and it was a disgrace when last couple US Govt's did it as well. 
Quote from: cabber24 on April 25, 2017, 12:00:16 PM
This tariff BS is a complete "disgrace".
Hopefully it's just some pre NAFTA negotiating posturing... but in the interim the pain is real.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on May 05, 2017, 04:05:16 PM

It takes a special kind of cravenness to vote for a lousy healthcare bill and specifically exempt yourself from it.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on May 05, 2017, 04:59:05 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on May 05, 2017, 04:05:16 PM

It takes a special kind of cravenness to vote for a lousy healthcare bill and specifically exempt yourself from it.

Or not even bother to read it while trying to rush it through before the CBO trashes it for the pile of garbage that it is.  This bill does nothing but provide a tax cut to the wealthy and piss on the inevitable graves of the poor and middle class.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on May 05, 2017, 06:47:00 PM
(https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/bacon-civil-rights-0426.png?quality=90&strip=info&w=575&ssl=1)

Yep, that's right, Republicans think Christians are discriminated against more than Muslims, immigrants, blacks (by almost double!!) and gays/lesbians, and about equal to trans people.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-identity-politics-of-the-trump-administration/?ex_cid=538twitter
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on May 05, 2017, 10:43:54 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on May 05, 2017, 04:05:16 PM
It takes a special kind of cravenness to vote for a lousy healthcare bill and specifically exempt yourself from it.

And then have a party to celebrate it passing the House, when there's (hopefully) an excellent chance it'll die in the Senate.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on May 08, 2017, 01:10:31 PM


https://twitter.com/Minnysconsin/status/860896913717166080
www.twitter.com/Minnysconsin/status/860896913717166080

Bannon's been quiet. Too quiet.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on May 09, 2017, 07:41:42 PM
FBI director Comey finds out he has been fired by the President as he addressed the Bureau from the news screen tickers behind him.

Super weird.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on May 09, 2017, 07:54:12 PM
Quote from: herman on May 09, 2017, 07:41:42 PM
FBI director Comey finds out he has been fired by the President as he addressed the Bureau from the news screen tickers behind him.

Super weird.

Nothing guilty about firing a guy who is about to testifying about your potential connections to Russia. Nothing at all.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on May 09, 2017, 07:56:30 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on May 09, 2017, 07:54:12 PM
Quote from: herman on May 09, 2017, 07:41:42 PM
FBI director Comey finds out he has been fired by the President as he addressed the Bureau from the news screen tickers behind him.

Super weird.

Nothing guilty about firing a guy who is in the middle of testifying about your potential connections to Russia. Nothing at all.

The reason for dismissal was his handling of the Clinton email situation days before election. That helped hand Trump the presidency.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on May 09, 2017, 07:58:19 PM
Quote from: herman on May 09, 2017, 07:56:30 PM
The reason for dismissal was his handling of the Clinton email situation days before election. That helped hand Trump the presidency.

That may be the official reason, sure, but . . .

This move means Trump gets to chose the person who will now be leading the investigation into Trump's ties to Russia.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on May 09, 2017, 08:06:35 PM
(http://daily.swarthmore.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/151221122025-trump-shrug-full-169.jpg)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bender on May 09, 2017, 11:09:28 PM
Can he literally just hire and fire people at will? I really think it shows how insane the American political system is built.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on May 10, 2017, 08:15:07 AM
If the pattern of firing and hiring holds true, it's likely Trump will appoint a domestic terrorist for the post.

https://twitter.com/emayfarris/status/862107289418944513
www.twitter.com/emayfarris/status/862107289418944513
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on May 10, 2017, 09:50:28 AM
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/10/comey-firing-trump-russia-238192

QuotePresident Donald Trump weighed firing his FBI director for more than a week. When he finally pulled the trigger Tuesday afternoon, he didn't call James Comey. He sent his longtime private security guard to deliver the termination letter in a manila folder to FBI headquarters.

He had grown enraged by the Russia investigation, two advisers said, frustrated by his inability to control the mushrooming narrative around Russia. He repeatedly asked aides why the Russia investigation wouldn't disappear and demanded they speak out for him. He would sometimes scream at television clips about the probe, one adviser said.

This is one way to draw attention away from Sally Yates' testimony (and to prevent Comey from testifying?).

QuoteBipartisan criticism of Comey had mounted since last summer after his lengthy statement outlining why he was closing the investigation into Clinton's private email server.

But the fallout seemed to take the White House by surprise. Trump made a round of calls around 5 p.m., asking for support from senators. White House officials believed it would be a "win-win" because Republicans and Democrats alike have problems with the FBI director, one person briefed on their deliberations said.

Instead, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told him he was making a big mistake — and Trump seemed "taken aback," according to a person familiar with the call.

By Tuesday evening, the president was watching the coverage of his decision and frustrated no one was on TV defending him, a White House official said. He wanted surrogates out there beating the drum.

He did it for the Likes.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Arn on May 11, 2017, 10:22:37 AM
At this point Trump just has to be trolling. This probably all started out as a little bar room joke "sure I could be president" and every time he tries something more outrageous he keeps getting away with it.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bender on May 11, 2017, 12:44:48 PM
If Nixon can be brought down so can he. He won't get away with this kind of shit forever.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on May 11, 2017, 09:58:53 PM
Quote from: Bender on May 11, 2017, 12:44:48 PM
If Nixon can be brought down so can he. He won't get away with this kind of shit forever.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk


Impeachment?  That may very well happen at some point in time, who knows.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on May 11, 2017, 10:01:41 PM
Quote from: Bender on May 11, 2017, 12:44:48 PM
If Nixon can be brought down so can he. He won't get away with this kind of shit forever.

Here's hoping. I don't see him resigning like Nixon, so we could very well be on the way to witnessing history - the first US President to actually be removed from office.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: louisstamos on May 11, 2017, 11:14:10 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on May 11, 2017, 10:01:41 PM
Quote from: Bender on May 11, 2017, 12:44:48 PM
If Nixon can be brought down so can he. He won't get away with this kind of shit forever.

Here's hoping. I don't see him resigning like Nixon, so we could very well be on the way to witnessing history - the first US President to actually be removed from office.

It won't happen with a Republican congress.  Many of them put their eggs in his basket.  2018 at the soonest would be my guess.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on May 12, 2017, 08:42:40 AM
Quote from: louisstamos on May 11, 2017, 11:14:10 PM
It won't happen with a Republican congress.  Many of them put their eggs in his basket.  2018 at the soonest would be my guess.

Unless the investigation turns up a significant smoking gun - something that they really can't ignore or downplay - that's probably true.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on May 12, 2017, 09:03:39 AM
Quote from: louisstamos on May 11, 2017, 11:14:10 PM
It won't happen with a Republican congress.  Many of them put their eggs in his basket.  2018 at the soonest would be my guess.

While that's probably true, it's not like you'd need a lot of Republicans. You'd need about 25 of the 238 members of the house and 3 senators to think that hitching their wagon to Trump might cost them their jobs.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: crazyperfectdevil on May 12, 2017, 11:27:03 AM
russiagate or whatever we're calling it these days seems to be reaching some kind of tipping point. If he keeps doing stuff like firing the people investigating the issue then I think it ironically only brings that time closer.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on May 13, 2017, 09:01:59 AM
The Director of the US Census just resigned.  It's not really getting talked about but this is pretty huge.  Given that Trump hasn't bothered to fill the vast majority of positions he is required to, having a vacuum in the head of the Census team is going to really affect the 2020 census.  2020 is also supposed to result in significant zoning changes for voting.

Gerrymander away Republicans.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on May 13, 2017, 06:20:06 PM
Quote from: L K on May 13, 2017, 09:01:59 AMGerrymander away Republicans.

Don't be ridiculous, that would be unethical.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: princedpw on May 14, 2017, 03:08:24 AM
Quote from: L K on May 13, 2017, 09:01:59 AM
The Director of the US Census just resigned.  It's not really getting talked about but this is pretty huge.  Given that Trump hasn't bothered to fill the vast majority of positions he is required to, having a vacuum in the head of the Census team is going to really affect the 2020 census.  2020 is also supposed to result in significant zoning changes for voting.

Gerrymander away Republicans.

I agree, this is a very significant concern.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on May 15, 2017, 01:29:06 AM
Quote from: princedpw on May 14, 2017, 03:08:24 AM
Quote from: L K on May 13, 2017, 09:01:59 AM
The Director of the US Census just resigned.  It's not really getting talked about but this is pretty huge.  Given that Trump hasn't bothered to fill the vast majority of positions he is required to, having a vacuum in the head of the Census team is going to really affect the 2020 census.  2020 is also supposed to result in significant zoning changes for voting.

Gerrymander away Republicans.

I agree, this is a very significant concern.

Gerrymandering, AFAIK, is primarily done on the basis of race and party registration. Any reasonably intelligent and minimally competent political party, absorbing the lessons of the last decade's worth of elections, would see the market inefficiency in this and pounce.

But, of course, the Democrats are neither intelligent nor competent. Just "smart," "reality based," and "on the right side of history" -- which doesn't reek of world-ending hubris at all.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on May 15, 2017, 07:44:21 AM

I'm sorry but where is there a "market inefficiency" in districts being unfairly drawn up in order to secure safe seats?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on May 15, 2017, 08:49:42 AM
https://streamable.com/mfk9w

Spicey's back!
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on May 15, 2017, 01:47:23 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on May 15, 2017, 07:44:21 AM

I'm sorry but where is there a "market inefficiency" in districts being unfairly drawn up in order to secure safe seats?

Seats are made "safe" by virtue of racial demographics and party affiliation in the unfairly drawn districts. And that seat will be kept safe as long as the political supply is just racist appeals and/or partisan cultural issues. But that just points to how invested the political parties are in a few relatively narrow things (which has increasingly alienated a lot of people from politics in the US).

Introduce something that's been studiously kept out of politics -- something that, say, 70% of the population wants -- and the reliability of demographics and past voting behavior to predict elections falls.

(http://i.imgur.com/ntPnCvS.jpg)
from one the Democrat's post-election autopsies
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on May 15, 2017, 04:37:52 PM
Quote from: mr grieves on May 15, 2017, 01:47:23 PM
Seats are made "safe" by virtue of racial demographics and party affiliation in the unfairly drawn districts. And that seat will be kept safe as long as the political supply is just racist appeals and/or partisan cultural issues. But that just points to how invested the political parties are in a few relatively narrow things (which has increasingly alienated a lot of people from politics in the US).

Introduce something that's been studiously kept out of politics -- something that, say, 70% of the population wants -- and the reliability of demographics and past voting behavior to predict elections falls.

Yeah, that's still not a market inefficiency because this isn't a market and voters don't react like traditional market forces.

You know what roughly 70% of the American public agree on? That the government should provide more services. You know what else 70% of the public agree on? Their taxes shouldn't be raised or that spending shouldn't be cut. The most common answer people give when asking where money should come from for new programs essentially boils down to "Cut wasteful spending in every district other than mine". 

There isn't a single item on that chart that's been "studiously kept out of politics". Almost all of them were brought up in the last election. The problem is that most policies are a zero sum game once you factor in things like "hey, how do we pay for that infrastructure investment?" or once Republican voters are asked if "making corporations pay their fair share" is worth all the jobs it will lose.

