UrbanOhio.com Forum

General Discussions => Current Events => Topic started by: gottaplan on November 11, 2016, 06:32:55 PM

Title: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on November 11, 2016, 06:32:55 PM
It's time for this election thread to wind down and start a "Trump Presidency" thread...


For reference, here are links to the previous threads:

The 2008 Presidential Election and The Obama Presidency thread
http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,17531.0.html

The 2016 Presidential Election thread
http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,28680.0.html
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 11, 2016, 06:40:45 PM
Trump hasn't won anything yet. He didn't win the popular vote and the electoral college hasn't voted for him yet. And even if those things happen AND he is sworn in, this guy says he won't be around for long....

‘Prediction professor’ who called Trump’s big win also made another forecast: Trump will be impeached
http://a.msn.com/01/en-us/AAkbsjd?ocid=sf
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 11, 2016, 06:48:01 PM
I think the Trump presidency is inevitable.  The electoral college vote is a mere formality.  I think the opposition should channel the energy of protesting into organizing and preparing for midterm elections.  My family has started recurring donations to liberal causes.  I encourage other like minded people to do the same.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 11, 2016, 06:54:32 PM
Has Trump taken time to condemn this yet?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/kkk-donald-trump-north-carolina-2016-election/index.html


Or is his Twitter account just to condemn unfair protesting against him.  Sad.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 11, 2016, 07:12:41 PM
This guy said he's going to be making a lot of these in the coming days and weeks and years, posted at http://trickedbytrump.tumblr.com/
https://t.co/7Kyi819Bkv
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 11, 2016, 07:20:01 PM
"I'm just sick to my stomach"
Gregg Popovich uncensored: Full transcript of thoughts on Donald Trump
http://m.mysanantonio.com/sports/spurs/article/Gregg-Popovich-uncensored-Discusses-the-10609311.php
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Cleburger on November 11, 2016, 07:20:53 PM
I think the Trump presidency is inevitable.  The electoral college vote is a mere formality.  I think the opposition should channel the energy of protesting into organizing and preparing for midterm elections.  My family has started recurring donations to liberal causes.  I encourage other like minded people to do the same.

I don't mind the protesters--it's their right to express their dismay that a minority of the population imposed the will of a racist, unqualified idiot to lead us all.     I do hope they keep it classy and the small minority that are causing damage and violence go away. 

But their voices must be heard--IMO the more he hears, the more he will be forced to go running for the center, as witnessed already in backing off Obamacare (I'm sure their are heads exploding in the GOP Congressional ranks!).

It will be interesting to see what his inaugural parade becomes.   I'm already hearing rumors of a "Million Pussy" march....
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 11, 2016, 07:22:32 PM
So if we should talk about him like he's president, shouldn't he start acting like one?

“President-elect” Donald Trump didn’t bother to show up to any Veterans Day events today
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/president-elect-donald-trump-didnt-bother-to-show-up-to-any-veterans-day-events-today/26606/
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 11, 2016, 07:39:07 PM
I think the Trump presidency is inevitable.  The electoral college vote is a mere formality.  I think the opposition should channel the energy of protesting into organizing and preparing for midterm elections.  My family has started recurring donations to liberal causes.  I encourage other like minded people to do the same.

I don't mind the protesters--it's their right to express their dismay that a minority of the population imposed the will of a racist, unqualified idiot to lead us all.     I do hope they keep it classy and the small minority that are causing damage and violence go away. 

But their voices must be heard--IMO the more he hears, the more he will be forced to go running for the center, as witnessed already in backing off Obamacare (I'm sure their are heads exploding in the GOP Congressional ranks!).

It will be interesting to see what his inaugural parade becomes.   I'm already hearing rumors of a "Million Pussy" march....

Don't misunderstand me.  I fully support the protests and I hope they continue and grow.  I then hope that energy will lead to organization and action. 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 11, 2016, 07:40:02 PM
So if we should talk about him like he's president, shouldn't he start acting like one?

“President-elect” Donald Trump didn’t bother to show up to any Veterans Day events today
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/president-elect-donald-trump-didnt-bother-to-show-up-to-any-veterans-day-events-today/26606/

He doesn't need to pander to losers that didn't get medical deferrals for heel spurs anymore.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: X on November 12, 2016, 12:04:20 AM
A question for anyone complaining / protesting about the electoral college - if Trump won the popular vote buy lost the electoral vote would you still be protesting? If not, you don't actually care about it you're just bias.


Will you still be defending it if some of the electors decide not to cast their votes for Trump?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: David on November 12, 2016, 04:24:14 AM
You guys need to learn to accept that Trump was democratically elected. Stop whining.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 12, 2016, 06:11:38 AM
I can never accept him as my president. He'd have to be a human first. F--- that piece of sh!t.

Meanwhile, in the shocker of all shockers, he's not rejecting Washington insiders. He's hiring them...

Trump Campaigned Against Lobbyists, but Now They’re on His Transition Team
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/us/politics/trump-campaigned-against-lobbyists-now-theyre-on-his-transition-team.html?_r=0
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 12, 2016, 06:31:48 AM
There's nothing unfair with the current system. I can't speak to the complexity of how it was devised, but the Electoral College appears to act as a check/balance for the entire nation by giving a more equal voice to parts of the country that otherwise would be subsumed in elections by areas with highly concentrated populations. How fair would it be, for instance, if New York City was permitted to pick the mayor of Cleveland, and election after election this would happen because NY's population is, of course, many times that of Cleve. I know that's not a good analogy, but this is why the Electoral College acts as a safeguard against that degree of power held by only certain areas of the country.

Actually, the primary purpose of the EC, as contemplated by those who devised it, was to make sure a populist nut job was never elected President. That's why 538 people, not the entire nation, are the only votes which count. Just saying....
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 12, 2016, 06:37:02 AM
You guys need to learn to accept that Trump was democratically elected. Stop whining.

I personally haven't whined one bit, but just curious.  Did you tell Trump supporters to stop whining throughout the entire election about all those rigged system and bias fears which didn't come to fruition?  And he hasn't been elected yet. Plus, if we lived in a pure democracy, he wouldn't have been elected at all, and neither would've Bush in 2000. I think it is fair for the side which has won the pop vote 2 of the last 3 times it lost the WH to gripe a bit about this "rigged system"
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 8Titles on November 12, 2016, 07:11:11 AM
While I can't say that I'm happy Trump was elected as I was not a supporter, I can say that I'm uber ecstatic that the scumbag Clinton's won't be allowed back in the WH.  The last thing we needed was Bill hanging out in his PJ's like Hue Hefner chasing interns around the WH in between his $500K speaking engagements.  While Hillary and her cronies worked to bring more of the private sector under government control allowing for even more and deeper corruption.

Now that Trump will be the next president, here's my wish list to get working on:

1. Slow the gravy train from a geyser to a trickle, incentivize people to contribute to society.
2. Cut taxes for everyone, allowing for economic expansion and jobs for anyone who "wants to" work, especially those who are taken off the government gravy train.  Simply grow the economy.
3. Align with any & all against radical Islam and those that support them.  Going down the same path we were on would've lead to all out war in the region within 5 years.
4. Get illegal immigration under at least moderate control, physical wall not that big a deal for me.
5. Balance fiscal budgets and begin paying off the $20,000,000,000,000 Chinese credit card.
6. Convert Obamacare into Commonsensecare, basically slice off the stupid parts of it that are causing rates to skyrocket for everyone, especially for small business owners.
7. Rebuild the military with new weaponry and a bigger active duty force to the point where the US military acts as a deterrent, preventing wars from ever beginning.
8. Create more safeguards to prevent special interests and corrupt politicians from controlling the country.
9. Review of treaties & alliances, separate our true friends from nothing more than check cashers, stop giving away hard-earned money for nothing.
10. Appoint Supreme Court judges that will protect the constitution, not create a new one.

That's my starter list, could care less "how" he does these things, just get them done.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 12, 2016, 07:26:03 AM
I think anyone who has ever been on this mystical government gravy train would tell you it's not so gravy

And you might not care how it gets done, but cutting taxes and increasing military spending at the same time is simply not realistic. Nor is keep all the good parts of the ACA while getting rid of the ill effects which are caused by the good/popular parts.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Htsguy on November 12, 2016, 07:30:07 AM
^I was more struck by the mis-statement that Obamacare is some how hurting small business owners.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on November 12, 2016, 07:30:38 AM
Oh, General Assistance cash welfare payments still totally exist guys, for real
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 12, 2016, 07:30:44 AM
Funny you say that a wall with Mexico is not that big of a deal for you, and yet in the very next sentence you want us to pay off our "$20 trillion Chinese credit card. Does that mean you want the wall? Or you don't care if its built or not?

Either way, I suggest building the wall and paying off the credit card are incompatible, unless you really do want big government. The tax increase for accomplishing these two mammoth expenditures would be rather large, I suspect. Oh, that's right, you don't care how this list gets done, as long as it gets done.

Quote
Rebuild the military with new weaponry and a bigger active duty force to the point where the US military acts as a deterrent, preventing wars from ever beginning.

What, having the largest military in the world isn't enough of a deterrent?

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/4A8078449E794DFB8CC33ADD00A6F1AF.gif)


Quote
Appoint Supreme Court judges that will protect the constitution, not create a new one.

https://www.reference.com/government-politics/constitution-called-living-document-35baba394719fdd8
Why is the Constitution called a "living document?"
QUICK ANSWER
The Constitution of the United States is referred to as a "living document" because it the architects of the document intended for it to be adapted by future generations. It is because it is adaptable, that amendments could be ratified, or added to it.

Furthermore, interpretations of words and beliefs change over time. There are those who now believe the Founding Fathers were fundamental Christians and thus the Constitution should be considered as a dogmatic Christian document. However some of the Founding Fathers were actually Diests! That's OK. The religious nuts who don't like history usually create a new one.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 8Titles on November 12, 2016, 07:37:12 AM
I think anyone who has ever been on this mystical government gravy train would tell you it's not so gravy

Exactly, that's why we need to get people off of it by creating jobs (with adequate health insurance) that gets them off it.  Growing the number and flow of the GGT like Obama did for 8 years while the income gap between the richest and poorest grew further is not the answer, most people just want to work, they just need that opportunity.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 12, 2016, 07:50:50 AM
$20 Trillion chinese credit card....lol.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 8Titles on November 12, 2016, 07:55:22 AM
Funny you say that a wall with Mexico is not that big of a deal for you, and yet in the very next sentence you want us to pay off our "$20 trillion Chinese credit card. Does that mean you want the wall? Or you don't care if its built or not?

Either way, I suggest building the wall and paying off the credit card are incompatible, unless you really do want big government. The tax increase for accomplishing these two mammoth expenditures would be rather large, I suspect. Oh, that's right, you don't care how this list gets done, as long as it gets done.

Quote
Rebuild the military with new weaponry and a bigger active duty force to the point where the US military acts as a deterrent, preventing wars from ever beginning.

What, having the largest military in the world isn't enough of a deterrent?

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/4A8078449E794DFB8CC33ADD00A6F1AF.gif)


Quote
Appoint Supreme Court judges that will protect the constitution, not create a new one.

https://www.reference.com/government-politics/constitution-called-living-document-35baba394719fdd8
Why is the Constitution called a "living document?"
QUICK ANSWER
The Constitution of the United States is referred to as a "living document" because it the architects of the document intended for it to be adapted by future generations. It is because it is adaptable, that amendments could be ratified, or added to it.

Furthermore, interpretations of words and beliefs change over time. There are those who now believe the Founding Fathers were fundamental Christians and thus the Constitution should be considered as a dogmatic Christian document. However some of the Founding Fathers were actually Diests! That's OK. The religious nuts who don't like history usually create a new one.
I don't care how he gets my list done, just do it..

* I have no issues with adding amendments to the constitution, just with changing existing one's.
* If the US is going to protect Eastern Europe (like you're always flailing around about), protect Asia from communist China and North Korea, protect Israel and US friendly allies in the Middle East, and otherwise protect the American way of life, we need a MUCH larger military than other countries.  If we don't care about those things, shrink it..  Can't have both.
* Don't care about a wall in Ohio, but probably would if I lived in Texas, NM, AZ.  Anyway, just get illegal immigration under control, at least pretend to care unlike Obama.
* Yes, pay off the Chinese CC that Obama rang up by balancing budgets and then some.

A couple others I forgot:

* Enforce trade deals, then sign better one's
* Incentivize (or penalize) US based global companies to hire American workers, not Indians, Eastern Eurpoeans, Central Americans.
* Cut government sponsored programs and initiatives that add no value to society, other than push their own little initiatives.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 12, 2016, 07:58:55 AM
you keep mentioning the Chinese credit card which leads me to believe that you do not know who actually holds the vast majority of national debt.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 8Titles on November 12, 2016, 08:09:40 AM
you keep mentioning the Chinese credit card which leads me to believe that you do not know who actually holds the vast majority of national debt.
Ok fine, replace "$20T Chinese CC" with "$20T national debt", good grief..
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 12, 2016, 08:10:44 AM
God forbid that you should include facts in your rant.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Pablo on November 12, 2016, 08:46:40 AM
Let the backpedaling begin.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-and-aides-hedge-on-major-pledges-including-obamacare-and-the-wall/2016/11/11/9196b364-a82f-11e6-8fc0-7be8f848c492_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-banner-main_transition-810pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gordon Bombay on November 12, 2016, 09:04:47 AM
A question for anyone complaining / protesting about the electoral college - if Trump won the popular vote buy lost the electoral vote would you still be protesting? If not, you don't actually care about it you're just bias.

^ President-Elect Trump Whoever was controlling Trump's Twitter account at the time had some very eloquent comments about the few peaceful protest

FTFY.

I think this one was the man himself, it has that telltale style of burying a slight insult in a sarcastic compliment that he's always had since before he had a presidential staff around.

I'm gonna wager it wasn't. It replaced the "very unfair," tweet that was deleted which was in Trump's style.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on November 12, 2016, 09:17:41 AM
Let the backpedaling begin.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-and-aides-hedge-on-major-pledges-including-obamacare-and-the-wall/2016/11/11/9196b364-a82f-11e6-8fc0-7be8f848c492_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-banner-main_transition-810pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory


Uh oh, he's backing off on all that stuff the hillbillies liked already
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 8Titles on November 12, 2016, 09:35:41 AM
Let the backpedaling begin.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-and-aides-hedge-on-major-pledges-including-obamacare-and-the-wall/2016/11/11/9196b364-a82f-11e6-8fc0-7be8f848c492_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-banner-main_transition-810pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory


Uh oh, he's backing off on all that stuff the hillbillies liked already
Stereotyping people who voted for Trump, nice.  Just more of the typical hypocritical phony type stuff that define so many Lib's.  If anyone on this board would stereotype Obama voters in a similar manner, they'd be banned.  But that's just how Lib's roll..

Getting back to Trump and him backing off of some of the grandiose promises is not a surprise to me and is why I was not a Trump supporter, but rather in the "anyone but Hillary" camp.  Trump knew and knows he'll have to make "deals" in order to get his most precious initiatives pushed through.  I just hope the things he doesn't waiver on are those things most important to the American people; economy, jobs, national security, removing corruption, etc..
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on November 12, 2016, 09:41:36 AM
^There's a difference between the hillbilly Trump voters and the non-hillbilly ones. You self-stereotyped.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 12, 2016, 09:42:39 AM
So you're saying that he had a different public vs private position on issues.?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Clevelander17 on November 12, 2016, 09:43:48 AM
Stereotyping people who voted for Trump, nice.  Just more of the typical hypocritical phony type stuff that define so many Lib's.  If anyone on this board would stereotype Obama voters in a similar manner, they'd be banned.  But that's just how Lib's roll..

Would it have been better if he were more specific? For instance, perhaps he should have said that Trump is backing off on the ideas that the KKK wing of the GOP strongly supports.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: unusualfire on November 12, 2016, 09:48:37 AM
you keep mentioning the Chinese credit card which leads me to believe that you do not know who actually holds the vast majority of national debt.
We ourselves do.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: David on November 12, 2016, 09:55:52 AM
I can never accept him as my president. He'd have to be a human first. F--- that piece of sh!t.

Meanwhile, in the shocker of all shockers, he's not rejecting Washington insiders. He's hiring them...

Trump Campaigned Against Lobbyists, but Now They’re on His Transition Team
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/us/politics/trump-campaigned-against-lobbyists-now-theyre-on-his-transition-team.html?_r=0

It seems like he's basically making moves that will try to appease as many people as possible, to be a 'president for everybody.' He could be a sellout, too. I don't know, but I think it's too early to tell. He's doing a lot of things that wouldn't appeal to his core base. In addition to this, I've also heard that he spoke to South Korean leaders and assured them that we would continue to keep our military over there and support them in their defense against the threat of North Korea. This is a globalist move that runs counter to what he told his supporters, which was that we're wasting a lot of money by doing so and that if they want our help, they're going to have to pay a lot of money. He may have prevented their stock market from crashing by having that conversation.

Yet, to some of you, if the president-elect isn't on 'your team,' there's simply no good move that he / she could make. It's a lose-lose situation. They are either promoting policies you didn't vote for or they proved to be phony / liars who weren't true to their word. Democrats were appalled by the idea that Donald Trump said he might not secede but now I see Democrats who not only aren't willing to secede but are promoting protests that are turning into riots which is further dividing this country. I understand the frustration but you have to give him a real chance first, before you go nuts about it. Consider that maybe our system elected him for reason and think positive; at least for now.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: David on November 12, 2016, 10:07:18 AM
I wonder who will be the suppliers of concrete involved in building this wall. Imagine the amount of money you could make, investing in those companies! I was watching CNN last night and there was an urban planner on there, explaining that the wall would have to be about 25 feet tall and 10 feet deep, all along the border. That's a lot of concrete!
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 12, 2016, 10:09:52 AM
There will not be a wall.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 12, 2016, 10:53:12 AM
It's time for this election thread to wind down and start a "Trump Presidency" thread...
agreed. By the way, the Obama Presidency thread was started more than two weeks before he was even elected  :wtf:, Oct. 15, 2008!! I'd say the Trump Pres. thread is behind schedule--

The Obama Presidency
« on: October 15, 2008, 01:35:44 PM »

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,17531.0.html#ixzz4Pob1Q5UH
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: thebillshark on November 12, 2016, 11:13:22 AM
There will not be a wall.

What makes you so sure?

EDIT: for the record I think a wall would be a total disaster. It would be ineffectual. It would empower cartels and smugglers. It would suck up resources exponentially. It would be obsolete the second we change immigration and drug policies but still continue to demand funding as vested interests take over. It would be bad for the environment and prevent wildlife movement.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 12, 2016, 11:16:46 AM
There will not be a wall.

What makes you so sure?

Gingrich has already said it's not happening.  Plus congress needs to approve the budget for it.  It is not happening.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on November 12, 2016, 11:21:44 AM
It's not going to be that long before Mexico is a first-world country anyway. The motivation to come over here is waning. Trump and his policy people already know this.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: thebillshark on November 12, 2016, 11:22:58 AM
There will not be a wall.

What makes you so sure?

Gingrich has already said it's not happening.  Plus congress needs to approve the budget for it.  It is not happening.

This is his main campaign promise and Congress will be eating out of his hand. Once again he is the one that led them to the promised land and the leader of the party. He will get whatever he wants. The Republican old guard will only be able to do stuff he doesn't really care about or get feedback on. He will hear all the nutjobs demanding the wall.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 12, 2016, 11:25:31 AM
It's not going to be that long before Mexico is a first-world country anyway. The motivation to come over here is waning. Trump and his policy people already know this.

I'm not so sure about that.  They still have a very hierarchical culture and a supremely corrupt and officious government.

India's much more technologically adept and well educated, but they are still third world for those exact reasons.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on November 12, 2016, 11:27:06 AM
There's a lot of things he said he was going to build or built that he didn't. Like that Wrestlemania in Atlantic City that they said took place in one of his buildings but actually took place in a publicly-owned civic center.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 12, 2016, 11:32:31 AM
so refreshing when someone has the courage to speak out against all the phony-baloney bullsh#t of the fake liberals who control the media and tell the truth :clap:
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: X on November 12, 2016, 11:41:44 AM
It's time for this election thread to wind down and start a "Trump Presidency" thread...
agreed. By the way, the Obama Presidency thread was started more than two weeks before he was even elected  :wtf:, Oct. 15, 2008!! I'd say the Trump Pres. thread is behind schedule--

The Obama Presidency
« on: October 15, 2008, 01:35:44 PM »

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,17531.0.html#ixzz4Pob1Q5UH

You want to start it?  Start it.  Any forumer can start a thread.  It is not something the mods or admins have to do.  You and Ram23 can race for the honor.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: X on November 12, 2016, 11:49:25 AM
While I can't say that I'm happy Trump was elected as I was not a supporter, I can say that I'm uber ecstatic that the scumbag Clinton's won't be allowed back in the WH.  The last thing we needed was Bill hanging out in his PJ's like Hue Hefner chasing interns around the WH in between his $500K speaking engagements.  While Hillary and her cronies worked to bring more of the private sector under government control allowing for even more and deeper corruption.

Now that Trump will be the next president, here's my wish list to get working on:

1. Slow the gravy train from a geyser to a trickle, incentivize people to contribute to society.
2. Cut taxes for everyone, allowing for economic expansion and jobs for anyone who "wants to" work, especially those who are taken off the government gravy train.  Simply grow the economy.
3. Align with any & all against radical Islam and those that support them.  Going down the same path we were on would've lead to all out war in the region within 5 years.
4. Get illegal immigration under at least moderate control, physical wall not that big a deal for me.
5. Balance fiscal budgets and begin paying off the $20,000,000,000,000 Chinese credit card.
6. Convert Obamacare into Commonsensecare, basically slice off the stupid parts of it that are causing rates to skyrocket for everyone, especially for small business owners.
7. Rebuild the military with new weaponry and a bigger active duty force to the point where the US military acts as a deterrent, preventing wars from ever beginning.
8. Create more safeguards to prevent special interests and corrupt politicians from controlling the country.
9. Review of treaties & alliances, separate our true friends from nothing more than check cashers, stop giving away hard-earned money for nothing.
10. Appoint Supreme Court judges that will protect the constitution, not create a new one.

That's my starter list, could care less "how" he does these things, just get them done.

This is the sort of magical thinking that got us Trump.  You want to reduce government revenue, boost government spending, and pay down the debt?  Don't care how it's done?  You do know that discretionary domestic spending is a small fraction of our government expenditures, the "gravy train" you speak of a mere sliver?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 12, 2016, 12:05:33 PM
^wasn't Ram the first who mentioned it? Maybe he should do it. According to some predictions here it will be short-lived. Although if the electors do not vote as they are expected to do, there will be riots in the streets that will dwarf what we're currently seeing. Maybe a "Civil War" thread will be needed  :police:
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 12, 2016, 12:35:20 PM
This Story Should Dominate the News Until Trump Is Sworn In

Why in Christ's sweet name isn't this thundering through the news cycle right now? Why aren't hundreds of national-security reporters all over it? We have elected a guy who may well have traded what little integrity he has to a vicious autocrat and his thieves-in-law. (Note to anyone who takes exception: This is not "red-baiting" because these crooks are not Red.) We know he can't get a loan from most American banks, so he has to go overseas for a lot of his financing. What banks is he tied into, and are any of those banks tied into the Russian government? Whom does he owe and how much does he owe them? And how do they plan to collect?

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a50598/russian-talked-to-trump-campaign/
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 12, 2016, 12:40:39 PM
This Story Should Dominate the News Until Trump Is Sworn In

Why in Christ's sweet name isn't this thundering through the news cycle right now? Why aren't hundreds of national-security reporters all over it? We have elected a guy who may well have traded what little integrity he has to a vicious autocrat and his thieves-in-law. (Note to anyone who takes exception: This is not "red-baiting" because these crooks are not Red.) We know he can't get a loan from most American banks, so he has to go overseas for a lot of his financing. What banks is he tied into, and are any of those banks tied into the Russian government? Whom does he owe and how much does he owe them? And how do they plan to collect?

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a50598/russian-talked-to-trump-campaign/

but EMAILS
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 12, 2016, 01:33:30 PM
even if Trump eventually goes down in flames, his election (well, you know, it's actually in question because technically it hasn't happened yet :roll:) was worth it for stories like this. They just keep coming. Any parent who considers it an honor if their kid is admitted to Michigan (allegedly one of the most prestigious public universities in the nation) might wanna consider another school. I would say I blame my generation--baby boomers--for producing kids like this, but I think by now a lot of them are the spawn of Gen-X'ers, right?? Please, let it be some other group! lol

U. of Michigan Gives Students Play-Doh, Coloring Books to Cope With Trump

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/11/10/u-of-michigan-gives-students-play-doh-coloring-books-to-cope-with-trump/1/

“People are frustrated, people are just really sad and shocked,” said Trey Boynton, the director of multi-ethnic student affairs at the University of Michigan. “A lot of people are feeling like there has been a loss. We talked about grief today and about the loss of hope that this election would solidify the progress that was being made.”

There was a steady flow of students entering Ms. Boynton’s office Wednesday. They spent the day sprawled around the center, playing with Play-Doh and coloring in coloring books, as they sought comfort and distraction.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: TBideon on November 12, 2016, 02:10:14 PM
This can't possibly be real...
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 12, 2016, 02:14:22 PM
Conservative "news" site.  Take it with a grain of salt.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on November 12, 2016, 04:10:07 PM
This Story Should Dominate the News Until Trump Is Sworn In

Why in Christ's sweet name isn't this thundering through the news cycle right now? Why aren't hundreds of national-security reporters all over it? We have elected a guy who may well have traded what little integrity he has to a vicious autocrat and his thieves-in-law. (Note to anyone who takes exception: This is not "red-baiting" because these crooks are not Red.) We know he can't get a loan from most American banks, so he has to go overseas for a lot of his financing. What banks is he tied into, and are any of those banks tied into the Russian government? Whom does he owe and how much does he owe them? And how do they plan to collect?

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a50598/russian-talked-to-trump-campaign/

Ok I clicked on the article.  It says there was contact with Trump.  Nothing more specific on what t was about? 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Clevelander17 on November 12, 2016, 04:45:37 PM
Yet, to some of you, if the president-elect isn't on 'your team,' there's simply no good move that he / she could make. It's a lose-lose situation. They are either promoting policies you didn't vote for or they proved to be phony / liars who weren't true to their word. Democrats were appalled by the idea that Donald Trump said he might not secede but now I see Democrats who not only aren't willing to secede but are promoting protests that are turning into riots which is further dividing this country. I understand the frustration but you have to give him a real chance first, before you go nuts about it. Consider that maybe our system elected him for reason and think positive; at least for now.

Here's a thought experiment for you: Is there any person in history, past or present, American or not, that, were he or she placed in charge of your country's government, you would have serious problems with and not accept that person as your representative leader? The line of "acceptable" versus not is of course different for every individual, however for many people, based on his words and even actions, that line has been crossed with the election of Donald Trump.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: urbanpioneer on November 12, 2016, 04:53:38 PM
Actually, it seems the UM Play-doh story is true, but the scheduled event it was part of has been cancelled:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/12/university-of-michigan-law-school-tries-and-fails-to-scrub-trump-trauma-play-doh-event-from-website/
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 12, 2016, 05:47:04 PM
The daily caller.. lol
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 8Titles on November 12, 2016, 06:54:24 PM
While I can't say that I'm happy Trump was elected as I was not a supporter, I can say that I'm uber ecstatic that the scumbag Clinton's won't be allowed back in the WH.  The last thing we needed was Bill hanging out in his PJ's like Hue Hefner chasing interns around the WH in between his $500K speaking engagements.  While Hillary and her cronies worked to bring more of the private sector under government control allowing for even more and deeper corruption.