People aren't commodities. They hold a host of contradictory and sometimes self-defeating opinions. Trust me, the problem with American politics, or politics anywhere, is not that nobody is smart enough to push the really good, successful policies that everyone likes.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on May 15, 2017, 07:57:11 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on May 15, 2017, 04:37:52 PM
There isn't a single item on that chart that's been "studiously kept out of politics". Almost all of them were brought up in the last election.

Of course, "brought up" doesn't bring folks to the polls.

Quote from: Nik the Trik on May 15, 2017, 04:37:52 PM
People aren't commodities. They hold a host of contradictory and sometimes self-defeating opinions. Trust me, the problem with American politics, or politics anywhere, is not that nobody is smart enough to push the really good, successful policies that everyone likes.

Ehh... Nik, I like your TV tastes and takes on hockey. But you were dead wrong about the 2016 election.

I was being hyperbolic to say no one's that smart. There are all sorts of very powerful incentives that result in the major left party in the US not really running on any of these and looking for shortcuts that don't commit them to having to actually confront power. I think where they're not particularly smart is that they've overlooked -- and are still overlooking -- the real danger of not pursuing such policies.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on May 15, 2017, 08:41:28 PM
Quote from: mr grieves on May 15, 2017, 07:57:11 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on May 15, 2017, 04:37:52 PM
Of course, "brought up" doesn't bring folks to the polls.

Because most of those issues don't bring people to the polls in the first place.

The mistake you're making is ignoring the third axis of every public policy from a political perspective. There's what the policy is and how many people agree with it, sure, but the big one is the extent to which people care about an issue.

To use an obvious example, take Abortion(note to mods/anyone else, I don't want to debate this, just using it as a high value policy example). You may think it's a foolish policy to talk about when opinion is so split but it's an issue that does get people out. On one side of the issue you have people who think that any restrictions on it is a gross case of government overreach that violates constitutional liberties and bodily autonomy. On the other side, you have people who think it's state-sanctioned child murder.

So when you have a group of voters for whom their chief issue is gross violation of civil liberties vs. infanticide it actually doesn't matter how much they agree on infrastructure investment or tax policy. It doesn't swing votes. That's why those policies aren't the driving force of any major US political parties.

Quote from: mr grieves on May 15, 2017, 07:57:11 PM
Ehh... Nik, I like your TV tastes and takes on hockey. But you were dead wrong about the 2016 election.

Even to the extent that's true(and it's a distinction I share with some pretty distinguished folk) that doesn't change people into commodities or turn the public square into a market that behaves like financial ones. Saying "here's a popular policy, pursue that" doesn't work after even a little digging.

In addition to the issue I bring up above there's also the one of having to narrowly target policy to particular voters. Take gun policy, for instance. A lot of left wing positions on gun policy poll extremely well. So why don't Democrats run on it?

Because of who it polls well with. It's popular because it primarily appeals to people who are already voting for the Democrats combined with Republicans/Independents in Democratic states as well as Republicans/Independents for whom it's a low priority issue.

Who does it poll badly with? Independents in swing states who see it as a key issue. So it's something they keep fairly quiet about. The difference between Hillary winning and Trump winning was not Hillary just getting more votes, it was about getting specific votes. Your chart doesn't speak to that.

Clinton won the popular vote. A Democrat has won the popular vote in 6 out of the last 7 Presidential elections. Finding popular policies isn't their problem in Presidential elections. What's killing them is voters not showing up in off-year elections and occasionally narrowly losing swing states when they have lousy national candidates.

Career Touts call races wrong all the time. They still know which part of the animal the horse shoe goes on.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on May 15, 2017, 09:32:22 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on May 15, 2017, 08:41:28 PM
Even to the extent that's true(and it's a distinction I share with some pretty distinguished folk)

(http://i.imgur.com/mHP8ADE.png)


Quote from: Nik the Trik on May 15, 2017, 08:41:28 PM
that doesn't change people into commodities or turn the public square into a market that behaves like financial ones. Saying "here's a popular policy, pursue that" doesn't work after even a little digging.

I feel like you're really getting stuck on that market metaphor.

And I'm not sure that it isn't a bit disingenuous, since you're deploying arguments derived from some poli-sci papers, I'm guessing? Which is, lest we've already forget, the social science that encouraged us to rely on 'analytics' and demographics and just gave us the game-show president. So...

I think you're just overthinking this.

If people don't understand how their situation might be improved by voting for someone, they won't turn up to vote. Then you're left with the yahoos for whom politics is largely avocational, who will turn out to express their sense of self through position-taking on things like abortion and firearm regulations. Most people aren't like that, because most people aren't weirdos.

Quote
Wisconsin, a state that Hillary Clinton had assumed she would win, historically boasts one of the nation's highest rates of voter participation; this year's 68.3 percent turnout was the fifth best among the 50 states. But by local standards, it was a disappointment, the lowest turnout in 16 years. And those no-shows were important. Mr. Trump won the state by just 27,000 voters.

[...]

The biggest drop was here in [Milwaukee's] District 15, a stretch of fading wooden homes, sandwich shops and fast-food restaurants that is 84 percent black. In this district, voter turnout declined by 19.5 percent from 2012 figures, according to Neil Albrecht, executive director of the City of Milwaukee Election Commission. It is home to some of Milwaukee's poorest residents and, according to a 2016 documentary, "Milwaukee 53206," has one of the nation's highest per-capita incarceration rates.

[...]

"Give us loans, or a 401(k)," he said, trimming the mustache of Steve Stricklin, a firefighter from the neighborhood. His biggest issue was health insurance. Mr. Fleming lost his coverage after his divorce three years ago and has struggled to find a policy he could afford. He finally found one, which starts Monday but costs too much at $300 a month.

"Ain't none of this been working," he said. He did not vote.

link: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/many-in-milwaukee-neighborhood-didnt-vote-and-dont-regret-it.html



Quote from: Nik the Trik on May 15, 2017, 08:41:28 PM
Who does it poll badly with? Independents in swing states who see it as a key issue. So it's something they keep fairly quiet about. The difference between Hillary winning and Trump winning was not Hillary just getting more votes, it was about getting specific votes. Your chart doesn't speak to that.

Yes, that's right. The upper-midwest blue wall fell.

It wasn't because those specific votes thought that Hillary was going to take away their guns. It's because her campaign didn't speak credibly to those people's interests, and so those people didn't show up to vote for her.

Quote
The counties in Table 4 all have industrial unionism in their DNA; they were the cradles of the CIO in the great labor wars of the New Deal. With few exceptions (1972 and 1984) they remained loyally Democratic in rain, sleet, and snow; voting strongly for Obama in 2008. So why, in the face of positive economic indicators and the lowest national unemployment rate in a decade, did these older industrial counties suddenly desert the Democrats and embrace Trump's reindustrialization cargo cult?

Fumbling with the odd pieces of the Trump puzzle, the Economist decided that "the pitch of economic anxiety motivating Mr. Trump's supporters has been exaggerated." But when analysis goes micro plentiful reasons for such anxiety emerge. Table 5 itemizes plant closures that occurred during the campaign season — striking evidence of a new wave of job flight and deindustrialization. In almost all of these flipped counties, a high-profile plant closure or impending move had been on the front page of the local newspaper: embittering reminders that the "Obama boom" was passing them by.

Some Ohio examples: Just before Christmas, West Rock Paper Company, the major employer in Coshocton County, closed its doors. In May, GE's century-old locomotive plant in Erie announced that it was transferring hundreds more jobs to its new facility in Fort Worth. The day after the Republican Convention ended in Cleveland, FirstEnergy Solutions announced the closure of its huge generating plant outside of Toledo, "the 238th such plant to close in the United States since 2010."

At the same time in Lorain, Republic Steel formally reneged on its promise to reopen and modernize the enormous three-mile-long US Steel plant that had once been the area's largest employer. In August, meanwhile, GE warned of the closing of its light bulb plants in Canton and East Cleveland. Simultaneously, pink slips were being handed out to workers at Commercial Vehicle Group's big stamping plant in Martin's Ferry on the Ohio River (Belmont County).
Quote

link: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/02/the-great-god-trump-and-the-white-working-class/
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on May 15, 2017, 10:18:22 PM
Quote from: mr grieves on May 15, 2017, 09:32:22 PM
I feel like you're really getting stuck on that market metaphor.

Because it's not a metaphor. A market inefficiency is a specific thing that doesn't apply in this situation. People are complex, they want complex things. "It's the economy, stupid" is, well, stupid.

Quote from: mr grieves on May 15, 2017, 09:32:22 PM
And I'm not sure that it isn't a bit disingenuous, since you're deploying arguments derived from some poli-sci papers, I'm guessing?

I'm deriving my answers from my formal education on this specific subject matter as well as my years working in the field of public policy.

Quote from: mr grieves on May 15, 2017, 09:32:22 PM
Which is, lest we've already forget, the social science that encouraged us to rely on 'analytics' and demographics and just gave us the game-show president. So...

Political Science as a field of study no more gave us Trump as a President than "Economics" gave us the housing crash or "Physics" gave us the A-Bomb. Data nerds brought us analytics. Those kids didn't hang out at the Social Science building. 

Quote from: mr grieves on May 15, 2017, 09:32:22 PM
If people don't understand how their situation might be improved by voting for someone, they won't turn up to vote. Then you're left with the yahoos for whom politics is largely avocational, who will turn out to express their sense of self through position-taking on things like abortion and firearm regulations. Most people aren't like that, because most people aren't weirdos.

Most people also don't understand macroeconomics on the sort of scale that make that sort of communication one where truth intersects with easy to digest sound bites. On top of that, you're talking about a question that doesn't actually have a complicated answer, let alone a simple one. How to make a global economy work for everyone is something nobody has cracked yet and some of the best policy solutions that have been cooked up yet don't poll well even in countries more receptive to the sort of large scale ideology at work.

Quote from: mr grieves on May 15, 2017, 09:32:22 PM
Yes, that's right. The upper-midwest blue wall fell.

It wasn't because those specific votes thought that Hillary was going to take away their guns. It's because her campaign didn't speak credibly to those people's interests, and so those people didn't show up to vote for her.

That's great as a talking point but it doesn't actually have much in the way of truth behind it:

Quote
In the wake of Trump's surprise win, some journalists, scholars, and political strategists argued that economic anxiety drove these Americans to Trump. But new analysis of post-election survey data conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute and The Atlantic found something different: Evidence suggests financially troubled voters in the white working class were more likely to prefer Clinton over Trump.

...

Controlling for other demographic variables, three factors stood out as strong independent predictors of how white working-class people would vote. The first was anxiety about cultural change. Sixty-eight percent of white working-class voters said the American way of life needs to be protected from foreign influence. And nearly half agreed with the statement, "things have changed so much that I often feel like a stranger in my own country." Together, these variables were strong indictors of support for Trump: 79 percent of white working-class voters who had these anxieties chose Trump, while only 43 percent of white working-class voters who did not share one or both of these fears cast their vote the same way.


The second factor was immigration. Contrary to popular narratives, only a small portion—just 27 percent—of white working-class voters said they favor a policy of identifying and deporting immigrants who are in the country illegally. Among the people who did share this belief, Trump was wildly popular: 87 percent of them supported the president in the 2016 election.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/white-working-class-trump-cultural-anxiety/525771/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/white-working-class-trump-cultural-anxiety/525771/)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: mr grieves on May 16, 2017, 12:45:11 AM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on May 15, 2017, 10:18:22 PM
Quote from: mr grieves on May 15, 2017, 09:32:22 PM
I feel like you're really getting stuck on that market metaphor.