Now that Trump will be the next president, here's my wish list to get working on:

1. Slow the gravy train from a geyser to a trickle, incentivize people to contribute to society.
2. Cut taxes for everyone, allowing for economic expansion and jobs for anyone who "wants to" work, especially those who are taken off the government gravy train.  Simply grow the economy.
3. Align with any & all against radical Islam and those that support them.  Going down the same path we were on would've lead to all out war in the region within 5 years.
4. Get illegal immigration under at least moderate control, physical wall not that big a deal for me.
5. Balance fiscal budgets and begin paying off the $20,000,000,000,000 Chinese credit card.
6. Convert Obamacare into Commonsensecare, basically slice off the stupid parts of it that are causing rates to skyrocket for everyone, especially for small business owners.
7. Rebuild the military with new weaponry and a bigger active duty force to the point where the US military acts as a deterrent, preventing wars from ever beginning.
8. Create more safeguards to prevent special interests and corrupt politicians from controlling the country.
9. Review of treaties & alliances, separate our true friends from nothing more than check cashers, stop giving away hard-earned money for nothing.
10. Appoint Supreme Court judges that will protect the constitution, not create a new one.

That's my starter list, could care less "how" he does these things, just get them done.

This is the sort of magical thinking that got us Trump.  You want to reduce government revenue, boost government spending, and pay down the debt?  Don't care how it's done?  You do know that discretionary domestic spending is a small fraction of our government expenditures, the "gravy train" you speak of a mere sliver?
Again I was not a Trump supporter (just anti-sleeze, aka Clinton's), but of the promises he made pre-election, those are the things I want to see get done.  I could care less about a physical wall, and would like to see some form of medical insurance program, preferably one that pays to have and doesn't cause rates to skyrocket.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Cleburger on November 12, 2016, 11:25:23 PM
You guys need to learn to accept that Trump was democratically elected. Stop whining.

We are all just following the lead of the "Whiner in Chief..."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-calls-electoral-college-a-disaster-during-2012-tweetstorm/
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: David on November 13, 2016, 07:14:58 AM
Yet, to some of you, if the president-elect isn't on 'your team,' there's simply no good move that he / she could make. It's a lose-lose situation. They are either promoting policies you didn't vote for or they proved to be phony / liars who weren't true to their word. Democrats were appalled by the idea that Donald Trump said he might not secede but now I see Democrats who not only aren't willing to secede but are promoting protests that are turning into riots which is further dividing this country. I understand the frustration but you have to give him a real chance first, before you go nuts about it. Consider that maybe our system elected him for reason and think positive; at least for now.

Here's a thought experiment for you: Is there any person in history, past or present, American or not, that, were he or she placed in charge of your country's government, you would have serious problems with and not accept that person as your representative leader? The line of "acceptable" versus not is of course different for every individual, however for many people, based on his words and even actions, that line has been crossed with the election of Donald Trump.

Yeah, Hitler, but he was a meth-head. That's why I said presidential candidates should be drug tested.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 13, 2016, 08:04:17 AM
President elect Trump sure is bringing in some swamp veterans to drain the swamp.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: David on November 13, 2016, 08:16:51 AM
Why? Is there something especially enticing about the establishment in American politics, once you're in? How does a Billionaire sell out so soon? I'm starting to believe in this illuminati, mind control stuff. I feel like if Hitler himself ran for POTUS and effectively won, he would simply find so much comfort in the old boy's club that he would lose sight of what his original plans were, let alone find the motivation to institute any sort of real change.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on November 13, 2016, 08:44:25 AM
^Don't. Politicians lie to get in office as they always have.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 8Titles on November 13, 2016, 09:13:27 AM
If you throw out California, the Clinton crime machine loses the popular vote by over 2M votes, and the electoral college is a complete blowout.  The last thing we need is the land of nuts and flakes calling the shots for the entire country.  A state with a European-born, womanizing Republican governor simply because he was a movie star.  And that has the highest % of 1st generation voters with strong ties to their mother countries (Mexico, India, Southeast Asia, China, Middle East, etc.) and their interests.  If anything, California's role in electing the president of the U.S. should be diluted, not amplified.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Cleburger on November 13, 2016, 09:26:44 AM
If you throw out California, the Clinton crime machine loses the popular vote by over 2M votes, and the electoral college is a complete blowout.  The last thing we need is the land of nuts and flakes calling the shots for the entire country.  A state with a European-born, womanizing Republican governor simply because he was a movie star.  And that has the highest % of 1st generation voters with strong ties to their mother countries (Mexico, India, Southeast Asia, China, Middle East, etc.) and their interests.  If anything, California's role in electing the president of the U.S. should be diluted, not amplified.

Happy Sunday, Herr 8Titles!   Yeah California just has the 6th largest country in the WORLD!   Why should they have a say?   While you're at it, throw out all the Mexican migrant workers from the Central Valley so your head of lettuce can inflate to $12.50.....

Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 13, 2016, 09:30:06 AM
We were lucky in Cincinnati that are sore-loser protests were pretty peaceful and only resulted in blocked streets and a shutdown of our streetcar system. Other cities have been faring far worse over the weekend:

Anti-Trump Protests: 1 Shot After 'Confrontation' in Portland; Marchers Hit NYC, L.A.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/portland-oregon-anti-trump-protest-1-shot-after-confrontation-n682896

Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: westerninterloper on November 13, 2016, 09:31:39 AM
We were lucky in Cincinnati that are sore-loser protests were pretty peaceful and only resulted in blocked streets and a shutdown of our streetcar system. Other cities have been faring far worse over the weekend:

Anti-Trump Protests: 1 Shot After 'Confrontation' in Portland; Marchers Hit NYC, L.A.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/portland-oregon-anti-trump-protest-1-shot-after-confrontation-n682896



It's funny that you think this about losing the election, instead of about what the winning candidate said and promised to do for the last 18 months. I'm sure if we looked back at your posts, you were also critical of Tea Party protests and other astroturfing from the Right during the last 8 years.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: westerninterloper on November 13, 2016, 09:33:49 AM
If you throw out California, the Clinton crime machine loses the popular vote by over 2M votes, and the electoral college is a complete blowout.  The last thing we need is the land of nuts and flakes calling the shots for the entire country.  A state with a European-born, womanizing Republican governor simply because he was a movie star.  And that has the highest % of 1st generation voters with strong ties to their mother countries (Mexico, India, Southeast Asia, China, Middle East, etc.) and their interests.  If anything, California's role in electing the president of the U.S. should be diluted, not amplified.

Oh, this is a ridiculous argument. "Throw out California?" Why not throw out Texas, that "whole nuther country"? And that nutjob Golden State Governor was a Republican, mind you.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 8Titles on November 13, 2016, 09:50:47 AM
If you throw out California, the Clinton crime machine loses the popular vote by over 2M votes, and the electoral college is a complete blowout.  The last thing we need is the land of nuts and flakes calling the shots for the entire country.  A state with a European-born, womanizing Republican governor simply because he was a movie star.  And that has the highest % of 1st generation voters with strong ties to their mother countries (Mexico, India, Southeast Asia, China, Middle East, etc.) and their interests.  If anything, California's role in electing the president of the U.S. should be diluted, not amplified.

Oh, this is a ridiculous argument. "Throw out California?" Why not throw out Texas, that "whole nuther country"? And that nutjob Golden State Governor was a Republican, mind you.
Uh, I said "womanizing Republican governor".  Because since Arnold is a famous movie-star, it makes no difference to Californians that he is a womanizer and Rebpublican, hypocritical.

Sure throw out Texas & California, it's still a blowout.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 13, 2016, 10:53:00 AM
It looks like even Kasich finally came around, it took him long enough:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/797823553244712960

Governor John Kasich of the GREAT, GREAT, GREAT State of Ohio called to congratulate me on the win. The people of Ohio were incredible!



In other news, this is a good example of why real votes are anonymous:

Police investigating after video shows mother berating son for Trump vote at school

http://www.click2houston.com/news/viral-video-mom-kicks-son-7-out-of-house-after-voting-for-donald-trump-in-mock-election-at-school

HOUSTON - Fort Bend County's sheriff officer has summed up a video of a mother harshly kicking her son out of the house because he voted for Trump at school as "absolutely disgusting."

Sheriff Troy Nehls said he was shocked by the video and has ensured that the child is now safe. Detectives has visited the child Friday night to make sure he was safe, Nehls said.
More News Headlines

In the video, you could hear the mother shouting at the boy.

"Ah, ah. And your suitcase is packed by the door. Been packed since this morning."

It's a video that some people may find tough to watch.


Here's the unedited video (NSFW website): http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e59_1478905151

If I were Donald Trump, I'd invite this kid to the White House.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 13, 2016, 11:08:30 AM
this has to stop. Again, I largely blame the media, for not covering this campaign fairly, and demonizing anyone who dares to say they supported Trump, inciting people who don't have the maturity to accept the election results to viciously attack those with whom they disagree--

Subway rider attacks Trump fan wearing ‘Make America Great Again’ hat

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/subway-rider-attacks-trump-fan-america-great-hat-article-1.2870597
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 13, 2016, 11:11:45 AM
There are incidents of violence on both sides and it's all stupid.  But it is also a relative minority of people.  Most of us just go about our day.  Stop letting the media sensationalize this stuff.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 13, 2016, 11:13:26 AM
If you throw out California, the Clinton crime machine loses the popular vote by over 2M votes, and the electoral college is a complete blowout.  The last thing we need is the land of nuts and flakes calling the shots for the entire country.  A state with a European-born, womanizing Republican governor simply because he was a movie star.  And that has the highest % of 1st generation voters with strong ties to their mother countries (Mexico, India, Southeast Asia, China, Middle East, etc.) and their interests.  If anything, California's role in electing the president of the U.S. should be diluted, not amplified.


California also subsidises "real America"  being the largest state economy in the union.  Yeah, let's throw them out because lot's of immigrants are there.  How nationalistic of you.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: surfohio on November 13, 2016, 11:18:45 AM
If you throw out California, the Clinton crime machine loses the popular vote by over 2M votes, and the electoral college is a complete blowout.  The last thing we need is the land of nuts and flakes calling the shots for the entire country.  A state with a European-born, womanizing Republican governor simply because he was a movie star.  And that has the highest % of 1st generation voters with strong ties to their mother countries (Mexico, India, Southeast Asia, China, Middle East, etc.) and their interests.  If anything, California's role in electing the president of the U.S. should be diluted, not amplified.

The governor is Jerry Brown.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 13, 2016, 11:19:06 AM
If you throw out California, the Clinton crime machine loses the popular vote by over 2M votes, and the electoral college is a complete blowout.  The last thing we need is the land of nuts and flakes calling the shots for the entire country.  A state with a European-born, womanizing Republican governor simply because he was a movie star.  And that has the highest % of 1st generation voters with strong ties to their mother countries (Mexico, India, Southeast Asia, China, Middle East, etc.) and their interests.  If anything, California's role in electing the president of the U.S. should be diluted, not amplified.

Oh, this is a ridiculous argument. "Throw out California?" Why not throw out Texas, that "whole nuther country"? And that nutjob Golden State Governor was a Republican, mind you.
Uh, I said "womanizing Republican governor".  Because since Arnold is a famous movie-star, it makes no difference to Californians that he is a womanizer and Rebpublican, hypocritical.

Sure throw out Texas & California, it's still a blowout.

Isn't the president-elect a womanizer too?  So lets throw out all of the votes.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 8Titles on November 13, 2016, 11:42:16 AM
If you throw out California, the Clinton crime machine loses the popular vote by over 2M votes, and the electoral college is a complete blowout.  The last thing we need is the land of nuts and flakes calling the shots for the entire country.  A state with a European-born, womanizing Republican governor simply because he was a movie star.  And that has the highest % of 1st generation voters with strong ties to their mother countries (Mexico, India, Southeast Asia, China, Middle East, etc.) and their interests.  If anything, California's role in electing the president of the U.S. should be diluted, not amplified.

Oh, this is a ridiculous argument. "Throw out California?" Why not throw out Texas, that "whole nuther country"? And that nutjob Golden State Governor was a Republican, mind you.
Uh, I said "womanizing Republican governor".  Because since Arnold is a famous movie-star, it makes no difference to Californians that he is a womanizer and Rebpublican, hypocritical.

Sure throw out Texas & California, it's still a blowout.

Isn't the president-elect a womanizer too?  So lets throw out all of the votes.
That was the point, California was cool with Arnold even though he was a (worst) womanizer.  Hypocritical
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: jmecklenborg on November 13, 2016, 11:44:50 AM
I'm sick of all these articles that claim Hillary Clinton was the "the most qualified ever".  Um, she didn't serve in the military at all.  Neither did Trump, and neither did any since George W. Bush, but come on. 
http://www.wsj.com/articles/mistaken-identity-politics-1478888487

Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 13, 2016, 11:48:25 AM
If you throw out California, the Clinton crime machine loses the popular vote by over 2M votes, and the electoral college is a complete blowout.  The last thing we need is the land of nuts and flakes calling the shots for the entire country.  A state with a European-born, womanizing Republican governor simply because he was a movie star.  And that has the highest % of 1st generation voters with strong ties to their mother countries (Mexico, India, Southeast Asia, China, Middle East, etc.) and their interests.  If anything, California's role in electing the president of the U.S. should be diluted, not amplified.

Oh, this is a ridiculous argument. "Throw out California?" Why not throw out Texas, that "whole nuther country"? And that nutjob Golden State Governor was a Republican, mind you.
Uh, I said "womanizing Republican governor".  Because since Arnold is a famous movie-star, it makes no difference to Californians that he is a womanizer and Rebpublican, hypocritical.

Sure throw out Texas & California, it's still a blowout.

Isn't the president-elect a womanizer too?  So lets throw out all of the votes.
That was the point, California was cool with Arnold even though he was a (worst) womanizer.  Hypocritical

dumb point though. 

not to mention your anti-immigrant nonsense,
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 13, 2016, 12:00:36 PM
BUSTED: Teacher caught taunting students their parents will be deported now that Trump is president
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/busted-teacher-caught-taunting-students-their-parents-will-be-deported-now-that-trump-is-president/
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 13, 2016, 12:01:26 PM
Muslim high school teacher left note by student telling her to hang herself with her ‘headscarf’
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/muslim-high-school-teacher-left-note-by-student-telling-her-to-hang-herself-with-her-headscarf/
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 13, 2016, 12:05:32 PM
TELL DONALD TRUMP TO REJECT HATE AND BIGOTRY
To President-elect Donald Trump: Honor your pledge to America

SearchMenu
TELL DONALD TRUMP TO REJECT HATE AND BIGOTRY
To President-elect Donald Trump: Honor your pledge to America
 
During your campaign, you denigrated people because of their race, their religion, their ethnicity, their gender, their disability, and more.

You named far-right extremists as advisers, circulated racist and anti-Semitic tweets, and refused to immediately disavow the endorsement of a known neo-Nazi.

Now, haters of all stripes – from white nationalists to anti-Muslim and anti-LGBT extremists – are celebrating your victory.

You must distance yourself from them.

You have pledged to be a president for “all Americans” and to “bind the wounds of division” in our country.

If you mean what you say, you must do two things.

First, you must publicly disavow all forms of bigotry.

Second, you must assure the country that no one associated with a hate group or any form of extremism will have a position, a voice or influence in your administration.

The American people deserve no less from their president.

Tell Donald Trump to reject hate and bigotry

https://www.splcenter.org/tell-donald-trump-reject-hate-and-bigotry-0
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 13, 2016, 12:09:35 PM
"Hitler's only kidding about the antisemitism" New York Times, 1922
http://boingboing.net/2016/11/11/hitlers-only-kidding-about.html
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 13, 2016, 12:10:41 PM
"Hitler's only kidding about the antisemitism" New York Times, 1922
http://boingboing.net/2016/11/11/hitlers-only-kidding-about.html

it must've been a "campaign device"
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: StrapHanger on November 13, 2016, 12:10:59 PM
President elect Trump sure is bringing in some swamp veterans to drain the swamp.

Seriously. Hacks like Newt Gingrich and energy industry lobbyists are the swamp.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: David on November 13, 2016, 12:17:18 PM
It would be so much easier to redirect all of that energy protesting, rioting and being violent, towards obliterating or re-structuring the electoral college - if they had made the electoral college easy enough to understand in the first place. I think almost everyone has a somewhat general idea of how it works; I do remember the basics from 7th grade social studies but I'm really struggling here at age 30 and I'm sure a lot of others are as well. Who are these people? Who exactly is the electorate and how are they chosen and by what standards? I was doing a little research online and even the constitution is pretty vague about it's criteria / standards. There just isn't that much information available about what goes on. The electoral college (assuming they're highly educated) seems like a pretty good safeguard against dumb@sses electing a dumb@ss and I admit, this is probably the closest we've ever come to actually needing an electoral college to go rogue but if they just meet together as usual and vote for this expected outcome when Hillary won the popular vote, I suppose one could argue that they have no purpose to begin with. Especially since Donald isn't your typical Republican and electors are legally bound by the state and face fines for voting against their party.

Here's a cool article. It's about why the electoral college isn't going to go rogue (which I don't think they provide an open-shut case for at all) but it's very informative at least in terms of how the majority of the population can get screwed by this.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13588048/electoral-college-petition-clinton-trump

It'll be interesting to see if Democrats start pushing for some sort of constitutional amendment. I don't see a total obliteration of the electoral college happening but maybe some sort of restructuring, if possible, would be fair. All three times that this has happened, it's screwed over Democrats. It just seems silly that a majority can lose to a minority.

Looking quicky at the electoral map, I see Trump has 5 states (upper-west, including Alaska) that probably don't deserve the minimum 3 electoral votes as they're seriously sparsely populated. For God's sake, Montana's largest city is Billings and it has like 22k people) compared to Clinton's two eastern states that have 3 and actually deserve 3. D.C. actually seems like it deserves more than 3, based on population but I don't have time to research all of that right now. Does D.C. just get 3 by default regardless of population?

I admit the system seems like garbage and it's worth looking into changing. From my understanding, it was designed so that sparsely populated states wouldn't be disenfranchised but I just don't think that's as relevant of a concern as it once was.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: David on November 13, 2016, 12:28:44 PM
Anyone think Donald Trump might juts be playing it cool right now to appease the electoral college and congress?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 13, 2016, 02:36:44 PM
Trump still trying to create the facts...

@cliffordlevy
The facts: since the election, @nytimes has seen a surge in new digital subscriptions, 6 times our normal pace https://t.co/dBwKUorPyr
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 13, 2016, 03:22:26 PM
Schools Report Racist Incidents in Wake of Trump Election
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/schools-report-racially-charged-incidents-election-43476177?cid=abcn_fb
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 13, 2016, 03:29:12 PM
Airline captain speaks over intercom to diffuse election-fueled conflict between passengers
http://www.ajc.com/news/national/airline-captain-speaks-over-intercom-diffuse-election-fueled-conflict-between-passengers/6in84Z9jtsHGf7STGzy7YO/
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Cleburger on November 13, 2016, 04:27:10 PM
Airline captain speaks over intercom to diffuse election-fueled conflict between passengers
http://www.ajc.com/news/national/airline-captain-speaks-over-intercom-diffuse-election-fueled-conflict-between-passengers/6in84Z9jtsHGf7STGzy7YO/

These gun-nut guys just amaze me.    I think if Wayne LaPierre was standing in front of them, they would drop down and service the guy!   Why do you have to bring it up with every stranger you meet?   Who is coming to take your guns?   And if no one is going to take them, what makes you so happy you got to keep them?   Do you have a brain for yourself or does the NRA do all your thinking for you?    WTF?

Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 13, 2016, 04:55:42 PM
^

According to the description with a video posted Friday on YouTube, a man in a "plaid shirt and camo cap" said something about being glad to have "kept his guns" to a black woman sitting next to him.

The woman started "crying and freaking out," and the United Airlines crew members were forced to separate the two individuals.


The 'gun nut' is the problem? Not the woman who through a hissy fit so dramatic it nearly grounded a jumbo jet - over a brief, harmless quip? The complete and utter lack of emotional control and stability a woman like that has is what amazes me. People like her need to grow up.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: David on November 13, 2016, 04:57:04 PM
Wow...

BREAKING: Obama Administration Officially Investigating Trump/Russia Connection (DETAILS)


By Georgia Bristow -
November 12, 2016

...definitive links between President-elect Donald Trump’s and Russia.

An investigative report has been released, titled “The Dworkin Report,” that details several links that went investigated by the FBI showing our president-elect’s ties to Russia and more specifically his links to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin’s administration.

In The Dworkin Report, it’s shown that President-elect Donald Trump doesn’t just “have ties” with Russia, he’s incorporated 250 registered businesses there. Which is unusual, considering that it contradicts what our all-so-wholesome and honest president-elect said about him having no ties whatsoever to Russia.

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/11/12/breaking-obama-administration-officially-investigating-trumprussia-connection-details/

I'm not sure how how credible this news site is. They don't actually give any information regarding the FBI / Obama Administration investigating this.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on November 13, 2016, 05:19:40 PM
It's interesting.  Given that Trump didn't release his tax returns, i'd be in favor of FBI investigation on his ties with Russia.  If nothing else, they should call him in and say "tell us everything before we investigate..."
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 13, 2016, 06:33:29 PM
This is getting comical. Reince Priebus will be the WH Chief of Staff.

But he did pick alt-right leader Steve Bannon as 'chief strategist.'  He's gonna need a real good spin machine.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on November 13, 2016, 07:47:35 PM
This is getting comical. Reince Priebus will be the WH Chief of Staff.

But he did pick alt-right leader Steve Bannon as 'chief strategist.'  He's gonna need a real good spin machine.

I actually think Priebus is a solid pick for that position.  He's got very close ties to Congress and will hopefully direct affairs with the big picture in mind
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Cleburger on November 13, 2016, 08:03:11 PM
This is getting comical. Reince Priebus will be the WH Chief of Staff.

But he did pick alt-right leader Steve Bannon as 'chief strategist.'  He's gonna need a real good spin machine.

I actually think Priebus is a solid pick for that position.  He's got very close ties to Congress and will hopefully direct affairs with the big picture in mind

So much for that swamp-draining Trump has promised....
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Cleburger on November 13, 2016, 08:08:03 PM
The 'gun nut' is the problem? Not the woman who through a hissy fit so dramatic it nearly grounded a jumbo jet - over a brief, harmless quip? The complete and utter lack of emotional control and stability a woman like that has is what amazes me. People like her need to grow up.

But is civility dead?   Why did this guy chose this time and place to bring up a highly-charged topic, on a flight no less?   My guess is he wanted to see how she would react....  And speaking of a lack of emotional control and stability, have you been following this the last year:  https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump   :wave:
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on November 13, 2016, 08:46:45 PM
anyone on here catch the 60 Minutes interview tonight?  It thought it was good.  Some tough questions, of course, but it was fair
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 13, 2016, 08:47:24 PM
Josef Goebbles, ladies and gentlemen....

Trump draws sharp rebuke, concerns over newly appointed chief White House strategist Stephen Bannon
http://wapo.st/2fOfOCd
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 13, 2016, 08:52:04 PM
Our First Amendment test is here. We can’t afford to flunk it.
http://wapo.st/2fp1tzc
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 13, 2016, 09:31:48 PM
This is getting comical. Reince Priebus will be the WH Chief of Staff.

But he did pick alt-right leader Steve Bannon as 'chief strategist.'  He's gonna need a real good spin machine.

I actually think Priebus is a solid pick for that position.  He's got very close ties to Congress and will hopefully direct affairs with the big picture in mind

So much for that swamp-draining Trump has promised....

You can't drain a swamp without the help of some people who know the inner workings of swamps. Priebus wouldn't have joined the team if he didn't want to help pursue Trump's agenda.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: David on November 13, 2016, 10:48:37 PM
Wow, that church that got vandalized and was scrawled with "Vote Trump" on the side... they needed $10k to restore the church and so far, on GoFundMe ALONE, they've raised over $258k! Crazy. A lot of them...probably half, are self proclaimed Trump supporters who say they hope they don't think that what happened was a reflection of all Trump supporters, but a select, ignorant few.  That's assuming it was actually a Trump supporter and not an insurance fraud attempt or some other conspiracy. They're giving really big donations, too. This warms my heart though, that people are so nice and helping out others who they don't even know. Even though they're not religious and even though they're Trump supporters, they're doing what they can to help. I just hope all that money goes to the right place. You never know with GoFundMe accounts.

https://www.gofundme.com/hopewellbaptist
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 13, 2016, 10:50:40 PM
This is getting comical. Reince Priebus will be the WH Chief of Staff.

But he did pick alt-right leader Steve Bannon as 'chief strategist.'  He's gonna need a real good spin machine.

I actually think Priebus is a solid pick for that position.  He's got very close ties to Congress and will hopefully direct affairs with the big picture in mind

So much for that swamp-draining Trump has promised....

You can't drain a swamp without the help of some people who know the inner workings of swamps. Priebus wouldn't have joined the team if he didn't want to help pursue Trump's agenda.

I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue...  He was right.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gordon Bombay on November 14, 2016, 01:08:13 AM
Photographs from the demonstrations that took place in Cincinnati this past weekend. An anti-Trump march eventually merged with the Black Lives Matter march that was at the Courthouse during the Ray Tensing mistrial announcement.

http://queencitydiscovery.blogspot.com/2016/11/demonstrations-in-cincinnati-on.html
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 14, 2016, 07:20:44 AM
Look I get it's awful that Trump hired an anti-Semite for a top WH position, but he didn't have a private email server, so it all evens out...
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 14, 2016, 09:10:06 AM
If you throw out California, the Clinton crime machine loses the popular vote by over 2M votes, and the electoral college is a complete blowout.  The last thing we need is the land of nuts and flakes calling the shots for the entire country.  A state with a European-born, womanizing Republican governor simply because he was a movie star.  And that has the highest % of 1st generation voters with strong ties to their mother countries (Mexico, India, Southeast Asia, China, Middle East, etc.) and their interests.  If anything, California's role in electing the president of the U.S. should be diluted, not amplified.

While we are at it, can we also throw out all the states Trump won by similar or larger margins, including but not limited to Kentucky, Oklahoma, South and North Dakota, West Virginia, Wyoming, Tennessee, Nebraska, Arkansas, and Alabama?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on November 14, 2016, 09:41:08 AM
It would be so much easier to redirect all of that energy protesting, rioting and being violent, towards obliterating or re-structuring the electoral college - if they had made the electoral college easy enough to understand in the first place. I think almost everyone has a somewhat general idea of how it works; I do remember the basics from 7th grade social studies but I'm really struggling here at age 30 and I'm sure a lot of others are as well. Who are these people? Who exactly is the electorate and how are they chosen and by what standards? I was doing a little research online and even the constitution is pretty vague about it's criteria / standards. There just isn't that much information available about what goes on. The electoral college (assuming they're highly educated) seems like a pretty good safeguard against dumb@sses electing a dumb@ss and I admit, this is probably the closest we've ever come to actually needing an electoral college to go rogue but if they just meet together as usual and vote for this expected outcome when Hillary won the popular vote, I suppose one could argue that they have no purpose to begin with. Especially since Donald isn't your typical Republican and electors are legally bound by the state and face fines for voting against their party.