Because it's not a metaphor. A market inefficiency is a specific thing that doesn't apply in this situation. People are complex, they want complex things. "It's the economy, stupid" is, well, stupid.

A market inefficiency is a specific thing.

A specific thing applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable is... a metaphor.


Quote from: Nik the Trik on May 15, 2017, 10:18:22 PM
Quote from: mr grieves on May 15, 2017, 09:32:22 PM
Which is, lest we've already forget, the social science that encouraged us to rely on 'analytics' and demographics and just gave us the game-show president. So...

Political Science as a field of study no more gave us Trump as a President than "Economics" gave us the housing crash or "Physics" gave us the A-Bomb. Data nerds brought us analytics. Those kids didn't hang out at the Social Science building. 

Finance and physics and foreign policy have also been discredited by colossal disasters of the Wall St crash, the A-bomb, and Vietnam & Iraq & just about every American foreign policy intervention of the last 60 years.

(Or ought to have been. In a just world, every moron who said the reasonable thing to do was to bomb Cambodia or arm the messianic theocrats in Afghanistan, while undermining the secular left throughout the Middle East, or deregulate derivatives or air another damned Clinton ad in LA while she went to the Hamptons instead of Wisconsin would've been led into a tiled basement room with a drain in the floor -- that's a metaphor).

There were, of course, economists who saw the crash coming, physicists who saw the dangers of the bomb, diplomats who saw the idiocy of the America's hawkish overseas adventures, and political operatives and observers who saw the Clinton campaign had a pretty dull sense of what the electorate would respond to. What's distressing is that those members of these professions who "got it right" aren't promoted, even if the face of the spectacular failures of the mainstream common sense in these fields.

With respect to the domain we're talking about here...


Quote from: Nik the Trik on May 15, 2017, 10:18:22 PM
Quote from: mr grieves on May 15, 2017, 09:32:22 PM
And I'm not sure that it isn't a bit disingenuous, since you're deploying arguments derived from some poli-sci papers, I'm guessing?

I'm deriving my answers from my formal education on this specific subject matter as well as my years working in the field of public policy.

Which led you to be wrong about the outcome of this election in exactly the same way similarly educated and experienced professionals were wrong.

So, what assumptions about how politics work have you reconsidered given the political upheavals of the last few years? What in the conventional wisdom of your profession ought to be revised, given the reality it just ran into?



Quote from: Nik the Trik on May 15, 2017, 10:18:22 PM
Quote from: mr grieves on May 15, 2017, 09:32:22 PM
If people don't understand how their situation might be improved by voting for someone, they won't turn up to vote. Then you're left with the yahoos for whom politics is largely avocational, who will turn out to express their sense of self through position-taking on things like abortion and firearm regulations. Most people aren't like that, because most people aren't weirdos.

Most people also don't understand macroeconomics on the sort of scale that make that sort of communication one where truth intersects with easy to digest sound bites.

If your explanation for how your political program will improve someone's life takes the form of macroeconomics, you're doing it wrong. "Make America Great Again" and "We're gonna dig more coal" could've been met with "you're going to have a living wage" and "no more insurance companies impoverishing you."


Quote from: Nik the Trik on May 15, 2017, 10:18:22 PM
Quote from: mr grieves on May 15, 2017, 09:32:22 PM
Yes, that's right. The upper-midwest blue wall fell.

It wasn't because those specific votes thought that Hillary was going to take away their guns. It's because her campaign didn't speak credibly to those people's interests, and so those people didn't show up to vote for her.

That's great as a talking point but it doesn't actually have much in the way of truth behind it:

Quote
In the wake of Trump's surprise win, some journalists, scholars, and political strategists argued that economic anxiety drove these Americans to Trump. But new analysis of post-election survey data conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute and The Atlantic found something different: Evidence suggests financially troubled voters in the white working class were more likely to prefer Clinton over Trump.

First, the poorest economic group counted -- families under $30k/year, I think -- did go for Clinton, as they have virtually every Democrat since the Depression. But Trump ate into Obama's margins and, more important, folks from this segment of the electorate stayed home.

Second, the one thing you did get right about the 2016 election is that Trump's voters were essentially the same voters who typically go for Republicans. He had the hardcore xenophobes and white supremacists (the "deplorables") from the escalator ride, picking Pence brought the religious culturally conservative folks on board, and the suburban petit-bourgeoisie GOPers rebuffed Clinton's appeals (remember "for every vote we lose in the rural areas, we'll get 2 in the Philly suburbs"?) because they fundamentally only care about their tax cuts, and -- finally -- a few tens of thousand downwardly mobile white workers went for Trump. But, as noted above and elsewhere in the article, a lot more stayed home.

Third, the economics vs. cultural anxiety debate is a dull one. "Did fascism get sufficient popular support to be elected because of racism or economic anxiety?" The answer, as it's always been, is that folks' existing racial biases and assumptions are turned into resentments and grievances and then support for fascists when (a) their general well-being erodes, (b) no plausible explanation or ameliorative action is offered by the left, and (c) a demagogue connects those biases to (a). 

Finally, one more article making clear the connection between Trump's election and the failure of the American center-left:

Quote
lection Day cataclysm or not, the Democrats remain a party of two distinct groups: a wealthy, motivated, and highly resourceful professional class that supplies the party its leadership and ideological compass; and an unenthusiastic, unorganized, and largely nonwhite working class, whose chief reason for voting Democratic is that the other major party is packed full of racists.

What are the implications of such a starkly bifurcated coalition? One consequence is the ongoing disfigurement of the liberal political imagination. In a world where Ivy League students — the sons and daughters of Fairfax and Marin — vote for Clinton at a clip of more than 80 percent, elite Democrats find it exceedingly difficult to identify any tangible common interests they share with most American workers.

Instead, their attitude toward working-class Americans tends to take two forms. On the one hand, a growing contempt for the (white) workers who have slowly drifted away from the Democratic Party; on the other, an essentially philanthropic if not paternalistic concern for "the most vulnerable" (nonwhite) workers who ostensibly remain within the Democratic camp.

from Matt Karp,"Fairfax County, USA" (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/clinton-election-polls-white-workers-firewall/)


Quote from: Nik the Trik on May 15, 2017, 10:18:22 PM
On top of that, you're talking about a question that doesn't actually have a complicated answer, let alone a simple one. How to make a global economy work for everyone is something nobody has cracked yet and some of the best policy solutions that have been cooked up yet don't poll well even in countries more receptive to the sort of large scale ideology at work.

So we're both agreed that our political institutions are failing to meet the dominant social question of the day. 
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on May 16, 2017, 09:37:31 AM
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

QuotePresident 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.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on May 16, 2017, 10:51:20 AM
Quote from: herman on May 16, 2017, 09:37:31 AM
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

QuotePresident 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.

To be fair, this was denied by literally everybody involved.

Except Trump. He confirmed it on twitter.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on May 16, 2017, 11:27:26 AM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on May 16, 2017, 10:51:20 AM
To be fair, this was denied by literally everybody involved.

Except Trump. He confirmed it on twitter.

I love that he demands his staff to tank their integrity to back his play, but then immediately throws them all under the bus because his narcissism demands that people give him credit for this great decision.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on May 16, 2017, 11:33:30 AM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on May 16, 2017, 10:51:20 AM
To be fair, this was denied by literally everybody involved.

Except Trump. He confirmed it on twitter.

I especially love how his defence is that he has the right to share this information - which is true, and something no one is disputing. People are unhappy about what he shared, and what that means for the intelligence gathering effort against ISIS, the safety of their sources, etc., and he's saying "I'm President, I'm allowed to do it. Stop complaining." To restate the obvious, the "man" has no understanding of consequences.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on May 16, 2017, 01:33:44 PM


This is just from the first 2-3 minutes:

Trump will be giving an "inspiring, yet direct speech on the need to confront radical ideaology". He will then participate in the inauguration of a centre devoted to fighting "radicalism and promote moderation" and to take a stand against "extremism and those who use a perverted interpretation of religion to advance their criminal and political agenda".

So Trump is meeting with the Republican party?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on May 16, 2017, 04:15:00 PM
Quote from: mr grieves on May 16, 2017, 12:45:11 AM
A market inefficiency is a specific thing.

Yeah, which, as I said does not apply here in either a literal or figurative sense. An electorate is not a market. Not literally or figuratively. I don't believe for a second that you intended it in the figurative sense but it doesn't work there either. There is not a void of people pushing the things that people claim to really like, those people just did worse than Hillary.

Quote from: mr grieves on May 16, 2017, 12:45:11 AM
Finance and physics and foreign policy have also been discredited by colossal disasters of the Wall St crash, the A-bomb, and Vietnam & Iraq & just about every American foreign policy intervention of the last 60 years.

"Finance" is not economics and the A-Bomb didn't discredit the concept of physics.

Quote from: mr grieves on May 16, 2017, 12:45:11 AM
There were, of course, economists who saw the crash coming, physicists who saw the dangers of the bomb, diplomats who saw the idiocy of the America's hawkish overseas adventures, and political operatives and observers who saw the Clinton campaign had a pretty dull sense of what the electorate would respond to. What's distressing is that those members of these professions who "got it right" aren't promoted, even if the face of the spectacular failures of the mainstream common sense in these fields.

That's not really true. How much more of a platform do you think Paul Krugman should have? How many Nobel Prizes should he win?

Quote from: Nik the Trik on May 15, 2017, 10:18:22 PM
Which led you to be wrong about the outcome of this election in exactly the same way similarly educated and experienced professionals were wrong.

With all due respect, that's complete and total nonsense. My education and years of work in public policy really didn't come into play when handicapping the American election. In thinking Hillary would win I was doing so as a layperson putting their faith in the data nerds who'd had a pretty good track record in recent years. If nothing else, Trump's victory has left me with a healthy distrust for people who have claimed to crack complex problems with the use of arcane and tedious statistical analysis.   

Quote from: Nik the Trik on May 15, 2017, 10:18:22 PM
So, what assumptions about how politics work have you reconsidered given the political upheavals of the last few years? What in the conventional wisdom of your profession ought to be revised, given the reality it just ran into?

I'm not entirely sure what you think people study in political science, public administration or PPE programs but nothing about Trump's victory shattered any long held assumptions people made about the political process. The "reality" that emerged was that poll aggregation isn't quite rocket science and that crazy, unexpected things can happen in campaigns. 

But to speak up for the data folk for a second, some of them were very wrong but someone like Nate Silver gave Trump a 30% chance of winning. Trump won. Does that mean Silver was wrong? What's the line there? If I say something has a 1 in 20 or 1 in 50 chance of happening and it happens were the odds wrong?

I was overconfident, sure, but the guy who wins the lottery isn't an investment genius.

Quote from: mr grieves on May 16, 2017, 12:45:11 AM
If your explanation for how your political program will improve someone's life takes the form of macroeconomics, you're doing it wrong. "Make America Great Again" and "We're gonna dig more coal" could've been met with "you're going to have a living wage" and "no more insurance companies impoverishing you."

Like I said, it requires a basic understanding of the subject so that it doesn't just devolve into two people squawking back and forth competing soundbites at each other.

Effective communication of progressive healthcare and economic policy is more than shouting "FREE MONEY!" to a public that claims to hate socialism if they can get around to spelling it correctly.

Quote from: mr grieves on May 16, 2017, 12:45:11 AM
Finally, one more article making clear the connection between Trump's election and the failure of the American center-left:

Well, no. It's just another opinion piece.