Here's a cool article. It's about why the electoral college isn't going to go rogue (which I don't think they provide an open-shut case for at all) but it's very informative at least in terms of how the majority of the population can get screwed by this.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13588048/electoral-college-petition-clinton-trump

It'll be interesting to see if Democrats start pushing for some sort of constitutional amendment. I don't see a total obliteration of the electoral college happening but maybe some sort of restructuring, if possible, would be fair. All three times that this has happened, it's screwed over Democrats. It just seems silly that a majority can lose to a minority.

Looking quicky at the electoral map, I see Trump has 5 states (upper-west, including Alaska) that probably don't deserve the minimum 3 electoral votes as they're seriously sparsely populated. For God's sake, Montana's largest city is Billings and it has like 22k people) compared to Clinton's two eastern states that have 3 and actually deserve 3. D.C. actually seems like it deserves more than 3, based on population but I don't have time to research all of that right now. Does D.C. just get 3 by default regardless of population?

I admit the system seems like garbage and it's worth looking into changing. From my understanding, it was designed so that sparsely populated states wouldn't be disenfranchised but I just don't think that's as relevant of a concern as it once was.

It is a waste of effort to even worry about getting rid of the electoral college. It will never happen and it will never happen for the reasons you cite above. Take SD, ND, ID, MT, AK, IA - add NH, DE, VT, HI to the mix and all of a sudden you have 10 states that outpunch their electoral weight. They have no incentive to get rid of the electoral college because it gives them more power as an individual state than other states. Now you can add in OH, PA, WI, MI, FL and you have a group of states that are extremely powerful in the electoral process. Would they actually want to give up this power and diminish themselves?  Absolutely not. WIth all these states, it is in their self interest to maintain the status quo. You can even add into it the southern states of AL, AR, LA, KS, OK, MS and you can see why getting rid of the electoral college is a non-starter and waste of breath.

The last amendment to the constitution was in 1992 and it was non-controversial. Even if you were able to get 2/3 of the Congress to approve of it like they may have been able to do in 2009, there is no way this would get done in the statehouses. It does not benefit democrats or republicans. Because at the end of the day, the balance of power will always shift and the majority today will be in the minority tomorrow.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 14, 2016, 09:47:47 AM
I agree.  In another 10 years, when the Dems start getting the edge in Texas (to go along with Cali and NY), it will be the GOP pining to get rid of the EC.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: taestell on November 14, 2016, 09:52:17 AM
It's much more likely that we will see the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact) implemented. Instead of amending the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College, states would just agree to give their votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Ten states and DC have signed on, representing 165 electoral votes. It would not take effect until the participating states represent 270 votes.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: ryanlammi on November 14, 2016, 09:58:52 AM
^I think it's interesting that this compact wouldn't take effect until they reach 270 electoral votes.

1) A compact of 165 electoral votes would likely be enough to swing the election toward one candidate anyway in many instances. This election would have seen Michigan and Pennsylvania change their electoral votes from Trump to Clinton. This would have resulted in Trump reaching exactly 270 Electoral votes. Almost enough to swing this exact election.
2) What happens if they reach the 270, but then the 2020 census redistributes the votes in a way that they go below the 270 again? Does the compact need another state?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: jmecklenborg on November 14, 2016, 10:05:21 AM
I agree.  In another 10 years, when the Dems start getting the edge in Texas (to go along with Cali and NY), it will be the GOP pining to get rid of the EC.

Long-term, demographics generally favor the Democrats.  However, there is always some chance that Republicans will modify their platform and start attracting immigrants and groups that do not currently vote for them in large numbers. 

However, people need to show up and physically vote.  Obama was elected and reelected by large margin because people who don't vote often or at all showed up and voted for him.  People can complain about voter suppression all they want -- if people want to vote for a candidate they will make the effort to do so rather than needing to be cajoled and dragged to the polls. 

Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 14, 2016, 10:27:59 AM
The new president's senior advisor runs a website that attacks people for being Jews: https://t.co/qd0RWX2uwy
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 14, 2016, 10:41:41 AM
The new president's senior advisor runs a website that attacks people for being Jews: https://t.co/qd0RWX2uwy

But....spirit cooking...think about the spirit cooking.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: taestell on November 14, 2016, 10:56:30 AM
^I think it's interesting that this compact wouldn't take effect until they reach 270 electoral votes.

1) A compact of 165 electoral votes would likely be enough to swing the election toward one candidate anyway in many instances. This election would have seen Michigan and Pennsylvania change their electoral votes from Trump to Clinton. This would have resulted in Trump reaching exactly 270 Electoral votes. Almost enough to swing this exact election.
2) What happens if they reach the 270, but then the 2020 census redistributes the votes in a way that they go below the 270 again? Does the compact need another state?

The point of waiting until 270 is that individual states don't want to give up their influence until the majority agree to do the same. The compact could have been written so that it needed all 50 states to sign on to take effect, but that would be pointless since the president only needs 270 electoral votes to win.

I haven't read the language of the compact, but I would assume that it only takes effect during presidential elections where there are more than 270 votes among the states that have signed on. So in the event that the number dropped below 270 due to redistricting, more states would need to sign on in order to keep the agreement valid. That seems pretty unlikely though since most of the changes are only +/- 1 seat. Only Texas is the outlier this time around, projected to gain 2 seats.

So far, mostly blue states have signed on although some red states are considering it. With Texas poised to gain two electoral votes in 2020 and becoming more blue, now might be a good time for them to sign on.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 14, 2016, 11:07:30 AM
The new president's senior advisor runs a website that attacks people for being Jews: https://t.co/qd0RWX2uwy

Breitbart was founded by a Jewish guy who is still the CEO. Such anti-Semites!!

The left's continued inclination to paint all conservatives as racist, sexist, etc. is what lost them the election. It's sad that so many have yet to come to that realization.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gordon Bombay on November 14, 2016, 11:24:40 AM
The new president's senior advisor runs a website that attacks people for being Jews: https://t.co/qd0RWX2uwy

Breitbart was founded by a Jewish guy who is still the CEO. Such anti-Semites!!

The left's continued inclination to paint all conservatives as racist, sexist, etc. is what lost them the election. It's sad that so many have yet to come to that realization.


And Trump Tower makes the best Taco bowls, so Hispanics should really get on board too. Grab it by the taco bowl.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: surfohio on November 14, 2016, 11:44:49 AM
Wow.

Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: mrnyc on November 14, 2016, 11:50:35 AM
let the memes begin!

(http://i1340.photobucket.com/albums/o725/NYCnMore/random3/6143F148-32E5-4E5E-B9CE-13C7A434A464_zpszvdkb77s.jpg) (http://s1340.photobucket.com/user/NYCnMore/media/random3/6143F148-32E5-4E5E-B9CE-13C7A434A464_zpszvdkb77s.jpg.html)


but seriously one party now has the top spot, senate & house, so no excuses for getting things done.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on November 14, 2016, 11:58:11 AM
The new president's senior advisor runs a website that attacks people for being Jews: https://t.co/qd0RWX2uwy

Breitbart was founded by a Jewish guy who is still the CEO. Such anti-Semites!!

The left's continued inclination to paint all conservatives as racist, sexist, etc. is what lost them the election. It's sad that so many have yet to come to that realization.


Not an anti-semite?  Well then he's a white supremacist!  No?  Well he's white!  he's gotta be racist!
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 14, 2016, 12:16:32 PM
Ironic that a campaign which made media bias a central theme was basically run by members of the media. 

What's really sad about this whole thing is that fringe views are now mainstream.  Welcome to the new reality, where facts and science are secondary to raw emotion.  Bannon himself described Breitbart as "the platform for the alt-right."  Hard to argue with that, but Bannon the individual is harder to peg.  He's a former Goldman Sachs banker who made a good bit of wealth from a few key investments.  The more I read about this guy, the more he seems to be an opportunist above anything else.  He saw an opportunity (the public thirst for alt-right reporting) and capitalized on it.  I suspect his counsel towards Trump is going to be focused on continuing to make the alt-right feel empowered and encourage it to fully come out of the shadows.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Oldmanladyluck on November 14, 2016, 12:27:45 PM
let the memes begin!

(http://i1340.photobucket.com/albums/o725/NYCnMore/random3/6143F148-32E5-4E5E-B9CE-13C7A434A464_zpszvdkb77s.jpg) (http://s1340.photobucket.com/user/NYCnMore/media/random3/6143F148-32E5-4E5E-B9CE-13C7A434A464_zpszvdkb77s.jpg.html)


but seriously one party now has the top spot, senate & house, so no excuses for getting things done.


I laugh every time I read that!  The funny thing is that I could actually see Biden doing that :-D
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on November 14, 2016, 12:30:44 PM
^I think it's interesting that this compact wouldn't take effect until they reach 270 electoral votes.

1) A compact of 165 electoral votes would likely be enough to swing the election toward one candidate anyway in many instances. This election would have seen Michigan and Pennsylvania change their electoral votes from Trump to Clinton. This would have resulted in Trump reaching exactly 270 Electoral votes. Almost enough to swing this exact election.
2) What happens if they reach the 270, but then the 2020 census redistributes the votes in a way that they go below the 270 again? Does the compact need another state?

You have to figure the only states that would do this would be Dem states. Imagine the outcry of what may happen if say you have an Election and Trump won the popular vote over all but would lose the EC to Hillary. Now imagine that MD, CA, NY, IL and a number of other Dem states have this law into effect. It would essentially throw the Election to Trump even though 75% of the people in that state would not agree with the result. I do not think this is the result the Dems would hope for.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: rockandroller on November 14, 2016, 12:57:38 PM
I hate the man and I hate what has happened but I do agree with what was said way upthread (no time to read all these pages). Barring some EXTREMELY unusual and unlikely circumstances, he is going to be our president.

One of the things I hated MOST OF ALL when Obama was elected 8 years ago was all the jerks who insisted he was #NotMyPresident and never would be, and said horrible, awful and terrible things about him. Now, personally I don't believe Obama deserved any of those things, but it's irrelevant whether one thinks they are deserved or not. He was legally elected and so was Trump. We don't have to LIKE IT and you don't have to be on board with him, but going around insisting he is "Not my president' is THE SAME THING THAT THEY DID TO OBAMA. It does not further anything. All the hatred and divisiveness that Obama's presidency has caused was PERPETUATED AND MADE WORSE BY THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR AND THIS ATTITUDE.

Again, I don't like it either. And I do like the idea of more volunteerism and/or donations to causes that are more for what you believe in. More activism and involvement, send your PP donations in Pence's name, whatever.

Foot stomping does not help. It's happened. I'll do all I can to help stop terrible things as he suggests them (I already called Portman's office today about his Chief White Supremacist tapped to lead his transition team), but living in denial and claiming he isn't your president or having the vapors about the electoral college, which, this time, was not in the Dems' favor, does nothing to help the huge divide in this country that caused this problem to begin with.

Do not be a hypocrite. Do not say they were terrible to say and do those things about Obama, and then do them yourself about Trump. It doesn't matter if you think Trump "deserves" it and Obama didn't. It just doesn't. Yes I'm horrified but being a hypocrite doesn't help. And picking on Melania is the worst of the worst. If you've ever taken umbrage at some of the horrible crap flung at Michelle, then you had better not say one single negative thing about Melania personally. I don't mean you can't take issue with whether or not she was working here illegally or not. I mean picking on her pictures or calling her a s l u t or whatever else. Just stop it.

Channel your anger into productivity and maybe we can explain to the outraged people that no, nobody is bringing jobs back, you cannot put the genie  back in the bottle, and we're upset about it too but we need to find another way to move on because that's not what work in america looks like anymore. Maybe we can have a dialog and they'll see we are not so different and we do want many of the same things (though not all), and find a way that works for everyone to get there. Maybe people have to be told it's time to stop buying bigger houses and bigger cars and moving further and further out and instead downscale your life and skip going to Disney so that you have money enough that you can buy locally grown meat and produce instead of buying your food at Wal-Mart. Or whatever. But the hypocrisy is not the way.

Whether I like it or not (and I do not, in any way), factually, he is going to be sworn in as the president and we all have to deal.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: jmecklenborg on November 14, 2016, 12:57:39 PM
I'm already seeing junk internet stories on what designer clothes the Trump women wore to whatever event instead of just what color pantsuit Hillary wore. 

Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: jmecklenborg on November 14, 2016, 01:02:37 PM
I hate the man and I hate what has happened but I do agree with what was said way upthread (no time to read all these pages). Barring some EXTREMELY unusual and unlikely circumstances, he is going to be our president.

One of the things I hated MOST OF ALL when Obama was elected 8 years ago was all the jerks who insisted he was #NotMyPresident and never would be, and said horrible, awful and terrible things about him. Now, personally I don't believe Obama deserved any of those things, but it's irrelevant whether one thinks they are deserved or not. He was legally elected and so was Trump. We don't have to LIKE IT and you don't have to be on board with him, but going around insisting he is "Not my president' is THE SAME THING THAT THEY DID TO OBAMA. It does not further anything. All the hatred and divisiveness that Obama's presidency has caused was PERPETUATED AND MADE WORSE BY THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR AND THIS ATTITUDE.

Again, I don't like it either. And I do like the idea of more volunteerism and/or donations to causes that are more for what you believe in. More activism and involvement, send your PP donations in Pence's name, whatever.

Foot stomping does not help. It's happened. I'll do all I can to help stop terrible things as he suggests them (I already called Portman's office today about his Chief White Supremacist tapped to lead his transition team), but living in denial and claiming he isn't your president or having the vapors about the electoral college, which, this time, was not in the Dems' favor, does nothing to help the huge divide in this country that caused this problem to begin with.

Do not be a hypocrite. Do not say they were terrible to say and do those things about Obama, and then do them yourself about Trump. It doesn't matter if you think Trump "deserves" it and Obama didn't. It just doesn't. Yes I'm horrified but being a hypocrite doesn't help. And picking on Melania is the worst of the worst. If you've ever taken umbrage at some of the horrible crap flung at Michelle, then you had better not say one single negative thing about Melania personally. I don't mean you can't take issue with whether or not she was working here illegally or not. I mean picking on her pictures or calling her a s l u t or whatever else. Just stop it.

Channel your anger into productivity and maybe we can explain to the outraged people that no, nobody is bringing jobs back, you cannot put the genie  back in the bottle, and we're upset about it too but we need to find another way to move on because that's not what work in america looks like anymore. Maybe we can have a dialog and they'll see we are not so different and we do want many of the same things (though not all), and find a way that works for everyone to get there. Maybe people have to be told it's time to stop buying bigger houses and bigger cars and moving further and further out and instead downscale your life and skip going to Disney so that you have money enough that you can buy locally grown meat and produce instead of buying your food at Wal-Mart. Or whatever. But the hypocrisy is not the way.

Whether I like it or not (and I do not, in any way), factually, he is going to be sworn in as the president and we all have to deal.

I agree, the current anti-Trump public protests and marches are as silly and clumsy as the circa-2009-10 Tea Party "events". 

Unfortunately the right really needs to call it off with the guys doing the open carry stuff.  It doesn't get much more immature than that (however, it is a very small number of people who do this, and the number doesn't seem to be growing).  The good thing about Trump is that he doesn't seem to be particularly pro-gun or pro-violence.  I think most people, including his rabid supporters, are going to know by this time next year that the guy was mostly all-talk. 

He just wanted to win this thing to say he won.  Look at his investing record -- he doesn't hold onto much of what he has built.  He builds something, then sells off most shares of ownership but gets to keep his name on top of the thing even though he only owns 20% of the floor space. 


Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: rockandroller on November 14, 2016, 01:10:08 PM
People have a right to protest and I support that. Joining an organized group protest to me is admirable. Bitching on your FB and twitter about how he is not your president is foot stomping and not productive. I support ACTIVISM. Whether you are working for change or working to protest, whatever. Sitting on your butt and typing about how he is Not My President does NOTHING. It's more crap that's batted about on the internet that's caused horrible divides. It's not productive. It does nothing.

I also agree he didn't expect to win and only wanted to win because it was a contest and he is competitive. He's going to be very sorry he did this and now can't live his life the way he wants. He simply cannot, and it will be a rude awakening.

I predict he will be largely a figurehead with as little function as possible the way George W Bush was. Everyone knows Cheney and all his cronies in and out of the actual government made all the decisions, W just showed up for the photo ops and signed the papers. This is what I think Trump will be.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 14, 2016, 01:12:39 PM
I hate the man and I hate what has happened but I do agree with what was said way upthread (no time to read all these pages). Barring some EXTREMELY unusual and unlikely circumstances, he is going to be our president.

One of the things I hated MOST OF ALL when Obama was elected 8 years ago was all the jerks who insisted he was #NotMyPresident and never would be, and said horrible, awful and terrible things about him. Now, personally I don't believe Obama deserved any of those things, but it's irrelevant whether one thinks they are deserved or not. He was legally elected and so was Trump. We don't have to LIKE IT and you don't have to be on board with him, but going around insisting he is "Not my president' is THE SAME THING THAT THEY DID TO OBAMA. It does not further anything. All the hatred and divisiveness that Obama's presidency has caused was PERPETUATED AND MADE WORSE BY THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR AND THIS ATTITUDE.

I agree with the spirit of this post.  I'm certainly not refusing to consider him my president and I'm not signing any petition to have the EC vote some other way than they are pledged.  But I do believe there are stark differences between the reasons why people are now rejecting Trump as their president and the reasons why people rejected Obama.  The most visceral reactions towards Obama were aimed at delegitimizing his election based on factors other than the actual outcome.  He won the EC by a wide margin and comfortably won the popular vote.  So other tactics were used.  ironically, that is how Trump got his start in politics and grew to such fame amongst the alt-right.  As of right now, I don't think anyone is making any serious push to declare Trump ineligible to be president.  The complaint is that he is unfit to be president, and that reasoning has some significant bi-partisan support.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Pablo on November 14, 2016, 01:18:05 PM
More insiders:

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/11/11/trump-picks-road-industry-lobbyist-to-lead-transportation-transition/
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 14, 2016, 01:29:36 PM
The new president's senior advisor runs a website that attacks people for being Jews: https://t.co/qd0RWX2uwy

Breitbart was founded by a Jewish guy who is still the CEO. Such anti-Semites!!

The left's continued inclination to paint all conservatives as racist, sexist, etc. is what lost them the election. It's sad that so many have yet to come to that realization.

actually, a lot of them have, but don't want to admit it. I give liberal Frank Bruni of the NY Times credit to the degree that he's willing to concede--

The Democrats Screwed Up

Frank Bruni NOV. 11, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/opinion/the-democrats-screwed-up.html?_r=0

Donald Trump’s victory and some of the, yes, deplorable chants that accompanied it do not mean that a majority of Americans are irredeemable bigots (though too many indeed are). Plenty of Trump voters chose him, reluctantly, to be an agent of disruption, which they craved keenly enough to overlook the rest of him.

Democrats need to understand that, and they need to move past a complacency for which the Clintons bear considerable blame.

It’s hard to overestimate the couple’s stranglehold on the party — its think tanks, its operatives, its donors — for the last two decades. Most top Democrats had vested interests in the Clintons, and energy that went into supporting and defending them didn’t go into fresh ideas and fresh faces, who were shut out as the party cleared the decks anew for Hillary in 2016.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this is also an excellent column about all the BS celebrity endorsements for Hillary. Although I had no idea until I read this that Roseanne Barr supported Trump. She of course played a character on a hit show many years ago who was part of the mythical the Trump white-working class demographic, but in many statements over the years I thought she hated Republicans (and even Bill Maher, said what?!)--

Why celebrity endorsements didn’t help Hillary at all
By Maureen Callahan November 12, 2016 | 3:42pm

http://pagesix.com/2016/11/12/why-celebrity-endorsements-didnt-help-hillary-at-all/

Even Bill Maher, hardly a friend to the GOP, conceded as much on his post-election show on Friday. Noting that no amount of money or celebrity endorsements matter, he said, “The Democratic party . . . lost the white working man. That’s what they used to have. And they made the white working man feel like, ‘Your problems aren’t real.’ Democrats, to a lot of Americans, have become a boutique party of fake outrage and social engineering. And they’re not entirely wrong about that.”
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: rockandroller on November 14, 2016, 01:39:26 PM
Hts, I agree he is unfit. I also agree some of the reasons are different, though there were many other reasons besides election results being bandied about why Obama was "unfit" (birth certificate, anyone?) But DT was elected. There's really nothing we can do about it.

I couldn't believe it and hated it when W was elected (though on a much lower scale, and though I didn't know at the time that was a lower scale), as he was also unfit for like 50 reasons IMO. But it happened and government happened and all the horrible things they like to do to the country also happened and then he wasn't president anymore. And we just have to keep going.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 14, 2016, 01:55:42 PM
We rolled out of the Bush years running on fumes.  Our economy was in a free fall and we were embedded in two no-win conflicts on the other side of the globe.  Just saying.

Yes, the birth certificate issue was part of what I was referencing.  There was something else too.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: rockandroller on November 14, 2016, 01:59:15 PM
Yes, and I think it's going to be even worse this time. A Greater Depression - worse than 1929. There's nothing we can do about it.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 14, 2016, 02:17:14 PM
American Nazi Party chairman said he saw Bannon hiring as proof Trump might be for real.
https://t.co/evRSlTeDo6 https://t.co/0oTO0EBeqI
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on November 14, 2016, 02:21:41 PM
Yes, and I think it's going to be even worse this time. A Greater Depression - worse than 1929. There's nothing we can do about it.

if you are that sure of impending economic doom, then you should start buying massive short stocks on the Dow and S&P.  When the downturn hits, you'll be incredibly wealthy and can tell us all how you called it.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 14, 2016, 02:38:55 PM
Just learned of a GREAT way to make your voice heard:

People are donating to Planned Parenthood as Mike Pence
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/14/politics/mike-pence-planned-parenthood-donation-irpt/index.html
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 14, 2016, 02:42:40 PM
^this is so silly. But good news for Mike Pence. Think of how much he'll be able to take in tax deductions next year!
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 14, 2016, 02:58:01 PM
^Good point.  The donations should be switched to being in Trump's name.   He has no more taxes left to deduct.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: ryanlammi on November 14, 2016, 03:00:09 PM
That's not how it works.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 14, 2016, 03:18:22 PM
^Good point.  The donations should be switched to being in Trump's name.   He has no more taxes left to deduct.

He's already given them a lot over the years, supposedly....
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 14, 2016, 03:20:06 PM
The new president's senior advisor runs a website that attacks people for being Jews: https://t.co/qd0RWX2uwy

Breitbart was founded by a Jewish guy who is still the CEO. Such anti-Semites!!

The left's continued inclination to paint all conservatives as racist, sexist, etc. is what lost them the election. It's sad that so many have yet to come to that realization.


Andrew Breitbart himself despised Trump and considered him a fraud.

I don't like the guy either, but anti-Semite is kind of a stretch when he has Jewish grandchildren.

Basically, this election was a race to the bottom and the Democrats won.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on November 14, 2016, 03:22:49 PM
I'll go on record as saying it at the outset, just so future-me can't say I called it: I have absolutely no idea what to expect.  None.

Seriously, most people lack imagination; their range of "worst case" and "best case" scenarios rests on operating assumptions that this election may well upend.  Their imagination lives between 3 and 8 on a 1-10 scale.

I have no idea if Trump's hyper-reactive, easily goaded temperament will get us into a real war.  Not barely-there wars against hopelessly overmatched adversaries like Libya, but "I need to prove I'm not Putin's puppet so let's invade Russia in the middle of [nuclear] winter."

I have no idea if Trump will push his on-paper tax plan (which would be among the most budget-busting in history), or whether he'll go all the way back to some of the things he used to say on the campaign trail (and I mean in this campaign, not long-ago comments on politics from 2000 or something) that progressive taxation is the only fair way to fund government and it's not really a problem at all, and might even raise taxes.

I have no idea if Trump will actually try to extricate the U.S. from existing trade deals, or even the larger trade superstructure of the WTO.  For all I know, he could pull us out of the WTO.  Or he could negotiate a complete pan-Asian free trade area.  I have no clue.

I would hazard a guess that he will at least at some point launch an attack on at least one mainstream media outlet.  I have no idea whether that will take the form of a politicized criminal prosecution or a midnight Tweetstorm.

It's estimated that there are 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. now.  His post-election speeches say he's targeting about 3 million for removal.  That's actually not that dramatic a step up from Obama's pace (it was seldom talked about, but Obama was a fairly aggressive deporter).  Of course, a lot of his supporters expect that number to go from 12 million to zero, not 12 million to 9 million.  And I have no way of saying that it won't be 18 million in four years.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: jmecklenborg on November 14, 2016, 03:31:29 PM
I'll go on record as saying it at the outset, just so future-me can't say I called it: I have absolutely no idea what to expect.  None.

Seriously, most people lack imagination; their range of "worst case" and "best case" scenarios rests on operating assumptions that this election may well upend.  Their imagination lives between 3 and 8 on a 1-10 scale.

I have no idea if Trump's hyper-reactive, easily goaded temperament will get us into a real war.  Not barely-there wars against hopelessly overmatched adversaries like Libya, but "I need to prove I'm not Putin's puppet so let's invade Russia in the middle of [nuclear] winter."

I have no idea if Trump will push his on-paper tax plan (which would be among the most budget-busting in history), or whether he'll go all the way back to some of the things he used to say on the campaign trail (and I mean in this campaign, not long-ago comments on politics from 2000 or something) that progressive taxation is the only fair way to fund government and it's not really a problem at all, and might even raise taxes.

I have no idea if Trump will actually try to extricate the U.S. from existing trade deals, or even the larger trade superstructure of the WTO.  For all I know, he could pull us out of the WTO.  Or he could negotiate a complete pan-Asian free trade area.  I have no clue.

I would hazard a guess that he will at least at some point launch an attack on at least one mainstream media outlet.  I have no idea whether that will take the form of a politicized criminal prosecution or a midnight Tweetstorm.

It's estimated that there are 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. now.  His post-election speeches say he's targeting about 3 million for removal.  That's actually not that dramatic a step up from Obama's pace (it was seldom talked about, but Obama was a fairly aggressive deporter).  Of course, a lot of his supporters expect that number to go from 12 million to zero, not 12 million to 9 million.  And I have no way of saying that it won't be 18 million in four years.

I predict that Trump will mostly be a figurehead who will win reelection in 2020 by an unprecedented series of stunts and spectacles, not actual policy decisions.  So he might help push through construction earmarks that get a lot of big stuff under construction so that he can point at a bunch of construction cranes in 2020, especially in the swing states.  That could be good for Ohio. 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 14, 2016, 03:41:33 PM
I agree that he will be more figurehead than anything else.  The WH will be run through a tug of war between Bannon and Priebus.  Trump will spend less time at the WH than any POTUS and will keep his circle very small.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: jmecklenborg on November 14, 2016, 03:43:42 PM
Trump will spend less time at the WH than any POTUS and will keep his circle very small.

He will show up for ribbon-cuttings, military events, and throw some big parties at the White House.

Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on November 14, 2016, 03:44:33 PM
I agree that he will be more figurehead than anything else.  The WH will be run through a tug of war between Bannon and Priebus.  Trump will spend less time at the WH than any POTUS and will keep his circle very small.