I can't make the case that the Clinton campaign didn't screw things up or that they didn't have communication problems or messaging problems. They did. But that failure is not "Stop talking about the things that are the actual deciding factors in why people vote the way they do".

Obama was a good communicator, Clinton a bad one. But they didn't talk about wildly different subject matter. The election was a reflection of that.

Quote from: mr grieves on May 16, 2017, 12:45:11 AM
So we're both agreed that our political institutions are failing to meet the dominant social question of the day.

Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by "our" institutions. I agree that the Globalist-Corporatist Centre-Left movement of the Bill Clinton, Chretien-Martin and Blair-Brown governments largely failed to meet that question and their ideology has largely been exposed as one that is an unpalatable Neoliberal-Lite.

But let's get a bit of a grip on ourselves in terms of what this one election means broadly. Did Hillary Clinton lose the election? Yup. Have people somewhat erroneously tied that into the far more complicated question of the EU referendum in the UK to present a picture of a world where that ideology is being roundly rejected by the common folk? Well, you sure seem to be.

But the facts are far more nuanced than that. Trudeau won a huge victory here largely under that banner. Macron just won a pretty sizable victory in France under the same. Merkel's still in power. Spain and Italy have swung Left. The idea that the far Right would sweep across Europe fizzled out. Heck, even Austria stuck Centre-Left and if you can't make fascism work there you may as well goose-step home.

And in some of those still Centre-Left countries that issue is being addressed. Policies like a UBI are being openly weighed in places like Canada, Sweden and Switzerland(although, again, it tends to not be popular). It's not like the question's being ignored it's just that it's a question without an easy policy answer and the best ones we have aren't very popular and I've always been in the camp of thinking smart policy in the hands of an unelectable government isn't much use.

Would I like to see a hard turn Left by the Democratic party? Sure. But Obama didn't win his huge victories because he was much further to the Left than Clinton. The platform that came out of the Democratic Convention this year was further to the Left than anything Obama put his name behind.

There aren't policy answers for what happened to Clinton this year. If you think that a hard left turn is a cure-all, feel free to look at how Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party are doing in the UK and get back to me.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on May 22, 2017, 09:05:31 AM
Coming soon to a meme near you:
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on May 23, 2017, 01:54:57 PM
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--KHfQaV5H--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/rx3mapdj85oa4c6wwjrp.gif)

I can't get enough of these.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on May 23, 2017, 02:26:38 PM
You really get the feel that, if he had lost the election, she was going to leave him.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on May 23, 2017, 05:15:15 PM
It's just not normal the way she has no contact with him.  Not only does she stay in New York during the week but they are apart on weekends too.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: lamajama on May 23, 2017, 10:26:36 PM
Quote from: L K on May 23, 2017, 05:15:15 PM
It's just not normal the way she has no contact with him.  Not only does she stay in New York during the week but they are apart on weekends too.

Well money can only buy so much...
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on May 24, 2017, 12:13:34 PM
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-counsel-idUSKBN18J30W
QuotePresident Donald Trump has tapped a longtime legal adviser to serve as his private attorney while a special counsel investigates whether his campaign worked with Russia in last year's election, a source familiar with the decision told Reuters Tuesday.

Fox Business News and ABC first reported that Trump hired Marc Kasowitz, a New York-based trial lawyer known as a tenacious litigator, to represent him in a Justice Department investigation headed by former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Robert Mueller.

The appointment of a private attorney may indicate that Trump is seriously considering the impact the federal investigation could have on him personally and that he may wish to protect himself should others in his administration turn against him.

[...]

Kasowitz also represents OJSC Sberbank of Russia, the country's largest bank, which is being accused in a U.S. federal court of conspiring with granite company executives and others to raid the assets of a competitor.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRQRw0EhI2T2Z3Nf510AwytC_3YRNw6WywVOPidT_dDCySafXdVb4OfYAU)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on May 24, 2017, 10:58:09 PM
So not directly related to Trump but this is an interesting story that's developing: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/24/greg-gianforte-fox-news-team-witnesses-gop-house-candidate-body-slam-reporter.html
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on May 24, 2017, 11:13:35 PM
Also these are the headlines for the last 4 tweets @FoxNews had made:

NYC's De Blasio: 'Children Will Die' Because of Trump's Budget
Sessions failed to disclose meetings with Russian envoy on security clearance form
Greg Gianforte: Fox News team witnesses GOP House candidate 'body slam' reporter
Fox News Poll: Trump approval down, voters support special counsel on Russia

So they've obviously been hacked.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bender on May 25, 2017, 07:21:58 AM
Weird

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on May 25, 2017, 07:34:15 AM
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/24/sean-spicer-no-vatican-visit-238780

QuotePresident Donald Trump's entourage at the Vatican on Wednesday included his wife, his daughter, and an array of staffers—but not White House press secretary Sean Spicer, a devout Catholic who told reporters earlier this year that he gave up alcohol for Lent.

Other non-Catholic staffers who made the cut ceded their spots to Catholic aides, but Spicer was sent home even though meeting the Pope was "all he wanted".

(http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/4/4e/Tapped_Out_Gil_Gunderson.png/revision/latest?cb=20151010212214)

Also pretty sour about not being able to see the Spiceman:
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/bfce29a9b2a3d1bfbde56283086549f35b84ff04/0_353_5000_3000/master/5000.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=475e03010844e8e9af30a7eff1868e7e)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on May 25, 2017, 12:51:51 PM
https://instagram.com/p/BUcFvT-l6Er/
https://instagram.com/p/BUej87alHzZ/

Pete Souza, former White House photographer wiped his account as Obama departed office. He has since been posting old photos at opportune times for maximum shade.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on May 26, 2017, 06:35:53 AM
"The (Trump) Shove"






https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/25/donald-trump-shoves-strange-handshakes-world-stage (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/25/donald-trump-shoves-strange-handshakes-world-stage)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Boston Leaf on May 26, 2017, 07:33:23 AM
He is a disgusting pig of a human being..
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on May 28, 2017, 08:32:00 AM
A rare smooch...



Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on May 28, 2017, 08:41:09 PM

This week white supremacists murdered a US Army Lieutenant, an Army Veteran father of four and a recent college graduate, the latter two while they were sticking up for fellow citizens, and the President is tweeting about what the media says about his twitter feed.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on May 28, 2017, 09:41:08 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on May 28, 2017, 08:41:09 PM

This week white supremacists murdered a US Army Lieutenant, an Army Veteran father of four and a recent college graduate, the latter two while they were sticking up for fellow citizens, and the President is tweeting about what the media says about his twitter feed.

The sad thing is I don't see any repercussions for their actions in the long run.  The Montanan Republican that chokeslammed and punched a reporter wins his election.  The Republicans support him and a few are caught making jokes about how CNN reporters are lucky they don't do it to them too.

Joking about assault is now part of acceptable behaviour.  Ignoring the assault on American citizens by foreign agents (Erdogan's hit squad) is fine.  Ignoring the actions of the Radical Christian/White Terrorists is perfectly fine.

But the real problem is a poorly run and understaffed White House is full of leaks and the leaks are the bad thing, not the content of the leaks.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on June 02, 2017, 04:23:43 AM
Trump pulls U.S. out of Paris Climate Change Accord:

Quote"As of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris accord."

One of the reasons Trump gave on Thursday for withdrawing from the Paris accord was that it imposed "no meaningful obligations on the world's leading polluters", and singled out India as evidence of the fundamental unfairness of the deal:

Quote"India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020. Think of it: India can double their coal production. We're supposed to get rid of ours."

Ahem...

QuoteJames Astill  @JamesMAstill
Trump says Paris imposes no obligation on world's biggest polluters. He cites India. whose per cap emissions are a tenth of America's.
3:42 PM - 1 Jun 2017

Story:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/live/2017/jun/01/donald-trump-paris-climate-agreement-live-news

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on June 02, 2017, 04:24:51 AM
Van Jones & a former Trump Senior Economics Adviser argue over the Trump Climate Change decision...


Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Arn on June 02, 2017, 06:09:22 AM
I mean it takes 4 years to "withdraw" from the accord so even if he starts it immediately right now today he'll probably be out of office by the time it gets to withdrawal.

If he isn't out before the end of his term
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on June 02, 2017, 08:31:23 AM
[tweet]870353840654233600[/tweet]
www.twitter.com/RickSantorum/status/870353840654233600

People can't possibly be this dumb, can they?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on June 02, 2017, 08:53:21 AM
Perhaps he's missing protein for his brain.  Only then will he not be inconsistent, unreliable, and non-sensical in thinking & talking.  For now, he should seriously join a circus.  Oh wait, they're defunct...Hello?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on June 02, 2017, 08:53:49 AM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on June 02, 2017, 08:31:23 AM
[tweet]870353840654233600[/tweet]
www.twitter.com/RickSantorum/status/870353840654233600

People can't possibly be this dumb, can they?

Yes. 

Santorum was going around saying that even if Kushner was creating back channels with Russia (he argued that it was lies) that it was perfectly ok.  Santorum was arguing that a private citizen making back channel private channels with a foreign power was acceptable behaviour.

The Republicans are just finding amazing ways to crawl further under the rocks they live under.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on June 02, 2017, 09:04:29 AM
Quote from: L K on June 02, 2017, 08:53:49 AM
The Republicans are just finding amazing ways to crawl further under the rocks they live under.

I just hope they don't do TOO much damage to humanity before the party as we know it today is completely obliterated.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on June 02, 2017, 09:48:38 AM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on June 02, 2017, 08:31:23 AM
People can't possibly be this dumb, can they?

Like, did he never have a solar powered calculator when he was in school? Or, has he never heard of batteries, or understand that they can make really really big one that hold the energy produced by . . . well, whatever source you're getting the energy from?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on June 02, 2017, 10:01:53 AM
He is the biggest threat to the Leafs finally winning another Cup.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on June 07, 2017, 02:42:35 PM
You don't have to wait for Jim Comey's opening statement.

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-jcomey-060817.pdf
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on June 13, 2017, 05:00:16 PM
https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/874597651874021377

@ShaunKing
The Golden State Warriors voted unanimously to skip their entire visit to Donald Trump's White House.

As woke as any team in sports.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on June 13, 2017, 05:17:33 PM
http://www.snopes.com/warriors-white-house-visit/
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on June 13, 2017, 05:22:57 PM
It's really a shame the Spurs didn't win it all so we won't get to hear what Coach Pop would have said to a White House invitation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2Y0ePRmPTk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2Y0ePRmPTk)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on June 13, 2017, 05:57:45 PM
Could sell that visit on PPV. 
Quote from: Nik the Trik on June 13, 2017, 05:22:57 PM
It's really a shame the Spurs didn't win it all so we won't get to hear what Coach Pop would have said to a White House invitation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2Y0ePRmPTk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2Y0ePRmPTk)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on June 13, 2017, 07:31:33 PM
Quote from: Bates on June 13, 2017, 05:17:33 PM
http://www.snopes.com/warriors-white-house-visit/

Although it's not entirely without basis:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2017/06/13/why-nba-champion-warriors-could-skip-visit-trump-white-house/102819248/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2017/06/13/why-nba-champion-warriors-could-skip-visit-trump-white-house/102819248/)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on June 13, 2017, 08:16:06 PM
It's still completely incorrect.   They haven't been invited and haven't held any vote not to go.  It might end up happening but as of today it's unfactual.  It is similar to writing a story that Nik died, factually incorrect today but 100% truthful for some future date.
Quote from: Nik the Trik on June 13, 2017, 07:31:33 PM
Quote from: Bates on June 13, 2017, 05:17:33 PM
http://www.snopes.com/warriors-white-house-visit/

Although it's not entirely without basis:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2017/06/13/why-nba-champion-warriors-could-skip-visit-trump-white-house/102819248/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2017/06/13/why-nba-champion-warriors-could-skip-visit-trump-white-house/102819248/)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on June 13, 2017, 09:29:41 PM
Quote from: Bates on June 13, 2017, 08:16:06 PM
It's still completely incorrect.   They haven't been invited and haven't held any vote not to go.  It might end up happening but as of today it's unfactual.  It is similar to writing a story that Nik died, factually incorrect today but 100% truthful for some future date.