Total baseless speculation.  But I'd take it a step farther and say neither is even part of the Trump cabinet or advisors in 2018.  How many Chiefs of Staff did Obama go through?  5?  Trump may run through even more.  Ditto for policy advisers
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Clevelander17 on November 14, 2016, 04:07:52 PM
Trump hasn't won anything yet. He didn't win the popular vote and the electoral college hasn't voted for him yet. And even if those things happen AND he is sworn in, this guy says he won't be around for long....

‘Prediction professor’ who called Trump’s big win also made another forecast: Trump will be impeached
http://a.msn.com/01/en-us/AAkbsjd?ocid=sf

It's over. Trump will be sworn in on January 20, 2017.

Now that said, seems quite possible that he could, at some point, be impeached, particularly by a GOP-led Congress that isn't full of people who support him. I actually hope that he makes it the full four years and is then shown the door by voters in 2020. As crazy as Trump sounds when he talks, it's mostly bluster and/or statements of policy that cannot possibly be implemented. A scarier thought is the idea that he would be replaced by Pence who would have the backing of Congress to put into place some seriously Draconian laws, taking this country back decades. At least with Trump, he does have some moderate/populist ideas that when stripped from rhetoric are not ultraconservative at their core.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: jmecklenborg on November 14, 2016, 04:10:33 PM
If he's smart about it, he could continue the sort of events Obama was holding at the White House like the BET event Dave Chappelle spoke about in his SNL monologue.  So if he throws events every month for everyone from Native Americans to recent immigrants he could go a long way toward expanding his constituency AND the constituency of the Republican Party.  No previous Republican president could pull this off, but Trump is obviously used to this kind of stuff, in part because he's a fake Republican. 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: rockandroller on November 14, 2016, 05:03:02 PM
Yes, and I think it's going to be even worse this time. A Greater Depression - worse than 1929. There's nothing we can do about it.

if you are that sure of impending economic doom, then you should start buying massive short stocks on the Dow and S&P.  When the downturn hits, you'll be incredibly wealthy and can tell us all how you called it.

Yeah, I have $16 in my checking account, I'm gonna run out and start buying stocks.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Clevelander17 on November 14, 2016, 05:51:44 PM
It's much more likely that we will see the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact) implemented. Instead of amending the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College, states would just agree to give their votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Ten states and DC have signed on, representing 165 electoral votes. It would not take effect until the participating states represent 270 votes.

It would be a shame if that compact is put into place without getting more red states involved. The GOP has only won the popular vote once since 1988, and if didn't happen this year, I'm not sure when it will ever happen with the way demographics are changing. This does nothing to solve the problem, which as I see it, being that residents in urban large areas are having their vote trumped (get it?) by folks living in rural areas. If anything, it just sets up a situation where traditionally blue states might (though unlikely given demographics) end up willingly giving their electoral votes away to GOP candidates without the reverse having a possibility of occurring.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: taestell on November 14, 2016, 08:03:46 PM
^ It couldn't get enacted until a bunch of red states join in. Mathematically it's just impossible they could get to 270 with only solid blue states.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 14, 2016, 08:56:19 PM
Pence tried to keep his emails private? That's funny...

Pence pushes for email privacy
By MATTHEW NUSSBAUM 11/14/16 05:06 PM EST Updated 11/14/16 05:06 PM EST
Vice President-elect Mike Pence is seeking to keep secret the contents of an email relating to Indiana’s participation, at his behest, in a lawsuit to block President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration, an Indianapolis Star article revealed Monday.

MORE:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-administration/2016/11/pence-email-privacy-indiana-231332?cmpid=sf
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 14, 2016, 09:02:21 PM
Potential Press Secretary Laura Ingraham Is Disgusted By Press Who Report Anything She Deems Negative About Trump
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/11/13/potential-press-secretary-laura-ingraham-disgusted-press-who-report-anything-she-deems-negative/214418
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on November 15, 2016, 08:01:02 AM
posting links from mediamatters is roughly equivalent to infowars
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gaslight on November 15, 2016, 08:16:23 AM
Potential Press Secretary Laura Ingraham Is Disgusted By Press Who Report Anything She Deems Negative About Trump
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/11/13/potential-press-secretary-laura-ingraham-disgusted-press-who-report-anything-she-deems-negative/214418

    
The Boy Who Cried Wolf

https://www.storyarts.org/library/aesops/stories/boy.html
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 15, 2016, 08:23:02 AM
posting links from mediamatters is roughly equivalent to infowars

Then don't read it.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 15, 2016, 08:27:36 AM
Steve Bannon.  Harvard grad... check.  Wall street / Goldman Sachs investment banker... check.  Hollywood mogul.... check.  Influential member of the media... check.

posting links from mediamatters is roughly equivalent to infowars

Not even close.  Maybe Fox Nation.  Infowars is a conspiracy spreading and fear mongering website which tells its readers that 9/11 and Sandy Hook were inside jobs.  It's also the source of many of Ram's more wild conspiracies about Clinton we saw regurgitated here.  Media Matters has a strong slant to it, but no different than countless other more normal right-wing outlets.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 15, 2016, 08:29:40 AM
Glenn Beck: Bannon has ‘clear tie’ to white nationalism
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/305932-glenn-beck-bannon-has-clear-tie-to-white-nationalism
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 15, 2016, 08:32:41 AM
KKK, American Nazi Party praise Trump's hiring of Bannon
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/305912-kkk-american-nazi-party-praise-trumps-hiring-of-bannon
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: TBideon on November 15, 2016, 08:50:04 AM
"Bill Kristol: Republican spoiler, renegade Jew,"
"Birth control makes women unattractive and crazy,"
"Political correctness protects Muslim rape culture"
"Trannies whine about hilarious Bruce Jenner billboard,

Lol, that's our country's upcoming chief strategist, folks. What a time to live
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on November 15, 2016, 10:05:53 AM
It's much more likely that we will see the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact) implemented. Instead of amending the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College, states would just agree to give their votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Ten states and DC have signed on, representing 165 electoral votes. It would not take effect until the participating states represent 270 votes.

It would be a shame if that compact is put into place without getting more red states involved. The GOP has only won the popular vote once since 1988, and if didn't happen this year, I'm not sure when it will ever happen with the way demographics are changing. This does nothing to solve the problem, which as I see it, being that residents in urban large areas are having their vote trumped (get it?) by folks living in rural areas. If anything, it just sets up a situation where traditionally blue states might (though unlikely given demographics) end up willingly giving their electoral votes away to GOP candidates without the reverse having a possibility of occurring.

1 vote in Wyoming is equivalent to 3.85 votes in California.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on November 15, 2016, 10:23:08 AM
It's much more likely that we will see the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact) implemented. Instead of amending the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College, states would just agree to give their votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Ten states and DC have signed on, representing 165 electoral votes. It would not take effect until the participating states represent 270 votes.

It would be a shame if that compact is put into place without getting more red states involved. The GOP has only won the popular vote once since 1988, and if didn't happen this year, I'm not sure when it will ever happen with the way demographics are changing. This does nothing to solve the problem, which as I see it, being that residents in urban large areas are having their vote trumped (get it?) by folks living in rural areas. If anything, it just sets up a situation where traditionally blue states might (though unlikely given demographics) end up willingly giving their electoral votes away to GOP candidates without the reverse having a possibility of occurring.

1 vote in Wyoming is equivalent to 3.85 votes in California.

So get a bunch of Californians to move to Wyoming?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 15, 2016, 11:59:39 AM
It's much more likely that we will see the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact) implemented. Instead of amending the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College, states would just agree to give their votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Ten states and DC have signed on, representing 165 electoral votes. It would not take effect until the participating states represent 270 votes.

It would be a shame if that compact is put into place without getting more red states involved. The GOP has only won the popular vote once since 1988, and if didn't happen this year, I'm not sure when it will ever happen with the way demographics are changing. This does nothing to solve the problem, which as I see it, being that residents in urban large areas are having their vote trumped (get it?) by folks living in rural areas. If anything, it just sets up a situation where traditionally blue states might (though unlikely given demographics) end up willingly giving their electoral votes away to GOP candidates without the reverse having a possibility of occurring.

1 vote in Wyoming is equivalent to 3.85 votes in California.

The same is essentially true when it comes to our legislature, so why shouldn't it be true when it comes to the executive branch? If we get rid of the electoral college, why keep the Senate around?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on November 15, 2016, 12:19:54 PM
Then 2 of the 3 Branches are beholden to a state merely existing. If Absaroka, Lincoln, Deseret and Jefferson became states as planned before WWII we'd have 2,000,000 cowboys deciding elections for everyone else.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 15, 2016, 02:12:30 PM
I walked by Trump Tower on Sunday psyched up to see some protests and just saw regular people trying to squeeze down sidewalks that had limited access. The street in front was closed off to most traffic except for buses and emergency vehicles (edit- okay, I see a taxi and other cars, maybe they're secret service--lol). There's some discussion of permanently closing it. I don't know how that would be feasible without creating mass chaos. I would say I feel sorry for residents of Trump Tower, but if you can afford to live there you're probably not on food stamps. I found out later in the day there was indeed a protest march involving immigrants (unlike the spoiled-brat self-absorbed hipsters and paid "anarchists" who were in the earlier ones), but it originated at Columbus Circle and headed down Central Park South. I missed it. I want a re-do!
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5619/30705328760_cb94cdeac7_c.jpg)
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: rockandroller on November 15, 2016, 02:52:53 PM
Howard Stern said today they have blocked off a 2-block radius around the building and restaurants and retail businesses in the area are getting killed because nobody is allowed to get past the borders. This is a terrible idea.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: AJ93 on November 15, 2016, 03:05:12 PM
I read recently that NYC is encouraging Trump not to retain his residence at Trump Tower(or at least not use it) because of the logistical nightmare it would create, i.e. closing off a secure perimeter, limiting access on routes he takes, etc.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 15, 2016, 03:05:42 PM
I liked Trevor Noah's thoughts on equating protesting to sex.  "You can be loud and wild and do it all night long, but when something starts to burn, you should probably stop.”
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: jmecklenborg on November 15, 2016, 03:07:21 PM
It's way too disruptive for him to commute regularly (daily?) from Manhattan to Washington.  Where would Marine 1 touch down and lift off?  Central Park? 

Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: SixthCity on November 15, 2016, 03:14:31 PM
Steve Bannon Is Not a Nazi—But Let’s Be Honest about What He Represents


Principled conservatives, especially those in leadership positions, have a political and moral duty to condemn, and to work to eradicate, the animus that is the alt-right’s raison d’être, and to uphold the pillars of the American project. That project is more than metaphysical abstractions; but it is also not a simple matter of blut und boden. No, Steve Bannon is not Josef Goebbels. But he has provided a forum for people who spend their days photoshopping pictures of conservatives into ovens.

To conservative and liberal alike, that he has the ear of the next president of the United States (a man of no particular convictions, and loyal to no particular principles) should be a source of grave concern — and an occasion for common cause in the crucial task of the years to come: vigilance.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442189/steve-bannon-trump-administration-alt-right-breitbart-chief-strategist
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 15, 2016, 04:54:42 PM
I don't understand the media's constant push to demonize whatever they think the "alt right is" that day (it seems to have an inconstant and completely ambiguous definition). The only thing the alt right does, in effect, is constantly throw wrenches into the push for political correctness, which is an excellent thing. "White supremacists" in this day and age are just like the 90s boogeymen - "satanists." There weren't a bunch of satanists cults roaming around in the 90s, and there aren't any white supremacists groups roaming around today.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 15, 2016, 05:18:15 PM
^rich post from someone all worked up about podesta's satanism...
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: smith on November 15, 2016, 05:19:50 PM
there aren't any white supremacists groups roaming around today.


The Ku Klux Klan says it will hold a Trump victory parade in North Carolina
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-updates-trail-guide-kkk-trump-north-carolina-1478822255-htmlstory.html
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on November 15, 2016, 06:44:38 PM
I don't understand the media's constant push to demonize whatever they think the "alt right is" that day (it seems to have an inconstant and completely ambiguous definition). The only thing the alt right does, in effect, is constantly throw wrenches into the push for political correctness, which is an excellent thing. "White supremacists" in this day and age are just like the 90s boogeymen - "satanists." There weren't a bunch of satanists cults roaming around in the 90s, and there aren't any white supremacists groups roaming around today.

Ram, do you read Breitbart?  Let alone VDARE, Occidental Dissent, American Renaissance, the National Policy Institute?  These are the heirs of the John Birch Society movement that National Review effectively expelled from the conservative movement in the 1950s, mixed with even less savory elements hybridized into the DNA of the hard right from Europe's post-WWII hard right.  Steve Bannon himself is more of an enigma, but as I like to keep reminding people on both sides of the aisle, politics is not law.  Politics is larger than law.  And in politics, guilt by association is a perfectly valid mode of thinking.  Steve Bannon gave a platform to certain people.  And it was not a place like old Reddit where the very nature of the platform is to give a platform to everyone (even Reddit has gone for a bit of censorship now, but they held out longer than most of the old free-Internet stalwarts); Bannon's outlet specifically courted the alt-right through editorial slant and contributor staffing.  Its readership has skyrocketed.  Some of those are just people like me checking in on the people they disagree with, just like I check the Atlantic and the Nation.  But a lot of those people are there not to critique the site's views, but just to absorb them.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 16, 2016, 07:54:15 AM
I read recently that NYC is encouraging Trump not to retain his residence at Trump Tower(or at least not use it) because of the logistical nightmare it would create, i.e. closing off a secure perimeter, limiting access on routes he takes, etc.

There's room for a helipad on the roof and supposedly the building can structurally handle one.  They've been banned in NYC since 9/11 but I would expect an exception will be made.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: jmecklenborg on November 16, 2016, 08:28:07 AM
I read recently that NYC is encouraging Trump not to retain his residence at Trump Tower(or at least not use it) because of the logistical nightmare it would create, i.e. closing off a secure perimeter, limiting access on routes he takes, etc.