It's not much of an analogy and I didn't say it was factual. All I did is link to a story where the issue was discussed for some background.

Context is your friend.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on June 13, 2017, 09:41:51 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on June 13, 2017, 09:29:41 PM
Quote from: Bates on June 13, 2017, 08:16:06 PM
It's still completely incorrect.   They haven't been invited and haven't held any vote not to go.  It might end up happening but as of today it's unfactual.  It is similar to writing a story that Nik died, factually incorrect today but 100% truthful for some future date.

It's not much of an analogy and I didn't say it was factual. All I did is link to a story where the issue was discussed for some background.

Context is your friend.

Also, as things stand right now, they won't be visiting the White House (being as they haven't been invited), so, it's more true than not. :P
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on June 13, 2017, 10:05:09 PM
Quote from: bustaheims on June 13, 2017, 09:41:51 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on June 13, 2017, 09:29:41 PM
Quote from: Bates on June 13, 2017, 08:16:06 PM
It's still completely incorrect.   They haven't been invited and haven't held any vote not to go.  It might end up happening but as of today it's unfactual.  It is similar to writing a story that Nik died, factually incorrect today but 100% truthful for some future date.

It's not much of an analogy and I didn't say it was factual. All I did is link to a story where the issue was discussed for some background.

Context is your friend.

Also, as things stand right now, they won't be visiting the White House (being as they haven't been invited), so, it's more true than not. :P

In related news I have also announced that I will not accept any invitations to the White House.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on June 14, 2017, 01:10:14 AM
Here is the post I answered.  It is 100% false. 
Quote from: bustaheims on June 13, 2017, 05:00:16 PM
https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/874597651874021377

@ShaunKing
The Golden State Warriors voted unanimously to skip their entire visit to Donald Trump's White House.

As woke as any team in sports.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on June 14, 2017, 08:20:00 AM
A shooter fired off about 50 rounds at Republican Congressmen who were practicing for a Democrat vs. Republican baseball game.  Majority whip Steve Scalise was shot in the hip as well as two service agents.  Supposedly the shooter was shot and killed.

Good times, US, good times.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on June 14, 2017, 11:22:41 AM
Quote from: Bates on June 14, 2017, 01:10:14 AM
Here is the post I answered.  It is 100% false

Yes, congratulations. It was based on an ongoing issue being discussed in the press. I provided additional context beyond "it's false", not a contradiction.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on June 14, 2017, 11:41:55 AM
Thanks, your love of arguing is well known.  This time you are wrong and there is no context needed.
Quote from: Nik the Trik on June 14, 2017, 11:22:41 AM
Quote from: Bates on June 14, 2017, 01:10:14 AM
Here is the post I answered.  It is 100% false

Yes, congratulations. It was based on an ongoing issue being discussed in the press. I provided additional context beyond "it's false", not a contradiction.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on June 14, 2017, 11:54:58 AM
Quote from: Bates on June 14, 2017, 11:41:55 AM
Thanks, your love of arguing is well known.  This time you are wrong and there is no context needed.

For the last time, I'm not arguing anything. I linked to an article where the subject was discussed with a player on the team for additional information. I am contradicting nobody.

Great googly moogly. Have you considered decaf?

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on June 14, 2017, 05:29:09 PM
The Penguins would go, if invited:

Quote"The Pittsburgh Penguins would never turn down a visit to the White House and, if invited, we would go as a team," Penguins CEO and president David Morehouse told Molinari via a statement on Tuesday.

"We respect the office of the presidency of the United States and what it stands for," Morehouse said. "Any opposition or disagreement with a president's policies, or agenda, can be expressed in other ways."

.He also pointed out in Tuesday's report that Pittsburgh's front office includes several democrats—including owner Ron Burkle, who has donated to the party's causes and Morehouse, who was involved with the Clinton administration and Al Gore's presidential campaign.


http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/report-penguins-attend-white-house-ceremony-invited/
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: princedpw on June 14, 2017, 08:12:28 PM
Quote from: hockeyfan1 on June 14, 2017, 05:29:09 PM
The Penguins would go, if invited:

Quote"The Pittsburgh Penguins would never turn down a visit to the White House and, if invited, we would go as a team," Penguins CEO and president David Morehouse told Molinari via a statement on Tuesday.

"We respect the office of the presidency of the United States and what it stands for," Morehouse said. "Any opposition or disagreement with a president's policies, or agenda, can be expressed in other ways."

.He also pointed out in Tuesday's report that Pittsburgh's front office includes several democrats—including owner Ron Burkle, who has donated to the party's causes and Morehouse, who was involved with the Clinton administration and Al Gore's presidential campaign.


http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/report-penguins-attend-white-house-ceremony-invited/

"Any opposition or disagreement with a president's policies, or agenda, can be expressed in other ways."

Opposition to the president can be expressed in many ways. One of the most effective ways an athlete can voice disagreement with the president is by declining the visit.  In fact there's a real decision to be made and no way that an athlete can be neutral and apolitical in this situation.  If the athlete agrees to go, the president gains prestige by association with a popular cultural figure. If the athlete declines to go, it is the opposite.  Such a meeting is entirely political -- it has no other purpose.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on June 14, 2017, 10:19:00 PM
Quote from: princedpw on June 14, 2017, 08:12:28 PM
"Any opposition or disagreement with a president's policies, or agenda, can be expressed in other ways."

Opposition to the president can be expressed in many ways. One of the most effective ways an athlete can voice disagreement with the president is by declining the visit.  In fact there's a real decision to be made and no way that an athlete can be neutral and apolitical in this situation.  If the athlete agrees to go, the president gains prestige by association with a popular cultural figure. If the athlete declines to go, it is the opposite.  Such a meeting is entirely political -- it has no other purpose.

Yeah, I don't think players are in any way obligated to be involved in photo ops and I think a lot of people who have issues with this President have them on a level fairly beyond disagreeing with his policies or political agenda.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on June 15, 2017, 10:07:08 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/special-counsel-is-investigating-trump-for-possible-obstruction-of-justice/2017/06/14/9ce02506-5131-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html

He wasn't before, but it is now being reported that the President* is under criminal investigation for obstruction of justice, probably thanks to railroading the person investigating his campaign.

Speaking of which: Trump's friend Christopher Ruddy says President considering firing Mueller (http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/12/politics/ruddy-robert-mueller-white-house/index.html) (CNN)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on June 21, 2017, 01:34:23 PM
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/where-have-all-the-cameras-gone/530916/
QuoteNeither Spicer nor deputy press secretary Sarah Sanders responded to queries about the changes to the briefings. Asked why the briefings are now routinely held off-camera, White House chief strategist Steve Bannon said in a text message "Sean got fatter," and did not respond to a follow-up.
(http://www.magic-emoji.com/emoji/images/1317_emoji_iphone_thinking_face.png)

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on June 21, 2017, 05:24:24 PM
4 Special elections.  Four losses for the Democrats.  Lazy idiots need to actually vote.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on July 10, 2017, 11:04:05 AM
https://twitter.com/InsidersABC/status/883829926993862656
www.twitter.com/InsidersABC/status/883829926993862656

As if this wasn't exactly what most people expected before this all came to fruition.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on July 10, 2017, 03:55:42 PM
PM Trudeau at the G20 Summit:

Some of the other leaders, from Europe in particular, had hoped Trudeau's better relationship with Trump could have some sort of influence on him.

That Trump has some respect for his Canadian counterpart was evident Saturday during a speech at a morning event where he gushed over Trudeau.

"We have a great neighbour in Canada and Justin is doing a spectacular job in Canada," Trump said.
"Everybody loves him and they love him for a reason so congratulations on the job you're doing."

Trudeau said in conversations with the president he underscored the fact economic growth and environmental protections "can and must" go together.

"I emphasized this is something that matters deeply to citizens and impacts directly on our economic growth now and into the future," he said.

Tom Burke, chairman of the British environmental think tank E3G said "Trump has lost another collision between fantasy and reality."

"No other global leader shares his fantasy that climate change is a hoax," he said.

Trudeau said Saturday his main message to those who don't feel the G20 is there to help them, he understands their skepticism and frustration as did his counterparts around the table.

"We know that the anxiety that citizens around the world are feeling is real," he said.

Trudeau said for many years trade has led to growth without a fair distribution of the benefits, but the hope is that many of the policies enacted by the G20 this weekend will begin to address those inequities.


http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/trump-agrees-to-anti-protectionist-measures-but-not-climate-change-at-g20-1.3494507
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on July 12, 2017, 07:28:19 PM

I know it's a ceremonial position but with everything going on in the world it's still neat to know our head of state is going to be an actual astronaut.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/governor-general-canada-julie-payette-1.4201614 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/governor-general-canada-julie-payette-1.4201614)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on July 12, 2017, 08:49:37 PM
I've been trying to find a single article that covers this entire chain of irony, but couldn't, so here's Trevor Noah instead:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eswbSabnysA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aJAIF4A2gY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYV8YYsqeqU
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on July 13, 2017, 02:00:11 AM
Late Night's Stephen Colbert on Canada, Ivanka, etc.  (April 2017)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDtt8qMgkGU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDtt8qMgkGU)


Also, this:  On Trump Jr. (July 11,2017)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDtt8qMgkGU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDtt8qMgkGU)

&  this:      "      "      "   (July 12,2017)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUpL05wjUP0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUpL05wjUP0)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on July 19, 2017, 02:37:18 PM

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-27/trump-hotel-owner-in-toronto-reaches-deal-to-remove-trump-brand (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-27/trump-hotel-owner-in-toronto-reaches-deal-to-remove-trump-brand)

Trump will no longer have anything to do with, and his name will be taken off of, what was once Trump Tower Toronto.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on July 19, 2017, 02:45:04 PM
Apples and trees and how far things fall:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBGJqZHsdJ0
(A Closer Look/Seth Meyers on the Don Jr. situation unravelling)

This one was a bit painful to watch, as it was a stark reminder of how things could have turned out... directly related to the above though! However, those boots. Eeeeh...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ojlcvn42rb0
(Al Gore visits Stephen Colbert)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on July 19, 2017, 03:31:19 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on July 12, 2017, 07:28:19 PM

I know it's a ceremonial position but with everything going on in the world it's still neat to know our head of state is going to be an actual astronaut.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/governor-general-canada-julie-payette-1.4201614 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/governor-general-canada-julie-payette-1.4201614)

Meanwhile, for the incumbent:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/governor-general-touches-queen-1.4211922

(https://media.tenor.com/images/81a729acf704f2c051a0f9b6ad4c63a6/tenor.gif)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on July 19, 2017, 04:25:20 PM
https://twitter.com/strobetalbott/status/887463399449350145
www.twitter.com/strobetalbott/status/887463399449350145

I'm guessing it was just a protracted handshake.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Rob on July 19, 2017, 06:08:45 PM
Quote from: herman on July 19, 2017, 04:25:20 PM

I'm guessing it was just a protracted handshake.

Hey I used up my 10 free articles do you think you could copy and paste the entire thing here K thanks bye.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on July 19, 2017, 09:33:46 PM
Quote from: herman link=topic=3696.msg300269#msg300269
Meanwhile, for the incumbent:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/governor-general-touches-queen-1.4211922

(https://media.tenor.com/images/81a729acf704f2c051a0f9b6ad4c63a6/tenor.gif)


Those steps looked awfully 'slippery'.  The G-G did the right thing, protocol or  no protocol.
Her Majesty's descending looked a little shaky.  I was almost afraid for her.  Thank goodness for the gentleman's help.

Quote"I was just anxious to be sure there was no stumbling on the steps. It's a little bit awkward, that descent from Canada House to Trafalgar Square, and there was carpet that was a little slippy, and so I thought perhaps it was appropriate to breach protocol just to be sure that there was no stumble."


Nothing absolutely wrong with that.  Protocol, for once, be damned  :)

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: crazyperfectdevil on July 19, 2017, 10:02:43 PM
Quote from: Guru Tugginmypuddah on July 19, 2017, 06:08:45 PM
Quote from: herman on July 19, 2017, 04:25:20 PM

I'm guessing it was just a protracted handshake.

Hey I used up my 10 free articles do you think you could copy and paste the entire thing here K thanks bye.

If I didn't miss the joke you can just step around most sites article limits by opening the link in a "private window"
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on July 21, 2017, 02:09:52 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-spicer-idUSKBN1A6237
QuoteWhite House spokesman Sean Spicer resigned on Friday, ending a brief and turbulent tenure that made him a household name, amid further upheaval within President Donald Trump's inner circle.

[...]

While the White House official gave no reason for Spicer's resignation, the New York Times reported that he had quit over Scaramucci's appointment. Spicer had been serving as both press secretary and communications director, but with a lower profile recently.

And now, his watch is ended.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on July 21, 2017, 02:16:49 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/C3dB7pG.jpg)

Quote from: crazyperfectdevil on July 19, 2017, 10:02:43 PM
Quote from: Guru Tugginmypuddah on July 19, 2017, 06:08:45 PM
Hey I used up my 10 free articles do you think you could copy and paste the entire thing here K thanks bye.

If I didn't miss the joke you can just step around most sites article limits by opening the link in a "private window"
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Zee on July 21, 2017, 02:30:41 PM
The Mooch.

You just can't make this stuff up.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on July 22, 2017, 04:41:10 AM
Poor Spicey.  No more Melissa McCarthy-esque laughs.  Gonna miss that.

He should write a book and title it  "From Spicey With Love:  Enjoy!"   
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on July 25, 2017, 03:15:52 PM
The Senate just voted to move forward on their unanimously hated health care bill. 

John McCain was the hero of the hour, flying back from his hospital where he receives government funded health care to vote yes to take health care away from other Americans.

You just can't write this movie any better.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on July 25, 2017, 03:36:40 PM
Quote from: L K on July 25, 2017, 03:15:52 PM
The Senate just voted to move forward on their unanimously hated health care bill. 

That's not even the extent to it though. Nobody knows what the bill is. So it was a vote to proceed on "a" health care bill, not anything in particular. All of the so-called moderate Republican senators who said they wouldn't vote for a bill unless they knew it would be better than what they were repealing have no leg to stand on now for voting to proceed with, effectively, a bill to be written later.

I mean, at some point, you just have to shrug your shoulders and acknowledge that this is what America is these days.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on July 25, 2017, 06:49:34 PM
That's cute but if your being truthful ObamaCare isn't working in McCain's home State of AZ.  There are almost no health care providers accepting the program in the Phoenix area, it isn't doing anything like it was presented to do.  They need a new plan but I'm highly doubtful there will be any agreement to restrict costs and have health care for everyone come from this.  It started as a simple concept that everyone pays a little so no one has to pay a lot but the young folks just haven't bought in and there really isn't a mechanism to force them to do so.  That leaves health providers having to give a reduced cost plan to the people who use it the most and that can't work.
Quote from: L K on July 25, 2017, 03:15:52 PM
The Senate just voted to move forward on their unanimously hated health care bill. 

John McCain was the hero of the hour, flying back from his hospital where he receives government funded health care to vote yes to take health care away from other Americans.

You just can't write this movie any better.
Title: The Donald
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on July 25, 2017, 07:09:34 PM
They need a new plan, but the notion that repealing it without immediately replacing it with a working alternative, is insane and will leave millions of Americans up shit creek without a paddle.

Insurance companies will immediately begin refusing to pay for pre-existing conditions or making them so prohibitively expensive that they are effectively refusing.

Millions of sick people will get much sicker because they can no longer afford the care needed to treat their condition and many of them will die because of this.

This is a death sentence.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on July 25, 2017, 07:34:55 PM
Quote from: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on July 25, 2017, 07:09:34 PM
They need a new plan, but the notion that repealing it without immediately replacing it with a working alternative, is insane and will leave millions of Americans up shit creek without a paddle.

Insurance companies will immediately begin refusing to pay for pre-existing conditions or making them so prohibitively expensive that they are effectively refusing.

Millions of sick people will get much sicker because they can no longer afford the care needed to treat their condition and many of them will die because of this.

This is a death sentence.

That covers it pretty well, I'd say. Obamacare certainly isn't perfect, but it was valiant first step towards the type of system they need. Repealing it instead of advancing it helps no one but the rich. The only people who come out ahead under basically every GOP proposal we've heard so far are the top earners in the country and the insurance countries. The people that actually need affordable healthcare? They're getting sold down the river.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on July 25, 2017, 07:51:00 PM

In March, a statewide poll showed that support in Arizona for fixing problems with the ACA outpolled repealing it by 60-37.

http://www.12news.com/news/politics/arizonans-oppose-gops-obamacare-replacement-poll-shows/422678073 (http://www.12news.com/news/politics/arizonans-oppose-gops-obamacare-replacement-poll-shows/422678073)

But regardless of whatever the flaws might be with the current system at least have the courage to write an alternative to the bill, have hearings on it, get independent CBO scores on what it would mean to people and have senators have to actually stick their necks out and say whether or not they support a proposed piece of legislation.

There is nothing that the GOP has done on this matter that suggests they care at all about transparency or people making informed decisions.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on July 25, 2017, 08:05:18 PM
I think ideally you would take the ACA, put a mechanism in place to force everyone to pay, and then force all health care providers to accept the plan, and work on reducing costs from health care providers would be the path forward.  But someone will be against forcing people to pay and some else will be against restricting billing for health care providers and around and around they go.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on July 25, 2017, 08:18:20 PM

Isn't that effectively just a singlepayer system but with a middleman jacking up prices?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on July 25, 2017, 08:23:21 PM
Not really, it's paid for by everyone with the ability to buy better insurance like now.  But no one gets left with no insurance.  And there is a reasonable price for each service so gauging gets taken away.  But single payer might be a better option than present but it would still require a cap on costs as they are out of whack down south.
Quote from: Nik the Trik on July 25, 2017, 08:18:20 PM

Isn't that effectively just a singlepayer system but with a middleman jacking up prices?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on July 25, 2017, 08:27:24 PM
I mean, the difference between that and a single payer system is pretty thin. Change the "force everyone to pay" to have it be part of their taxes, and you're basically there.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on July 25, 2017, 08:28:58 PM
It's exactly how the ACA was started and what the actual goal was.  It just didn't get there.  The difference is you can buy levels of insurance and pick your own health care provider still. 
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on July 25, 2017, 08:40:40 PM
Quote from: Bates on July 25, 2017, 08:28:58 PM
It's exactly how the ACA was started and what the actual goal was.  It just didn't get there.  The difference is you can buy levels of insurance and pick your own health care provider still.

Which isn't that difference from what we have under a single payer system here in Canada. You can still buy levels of insurance if you want to be covered past what the government provides - so, if you want dental, vision, etc, covered - and you have some choice over your healthcare provider - maybe not absolute freedom, but, you have the ability/option to choose your family doctor and certain specialists.

I mean, really, what you're proposing is a decentralized/privatized version of a single payer system.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on July 25, 2017, 08:41:55 PM
Quote from: Bates on July 25, 2017, 08:28:58 PM
It's exactly how the ACA was started and what the actual goal was.  It just didn't get there.  The difference is you can buy levels of insurance and pick your own health care provider still.

It's not like "it just didn't get there". There was zero support for a public option on the right.

But more to the point there's really no way to get insurance companies to offer health care plans at reasonable costs if they have to insure people who need lots and lots of health care and people who need relatively little at roughly the same rates(and expecting people with serious health care needs to pay out of pocket isn't a solution). Either, by virtue of involving the private sector, you expect consumers to subsidize the poor and sick or you do it by means of a public pool of tax revenue. I don't see what private insurance does in that situation other than raise prices on everyone.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on July 25, 2017, 10:21:22 PM
How else would you suggest you get to reasonable health care costs for everyone? This was the basic premise of the ACA.  Everyone pays a little so no one pays a lot.
Quote from: Nik the Trik on July 25, 2017, 08:41:55 PM
Quote from: Bates on July 25, 2017, 08:28:58 PM
It's exactly how the ACA was started and what the actual goal was.  It just didn't get there.  The difference is you can buy levels of insurance and pick your own health care provider still.

It's not like "it just didn't get there". There was zero support for a public option on the right.

But more to the point there's really no way to get insurance companies to offer health care plans at reasonable costs if they have to insure people who need lots and lots of health care and people who need relatively little at roughly the same rates(and expecting people with serious health care needs to pay out of pocket isn't a solution). Either, by virtue of involving the private sector, you expect consumers to subsidize the poor and sick or you do it by means of a public pool of tax revenue. I don't see what private insurance does in that situation other than raise prices on everyone.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on July 25, 2017, 10:33:58 PM
Is that truly the question? Because pretty much every developed country has answered it already.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on July 25, 2017, 11:03:15 PM
Quote from: Bates on July 25, 2017, 10:21:22 PM
How else would you suggest you get to reasonable health care costs for everyone? This was the basic premise of the ACA.  Everyone pays a little so no one pays a lot.

Right. The problem being that a lot of healthy people aren't buying in which is why premiums are going up as for-profit health care providers try to maintain profitability while covering sick people. That's why this system was always doomed to struggle without a public option that would eliminate profit motive from health care costs.

The ACA hasn't really worked because it tried to dip a toe into widespread healthcare coverage while still keeping one foot firmly ensconced in the idea that people's health should be a for-profit industry. I never thought it was great policy but it was a compromise between what Clinton and Obama initially wanted with single payer/public option and the GOP's inclination towards effectively nothing. Even Mitt Romney, who introduced a similar insurance market system in Massachusetts as governor, essentially had to run away from the idea in order to be the GOP nom for President.

Like Herman says the rest of the world has gone with the idea of a national health care system funded by a progressive income tax with limited private options. I don't really think that's a wheel that needs re-inventing.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on July 25, 2017, 11:34:27 PM
[tweet]890040902315634688[/tweet]
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on July 26, 2017, 12:54:45 AM
I agree with all of that but the US is not heading anywhere near a direction that gets rid of health insurance providers any time in the near future.  That's why I suggested a slow realing in of insurance companies and providers while forcing all citizens to buy into the program.  Just another way of heading towards single payer that the masses just might be able to swallow.
Quote from: Nik the Trik on July 25, 2017, 11:03:15 PM
Quote from: Bates on July 25, 2017, 10:21:22 PM
How else would you suggest you get to reasonable health care costs for everyone? This was the basic premise of the ACA.  Everyone pays a little so no one pays a lot.

Right. The problem being that a lot of healthy people aren't buying in which is why premiums are going up as for-profit health care providers try to maintain profitability while covering sick people. That's why this system was always doomed to struggle without a public option that would eliminate profit motive from health care costs.

The ACA hasn't really worked because it tried to dip a toe into widespread healthcare coverage while still keeping one foot firmly ensconced in the idea that people's health should be a for-profit industry. I never thought it was great policy but it was a compromise between what Clinton and Obama initially wanted with single payer/public option and the GOP's inclination towards effectively nothing. Even Mitt Romney, who introduced a similar insurance market system in Massachusetts as governor, essentially had to run away from the idea in order to be the GOP nom for President.

Like Herman says the rest of the world has gone with the idea of a national health care system funded by a progressive income tax with limited private options. I don't really think that's a wheel that needs re-inventing.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on July 26, 2017, 12:56:48 AM
Let's not kid ourselves and think we have a perfect system either, the wait times in this Country are rather atrocious and the amount of budget health care is taking up is heading in a bad direction.  We coukd use a reset of our own.  But I'm very happy people aren't going bankrupt staying alive.
Quote from: herman on July 25, 2017, 10:33:58 PM
Is that truly the question? Because pretty much every developed country has answered it already.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on July 26, 2017, 01:15:49 AM
Quote from: Bates on July 26, 2017, 12:54:45 AM
I agree with all of that but the US is not heading anywhere near a direction that gets rid of health insurance providers any time in the near future.  That's why I suggested a slow realing in of insurance companies and providers while forcing all citizens to buy into the program.  Just another way of heading towards single payer that the masses just might be able to swallow.

Well, I think support for single payer is better in the states than you're making it out to be. Most polls, depending on how the question is asked, has support for a single payer system at anywhere from 33 to 58% and it's especially popular among younger voters. Beyond that, there's very high support for some sort of basic health care provided by the federal government.

But regardless, if you're looking for some sort of intermediary step between what exists now and single payer the public option in an insurance market seems like it would be the best possible solution. It could effectively be revenue neutral, it would be the best way to ensure a low cost option for the most vulnerable and it would put the basic premise that conservatives like to talk up(that private healthcare is better than public healthcare) to a market-based test.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on July 26, 2017, 01:29:43 AM
I was talking more at the decision making level and I don't think there is that much support there for single payer system.  The problem with polls is that they aren't always accurate. I think they need to head towards single payer but like I said I think that will be a process rife with resistance at every change.  I meet and interact with many Americans and though this is obviously anecdotal I never meet anyone who wants to be paying for anyone else's health care.  It will be a long road made even longer by poor leadership.
Quote from: Nik the Trik on July 26, 2017, 01:15:49 AM
Quote from: Bates on July 26, 2017, 12:54:45 AM
I agree with all of that but the US is not heading anywhere near a direction that gets rid of health insurance providers any time in the near future.  That's why I suggested a slow realing in of insurance companies and providers while forcing all citizens to buy into the program.  Just another way of heading towards single payer that the masses just might be able to swallow.

Well, I think support for single payer is better in the states than you're making it out to be. Most polls, depending on how the question is asked, has support for a single payer system at anywhere from 33 to 58% and it's especially popular among younger voters. Beyond that, there's very high support for some sort of basic health care provided by the federal government.

But regardless, if you're looking for some sort of intermediary step between what exists now and single payer the public option in an insurance market seems like it would be the best possible solution. It could effectively be revenue neutral, it would be the best way to ensure a low cost option for the most vulnerable and it would put the basic premise that conservatives like to talk up(that private healthcare is better than public healthcare) to a market-based test.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on July 26, 2017, 01:48:20 AM
Quote from: Bates on July 26, 2017, 01:29:43 AM
I was talking more at the decision making level and I don't think there is that much support there for single payer system.

Among Republicans, no. Many Democratic lawmakers have come out in favour of a single payer system including, in Bernie Sanders, a guy who frequently polls as one of the most popular politicians in the US.

In fact, I think a single payer system was part of the Democratic platform in the last election.

Quote from: Bates on July 26, 2017, 01:29:43 AM
  The problem with polls is that they aren't always accurate.

Actually, they tend to be fairly accurate. Even in a case like the most recent presidential election where the polls took a beating in public perception for the most part they were only off by a a number within the margin of error. At most you're talking about an error within single digits.

Quote from: Bates on July 26, 2017, 01:29:43 AM
I meet and interact with many Americans and though this is obviously anecdotal I never meet anyone who wants to be paying for anyone else's health care.

Just about everyone in my family aside from my immediate family are American. I can say pretty emphatically that my experience with Americans is different.

Still though, this is why a public option would seemingly meet everyone's criteria. If you didn't want to subsidize anyone else's healthcare, you could purchase whatever private plan you liked. The people who did want to form some sort of government-administered health care collective could choose to do so(which, again, could be revenue neutral).

The reason there was such fierce opposition to a public option among GOP politicians is because of a simple truth, that a non-profit public option would almost certainly be wildly popular, which would adversely affect their primary interest in the matter which isn't the well-being of their constituents but is instead the financial well-being of the insurance industry. That's why there's a disconnect between policy polling and political will. Sick people don't have lobbyists, big healthcare does.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on July 26, 2017, 02:24:47 AM
I guess the Bernie popularity is kinda my point on polls.  He's the most popular politician according to the polls yet less than a year ago couldn't win the party nomination against possibly the worst candidate in a long time.  Who in turn couldn't beat the worst candidate possibly ever.  There is a big difference between answering a poll question and actually voting for the person or party. 
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on July 26, 2017, 10:28:12 AM
Quote from: Bates on July 26, 2017, 02:24:47 AM
I guess the Bernie popularity is kinda my point on polls.  He's the most popular politician according to the polls yet less than a year ago couldn't win the party nomination against possibly the worst candidate in a long time.  Who in turn couldn't beat the worst candidate possibly ever.

But that assumes that the only factor that goes into elections is a candidate's relative popularity with the general public and that things like, say, strategic voting, money and/or party support are immaterial. Likewise, the reason Hillary Clinton was such a bad candidate was her relative unpopularity with center-leaning R's and independents, precisely the sort of people who don't influence primary voting.

Primary voting is an indication of popularity within a party, not among the populace at large.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on July 26, 2017, 03:12:40 PM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40729996

Classic Trump MO: distracts from the multi-pile tire fire that is his administration by starting a new one elsewhere. Dang it, I just took the bait.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Andy on July 26, 2017, 04:40:03 PM
I miss the days when people were forced into military duty and were able to use their vast family wealth and connections to get out of said duty. And then went on to start wars and impose their own beliefs on who is fit to serve their country, despite never knowing what that entails.

We really are living in a warped George Orwell/Joseph Heller novel, aren't we?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on July 28, 2017, 09:22:12 AM
Spicier than the Spice Man:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/anthony-scaramucci-called-me-to-unload-about-white-house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon

I'm guessing the Mooch and the Donald have the same dealer.

Obamacare survived the midnight vote again, btw.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bullfrog on July 28, 2017, 12:32:43 PM
He's just a straight-shooting son-of-a-gun.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on July 28, 2017, 12:47:20 PM

Someone on Twitter pointed out that Scaramucci has responded by blaming the reporter for printing what he said, which either means Scaramucci didn't understand to ask for his conversation to be off the record or he did, the reporter printed it anyway and Scaramucci was effectively committing one of the "leaks" his numbskull boss thinks is a federal offense.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on July 28, 2017, 01:07:09 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on July 28, 2017, 12:47:20 PM

Someone on Twitter pointed out that Scaramucci has responded by blaming the reporter for printing what he said, which either means Scaramucci didn't understand to ask for his conversation to be off the record or he did, the reporter printed it anyway and Scaramucci was effectively committing one of the "leaks" his numbskull boss thinks is a federal offense.

The best part: the guy CALLED the reporter demanding to know who was leaking information from the White House.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Arn on July 28, 2017, 05:24:43 PM
Remember back when we thought George W was a bit dumb and slow and all?

Then we got Obama who was intelligent, eloquent and erudite.

So the US decided it was best to go back to George W to the power of infinity
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on July 28, 2017, 05:30:16 PM
Quote from: Arn on July 28, 2017, 05:24:43 PM
Remember back when we thought George W was a bit dumb and slow and all?

Then we got Obama who was intelligent, eloquent and erudite.

So the US decided it was best to go back to George W to the power of infinity

The last three Democratic presidents were a constitutional lawyer, a Rhodes scholar and a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on July 28, 2017, 05:46:40 PM
Preibus is fired.  John Kelly is the new Chief of Staff.  That probably isn't going to go over well with the GOP.  I think Reince was essentially a spy in Trump's broom blister.  I'm expecting more Republican dissent against him moving forward.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on July 28, 2017, 06:00:50 PM
I liked Obama but that Peace prize was pretty suspect.
Quote from: Nik the Trik on July 28, 2017, 05:30:16 PM
Quote from: Arn on July 28, 2017, 05:24:43 PM
Remember back when we thought George W was a bit dumb and slow and all?

Then we got Obama who was intelligent, eloquent and erudite.

So the US decided it was best to go back to George W to the power of infinity

The last three Democratic presidents were a constitutional lawyer, a Rhodes scholar and a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on July 28, 2017, 06:06:48 PM
Quote from: Bates on July 28, 2017, 06:00:50 PM
I liked Obama but that Peace prize was pretty suspect.

No, although I see how you could make that mistake. Obama was the Constitutional Lawyer. I'm referring to the other Democratic President who won the Peace Prize.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bates on July 28, 2017, 06:56:04 PM
Gotcha. That makes more sense.  My point still stands.
Quote from: Nik the Trik on July 28, 2017, 06:06:48 PM
Quote from: Bates on July 28, 2017, 06:00:50 PM
I liked Obama but that Peace prize was pretty suspect.

No, although I see how you could make that mistake. Obama was the Constitutional Lawyer. I'm referring to the other Democratic President who won the Peace Prize.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on July 28, 2017, 07:09:59 PM
Quote from: Bates on July 28, 2017, 06:56:04 PM
Gotcha. That makes more sense.  My point still stands.

I don't agree so much but I'm not super interested in an 8 year old argument.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Arn on July 29, 2017, 07:53:25 PM
Pretty scathing assessment in the UK papers tomorrow 

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/30/observer-view-of-donald-trump-unifit-for-office
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: hockeyfan1 on July 30, 2017, 04:31:59 PM
Quote from: Arn on July 29, 2017, 07:53:25 PM
Pretty scathing assessment in the UK papers tomorrow 

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/30/observer-view-of-donald-trump-unifit-for-office


The article seems spot on.  What better way to describe it.  Sadly.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on July 31, 2017, 02:56:09 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/us/politics/anthony-scaramucci-white-house.html

QuotePresident Trump has decided to remove Anthony Scaramucci from his position as communications director, three people close to the decision said Monday, relieving him just days after Mr. Scaramucci unloaded a crude verbal tirade against other senior members of the president's senior staff.

[...]

The decision to remove Mr. Scaramucci, who had boasted about reporting directly to the president, not the chief of staff, John F. Kelly, came at Mr. Kelly's request, the people said. Mr. Kelly made clear to members of the White House staff at a meeting Monday morning that he is in charge.

Oh man, this is gold.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on July 31, 2017, 03:23:27 PM
https://thinkprogress.org/scaramucci-out-as-white-house-communications-director-after-10-surreal-days-fed3f3ccb493

QuoteThen, over the weekend, the New York Post broke news that Scaramucci's wife demanded a divorce from him earlier this month, shortly before she gave birth to their child, in part because of her frustrations about Scaramucci taking a job working from Trump.

Scaramucci reportedly missed the birth of his child to attend the Boy Scout Jamboree with Trump. He sent his wife a congratulatory text.

Haha.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Arn on July 31, 2017, 04:10:28 PM
He clearly wasn't willing to do the Fandango
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on July 31, 2017, 05:49:13 PM
(https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/scaramucci-kiss.gif)
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Arn on August 03, 2017, 11:02:59 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/us/politics/those-calls-to-trump-white-house-admits-they-didnt-happen.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

QuoteSarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, confirmed at her daily briefing what the Boy Scouts and the Mexican government had already asserted publicly, which is that neither phone call that Mr. Trump referred to had occurred.

Just goes to show, if you lie with confidence you'll probably get away with it
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on August 03, 2017, 11:12:52 AM
Quote from: Arn on August 03, 2017, 11:02:59 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/us/politics/those-calls-to-trump-white-house-admits-they-didnt-happen.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

QuoteSarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, confirmed at her daily briefing what the Boy Scouts and the Mexican government had already asserted publicly, which is that neither phone call that Mr. Trump referred to had occurred.

Just goes to show, if you lie with confidence you'll probably get away with it

This bit in particular is incredible:

Quote"I wouldn't say it was a lie — that's a pretty bold accusation," Ms. Sanders said. "The conversations took place, they just simply didn't take place over a phone call, they happened in person."

So Trump says a couple of phone calls were made, they weren't but somehow that's not a lie? How do these people look at themselves in the mirror?
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Arn on August 03, 2017, 11:19:43 AM
Presumably because no matter what they do they seem to keep getting away with it, no matter how outrageous.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bender on August 03, 2017, 11:58:03 AM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on August 03, 2017, 11:12:52 AM
Quote from: Arn on August 03, 2017, 11:02:59 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/us/politics/those-calls-to-trump-white-house-admits-they-didnt-happen.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

QuoteSarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, confirmed at her daily briefing what the Boy Scouts and the Mexican government had already asserted publicly, which is that neither phone call that Mr. Trump referred to had occurred.

Just goes to show, if you lie with confidence you'll probably get away with it

This bit in particular is incredible:

Quote"I wouldn't say it was a lie — that's a pretty bold accusation," Ms. Sanders said. "The conversations took place, they just simply didn't take place over a phone call, they happened in person."

So Trump says a couple of phone calls were made, they weren't but somehow that's not a lie? How do these people look at themselves in the mirror?

They also likely didn't happen in person but there's no corroborating evidence. I love how America spun so far against basic reasoning that any extraordinary claim doesn't really need to be backed up with ANY evidence, let alone the extraordinary kind.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on August 03, 2017, 08:53:12 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on August 03, 2017, 11:12:52 AM
So Trump says a couple of phone calls were made, they weren't but somehow that's not a lie? How do these people look at themselves in the mirror?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn_PSJsl0LQ
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on August 04, 2017, 07:17:16 AM
https://twitter.com/sethabramson/status/893206561316909056
www.twitter.com/sethabramson/status/893206561316909056

I've learned so much about the US electoral, congressional, and judiciary systems in the past 7 months.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on August 08, 2017, 03:58:17 PM
https://twitter.com/AP/status/895003246372294657

Come on, just let the Leafs win a Cup first ok...
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: bustaheims on August 08, 2017, 04:17:16 PM
Well, it was a nice planet we had once . . .

At least nuclear winter could mean hockey all year, and in every country . . .
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bullfrog on August 08, 2017, 05:59:04 PM
Where did Trump say this?  :'(
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Arn on August 08, 2017, 06:03:57 PM
Quote from: Bullfrog on August 08, 2017, 05:59:04 PM
Where did Trump say this?  :'(

https://twitter.com/abc/status/895006061198848000

I suppose climate change doesn't matter when you instantaneously heat the planet with masses of nuclear explosions
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bullfrog on August 09, 2017, 07:49:44 AM
Quote from: http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/09/politics/north-korea-donald-trump/index.html?sr=fbCNNp080917north-korea-donald-trump0724AMVODtop&CNNPolitics=fb"The US should (remember), however, that once there observed a sign of action for 'preventive war' from the US, the army of the DPRK will turn the US mainland into the theater of a nuclear war before the inviolable land of the DPRK turns into the one,"
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on August 09, 2017, 08:55:59 AM
Sounds like someone got a bit excited watching GoT.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Arn on August 09, 2017, 08:58:57 AM
Looking forward to Angela Merkel flying in on her dragons to sort it all out
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: cabber24 on August 09, 2017, 09:08:04 AM
'they will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.'

He knows nukes have been used in the past right? What's bigger, 2 nukes? Kim's tunnel vision combined with Trumps stupidity is scary. We're the one's that are going to need a wall soon or maybe just a privacy fence.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on August 09, 2017, 09:17:02 AM
Quote from: cabber24 on August 09, 2017, 09:08:04 AM
'they will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.'

He knows nukes have been used in the past right? What's bigger, 2 nukes?

Actually just about any modern nuclear weapon would be significantly larger than the ones dropped on Japan.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on August 09, 2017, 09:51:04 AM
https://news.vice.com/story/trump-folder-positive-news-white-house

QuoteTwice a day since the beginning of the Trump administration, a special folder is prepared for the president. The first document is prepared around 9:30 a.m. and the follow-up, around 4:30 p.m. Former Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and former Press Secretary Sean Spicer both wanted the privilege of delivering the 20-to-25-page packet to President Trump personally, White House sources say.

These sensitive papers, described to VICE News by three current and former White House officials, don't contain top-secret intelligence or updates on legislative initiatives. Instead, the folders are filled with screenshots of positive cable news chyrons (those lower-third headlines and crawls), admiring tweets, transcripts of fawning TV interviews, praise-filled news stories, and sometimes just pictures of Trump on TV looking powerful.

This is even more amazing than I imagined. The film basically writes itself (if we aren't left with a nuclear wasteland and runaway greenhouse effect/ice age, which incidentally, would also write itself).
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Zee on August 09, 2017, 09:53:55 AM
The Leafs are closer to a Cup than anytime in my lifetime and we're also closer to nuclear annihilation. I always figured the world would end before the Leafs won another cup.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: CarltonTheBear on August 09, 2017, 09:57:13 AM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on August 09, 2017, 09:17:02 AM
Quote from: cabber24 on August 09, 2017, 09:08:04 AM
He knows nukes have been used in the past right? What's bigger, 2 nukes?

Actually just about any modern nuclear weapon would be significantly larger than the ones dropped on Japan.

Further to Nik's point, I'm fairly confident Trump doesn't know anything about Hiroshima and Nagasaki anyway.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on August 09, 2017, 10:16:26 AM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on August 09, 2017, 09:57:13 AM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on August 09, 2017, 09:17:02 AM
Quote from: cabber24 on August 09, 2017, 09:08:04 AM
He knows nukes have been used in the past right? What's bigger, 2 nukes?

Actually just about any modern nuclear weapon would be significantly larger than the ones dropped on Japan.

Further to Nik's point, I'm fairly confident Trump doesn't know anything about Hiroshima and Nagasaki anyway.

It took until grade 6 for me to learn that there was one dropped on Nagasaki as well.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Zee on August 09, 2017, 11:18:36 AM
Quote from: herman on August 09, 2017, 10:16:26 AM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on August 09, 2017, 09:57:13 AM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on August 09, 2017, 09:17:02 AM
Quote from: cabber24 on August 09, 2017, 09:08:04 AM
He knows nukes have been used in the past right? What's bigger, 2 nukes?

Actually just about any modern nuclear weapon would be significantly larger than the ones dropped on Japan.

Further to Nik's point, I'm fairly confident Trump doesn't know anything about Hiroshima and Nagasaki anyway.

It took until grade 6 for me to learn that there was one dropped on Nagasaki as well.

The bigger one no less.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on August 09, 2017, 11:24:04 AM
So this is geopolitical grandstanding yes?

Another proxy war between Russia/China and America/The West?

There was an excellent comment on reddit yesterday that outlined the whole situation.

https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/6sfvxd/comment/dlclsnx?st=J655ZV6N&sh=ccf46a2b

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: L K on August 09, 2017, 11:35:23 AM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on August 09, 2017, 09:57:13 AM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on August 09, 2017, 09:17:02 AM
Quote from: cabber24 on August 09, 2017, 09:08:04 AM
He knows nukes have been used in the past right? What's bigger, 2 nukes?

Actually just about any modern nuclear weapon would be significantly larger than the ones dropped on Japan.

Further to Nik's point, I'm fairly confident Trump doesn't know anything about Hiroshima and Nagasaki anyway.

I heard they are bad hombres. The Chinese have been stealing our jobs for too long.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: herman on August 09, 2017, 01:37:11 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-conducted-predawn-raid-of-former-trump-campaign-chairman-manaforts-home/2017/08/09/5879fa9c-7c45-11e7-9d08-b79f191668ed_story.html

They're looking into additional pressure points in Manafort's dealings to get him to roll on his comrades.
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Bender on August 09, 2017, 06:19:49 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on August 09, 2017, 09:17:02 AM
Quote from: cabber24 on August 09, 2017, 09:08:04 AM
'they will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.'

He knows nukes have been used in the past right? What's bigger, 2 nukes?

Actually just about any modern nuclear weapon would be significantly larger than the ones dropped on Japan.
Bigger than the Tsar Bomba? I mean we haven't "seen" what kind of devastation it could bring to people but that was one hell of a bomb.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Rob on August 09, 2017, 07:38:04 PM
Quote from: Bender on August 09, 2017, 06:19:49 PM
Quote from: Nik the Trik on August 09, 2017, 09:17:02 AM
Quote from: cabber24 on August 09, 2017, 09:08:04 AM
'they will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.'

He knows nukes have been used in the past right? What's bigger, 2 nukes?

Actually just about any modern nuclear weapon would be significantly larger than the ones dropped on Japan.
Bigger than the Tsar Bomba? I mean we haven't "seen" what kind of devastation it could bring to people but that was one hell of a bomb.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

Tsar Bomba yielded about a 50 megaton explosion, largest ever.

Fatman (Nagasaki) was about 20-22 kilotons.

Little Boy (Hiromshima) was about 13-18 Kilotons.

Current US warheads can yield about 100-500 Kilotons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield
Title: Re: The Donald
Post by: Nik on August 09, 2017, 07:47:17 PM
Quote from: Bender on August 09, 2017, 06:19:49 PMBigger than the Tsar Bomba? I mean we haven't "seen" what kind of devastation it could bring to people but that was one hell of a bomb.

I can't rightly claim to be an expe