There's room for a helipad on the roof and supposedly the building can structurally handle one.  They've been banned in NYC since 9/11 but I would expect an exception will be made.


I think I remember reading that they ran a commercial service off the roof of the PanAm Building for maybe 5 years at some point.  Still, Marine 1 is no doubt a heavier helicopter than Trump 1, and don't they usually fly a group of them so that evil-doers don't know which one to shoot?

Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Columbo on November 16, 2016, 08:37:30 AM
Josef Goebbles, ladies and gentlemen....

Trump draws sharp rebuke, concerns over newly appointed chief White House strategist Stephen Bannon
http://wapo.st/2fOfOCd

It figures that the American version of Goebbles would be an overweight slob :roll:

(http://www.capitolhillblue.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/081916stephenbannon-2.jpg)
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on November 16, 2016, 08:51:45 AM
I read recently that NYC is encouraging Trump not to retain his residence at Trump Tower(or at least not use it) because of the logistical nightmare it would create, i.e. closing off a secure perimeter, limiting access on routes he takes, etc.

There's room for a helipad on the roof and supposedly the building can structurally handle one.  They've been banned in NYC since 9/11 but I would expect an exception will be made.


I think I remember reading that they ran a commercial service off the roof of the PanAm Building for maybe 5 years at some point.  Still, Marine 1 is no doubt a heavier helicopter than Trump 1, and don't they usually fly a group of them so that evil-doers don't know which one to shoot?



I used to work 2 blocks from the White House. They sent out fake motorcades way more often than real ones. The "There goes the President, wink wink" joke was so old that nobody made it. DC is used to that kind of stuff but New Yorkers will just get extra cranky.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: ColDayMan on November 16, 2016, 09:13:23 AM
Glenn Beck: The alt-right is truly terrifying

(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/161113155404-bannon-11-11-medium-plus-169.jpg)

Nationally syndicated radio host Glenn Beck said Tuesday that the alt-right movement is "truly terrifying," adding that while leading Breitbart News, Stephen Bannon gave a voice to white nationalists.

"He has given a voice and power to that group of people," Beck told Anderson Cooper on "AC360." "You don't empower people like that. You just don't. It's not smart."

The alt-right movement has been accused of white nationalism, racism, misogyny and anti-Semitism. In July, Bannon told Mother Jones that his site had become "the platform for the alt-right."

More below:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/15/politics/glenn-beck-bannon-appointment-white-nationalists-anderson-cooper/index.html
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 16, 2016, 09:19:26 AM
Glenn Beck: The alt-right is truly terrifying

(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/161113155404-bannon-11-11-medium-plus-169.jpg)

Nationally syndicated radio host Glenn Beck said Tuesday that the alt-right movement is "truly terrifying," adding that while leading Breitbart News, Stephen Bannon gave a voice to white nationalists.

"He has given a voice and power to that group of people," Beck told Anderson Cooper on "AC360." "You don't empower people like that. You just don't. It's not smart."

The alt-right movement has been accused of white nationalism, racism, misogyny and anti-Semitism. In July, Bannon told Mother Jones that his site had become "the platform for the alt-right."

More below:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/15/politics/glenn-beck-bannon-appointment-white-nationalists-anderson-cooper/index.html

It's not really the entire "alt-right" but a branch that is trying to claim credit for being the whole thing.   Even previous stalwarts such as Milo Yannipoulous (sic?) are distancing themselves.

The best hope is that Bannon is being set up as a fall guy, Ernst Rohm instead of Goebbels.  It's hard to imagine Trump having much use for anti-Semitism considering his family situation.   
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 16, 2016, 09:23:23 AM
If you're curious about what the alt-right claims to be (and actually is), read the article below (and the "guide" linked in the article).

Alt-right star Milo Yiannopoulos and what the movement is really all about

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/altright-star-milo-yiannopoulos-and-what-the-movement-is-really-all-about/news-story/4992fe2499be0c845f38f42af50709c8

Senior Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos, who describes himself as “the most fabulous supervillain on the internet”, has made a name for himself as a leader of the alternative right-wing energised by the President-elect’s campaign and victory.

The UK-born shock columnist has recently seen his name added to a half-genuine list of contenders for Josh Earnest’s role — something Mr Yiannopoulos said he would love to turn Apprentice-style if given the chance...

He didn’t doubt Mr Trump would “sail” into the White House off the back of the Brexit vote which proved “it doesn’t matter how loudly you call people bigots, racist and sexist, tell them that they’re being xenophobic — you name-calling them doesn’t work anymore,” he told the Times...

In March, Mr Yiannopoulous and Allum Bokhari described the group in their “Conservative guide to the alt-right” as an “amorphous movement” of subcultures from “intellectuals” to “natural conservatives” and a “meme team”.

They’re “dangerously bright”, mostly college-educated men who live in a “manosphere” and revel in busting taboos on race, feminism, misogyny and any other kind of political correctness.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 16, 2016, 09:37:43 AM
It's not really the entire "alt-right" but a branch that is trying to claim credit for being the whole thing.   Even previous stalwarts such as Milo Yannipoulous (sic?) are distancing themselves.

The best hope is that Bannon is being set up as a fall guy, Ernst Rohm instead of Goebbels.  It's hard to imagine Trump having much use for anti-Semitism considering his family situation.   

The problem is the term "alt right" has been completely co-opted by left leaning media sources. They use it as an umbrella term to cover the everyone from actual neo-Nazis to trolls on 4chan to young Trump supporters who aren't racist at all.  They can then use the term at will to silence legitimate criticism as racist without having to actually address it. That's why there's so much fuss about Bannon - the left can, and will, use him as a tool to criticize Trump without having to actually talk about any of Trump's specifics. He could very well be a fall guy - the left has demonized the term so much at this point that the best way to defeat it might be to play ball and redefine it, very specifically, while absorbing it's original intent of being adverse to political correctness as a mainstream right wing platform.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 16, 2016, 09:39:29 AM
If you're curious about what the alt-right claims to be (and actually is), read the article below (and the "guide" linked in the article).

Alt-right star Milo Yiannopoulos and what the movement is really all about

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/altright-star-milo-yiannopoulos-and-what-the-movement-is-really-all-about/news-story/4992fe2499be0c845f38f42af50709c8

Senior Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos, who describes himself as “the most fabulous supervillain on the internet”, has made a name for himself as a leader of the alternative right-wing energised by the President-elect’s campaign and victory.

The UK-born shock columnist has recently seen his name added to a half-genuine list of contenders for Josh Earnest’s role — something Mr Yiannopoulos said he would love to turn Apprentice-style if given the chance...

He didn’t doubt Mr Trump would “sail” into the White House off the back of the Brexit vote which proved “it doesn’t matter how loudly you call people bigots, racist and sexist, tell them that they’re being xenophobic — you name-calling them doesn’t work anymore,” he told the Times...

In March, Mr Yiannopoulous and Allum Bokhari described the group in their “Conservative guide to the alt-right” as an “amorphous movement” of subcultures from “intellectuals” to “natural conservatives” and a “meme team”.

They’re “dangerously bright”, mostly college-educated men who live in a “manosphere” and revel in busting taboos on race, feminism, misogyny and any other kind of political correctness.


This is old, and Milo has distanced himself somewhat from the title.   He's more of a disturber than anything else and doesn't really embrace the more hateful stuff except perhaps for Muslims.   Ironically, like Ann Coulter his documented taste in guys is middle eastern.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Columbo on November 16, 2016, 09:54:05 AM
Just how offensive did Milo Yiannopoulos have to be to get banned from Twitter? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/07/21/what-it-takes-to-get-banned-from-twitter/)
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: smith on November 16, 2016, 09:56:39 AM
It's not really the entire "alt-right" but a branch that is trying to claim credit for being the whole thing.   Even previous stalwarts such as Milo Yannipoulous (sic?) are distancing themselves.

The best hope is that Bannon is being set up as a fall guy, Ernst Rohm instead of Goebbels.  It's hard to imagine Trump having much use for anti-Semitism considering his family situation.   

The problem is the term "alt right" has been completely co-opted by left leaning media sources. They use it as an umbrella term to cover the everyone from actual neo-Nazis to trolls on 4chan to young Trump supporters who aren't racist at all.  They can then use the term at will to silence legitimate criticism as racist without having to actually address it. That's why there's so much fuss about Bannon - the left can, and will, use him as a tool to criticize Trump without having to actually talk about any of Trump's specifics. He could very well be a fall guy - the left has demonized the term so much at this point that the best way to defeat it might be to play ball and redefine it, very specifically, while absorbing it's original intent of being adverse to political correctness as a mainstream right wing platform.

No.  "alt-right" has been co-opted by racists in an attempt to normalize their extremist viewpoints.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 16, 2016, 10:02:09 AM
It's not really the entire "alt-right" but a branch that is trying to claim credit for being the whole thing.   Even previous stalwarts such as Milo Yannipoulous (sic?) are distancing themselves.

The best hope is that Bannon is being set up as a fall guy, Ernst Rohm instead of Goebbels.  It's hard to imagine Trump having much use for anti-Semitism considering his family situation.   

The problem is the term "alt right" has been completely co-opted by left leaning media sources. They use it as an umbrella term to cover the everyone from actual neo-Nazis to trolls on 4chan to young Trump supporters who aren't racist at all.  They can then use the term at will to silence legitimate criticism as racist without having to actually address it. That's why there's so much fuss about Bannon - the left can, and will, use him as a tool to criticize Trump without having to actually talk about any of Trump's specifics. He could very well be a fall guy - the left has demonized the term so much at this point that the best way to defeat it might be to play ball and redefine it, very specifically, while absorbing it's original intent of being adverse to political correctness as a mainstream right wing platform.

It's a lot like what they did with "Tea Party" except this time they have more actual bogey men playing along.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 16, 2016, 10:06:05 AM
Just how offensive did Milo Yiannopoulos have to be to get banned from Twitter? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/07/21/what-it-takes-to-get-banned-from-twitter/)

They just banned a few more "alt-right" accounts for far more spurious reasons, it's pretty much a given that they play political favorites.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 16, 2016, 10:20:25 AM
Twitter, as a private enterprise, is free to enforce certain rules of civility within the "twitterverse."  If you break those rules, your account can be banned.  Same goes for FB and other social media platforms.  I suspect it won't be long until we have a much more mainstream platform with the express purpose of not enforcing any such rules.  You will be allowed to post, tweet, etc. whatever you want in any manner you want without worry that your account may be banned.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: audidave on November 16, 2016, 10:36:24 AM
I wonder when they will ban DJT?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 16, 2016, 10:38:05 AM
^ I'm actually surprised they haven't. I'd make a small bet that it will happen at some point before or during his 2020 reeleciton.

^^ Except they aren't really rules of civility, because they're completely along political lines. "#RapeMelania" was allowed to trend, for example, without any bans or censorship, and we can all still logon daily to get updates about who has been crucified or burned alive by ISIS. Their rules are enforced at the discretion of the censors, who are likely all very left wing people.

They have every right to ban anyone they want to (at least, to the same extent a bakery has the right to deny service anyone they want to), but let's not pretend they are doing so without a blatantly obvious political lean. They are also flirting dangerously with having a policy that de facto disproportionately affects members of one race, and perhaps one gender as well.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 16, 2016, 10:44:05 AM
^'The white man is under attack' thought process.  Forget about animus towards another race, THAT is what defines the alt-right.  Some serious victimization syndrome going on there.

You can find plenty of examples of hatred of every form going unchecked on any of those platforms.  They only have so many resources to keep it in check.  I can certainly attest that there is still PLENTY of hate from right wingers being spewed on Twitter and Facebook even if you can find a few examples of someone being banned.  The difference is that when someone from the alt-right gets banned, it turns into a media frenzy.  When someone not a part of that group gets banned, it's a non-story.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on November 16, 2016, 01:57:19 PM
Ram: We can log on daily to get news about ISIS atrocities, but Twitter has actually somewhat aggressively sought out and deactivated accounts of actual ISIS propagandists and jihadist proselytizers.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: jam40jeff on November 16, 2016, 02:03:52 PM
Many of the "new tech" people are Libertarian, so I'd be surprised if "the powers that be" in the Twitterverse are all that left-leaning.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 16, 2016, 02:12:09 PM
Many of the "new tech" people are Libertarian, so I'd be surprised if "the powers that be" in the Twitterverse are all that left-leaning.

The CEO's a Dem contributor.

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.php?name=jack+dorsey&cycle=All&sort=R&state=&zip=&employ=&cand=&submit=Submit
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 16, 2016, 02:16:28 PM
^A stingy one at that.  Only $3,000 over the past 6 or more years?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 16, 2016, 03:03:55 PM
^A stingy one at that.  Only $3,000 over the past 6 or more years?

His real contributions aren't money, but the censorship of unpopular speech on his website, and the promotion of Democratic ideals to millions of users. That's a rather priceless contribution to the Dems, IMO.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 16, 2016, 03:23:55 PM
If someone is being banned, I would bet they have gone far beyond "unpopular speech."  But no need to get all hot under the collar about yet another conspiracy against you and the other victims of this rampant persecution.  I'm sure a social media platform is being designed right now where you will be free to engage in whatever type of "unpopular speech" you need in your life.  If it isn't, you should look into it.  I would just encourage your movement to have the balls to make it a snapchat type model where the rest of us can actually see your face.  Time to stop being afraid. 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 16, 2016, 03:41:12 PM
Rough start.  Looks like Bannon may be facing some trouble with the FEC for breaking a few election laws.  And Foreign Policy advisor Gen. Michael Flynn is quickly becoming embroiled in a serious ethical scandal. 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: audidave on November 16, 2016, 03:52:50 PM
I love how every crackpot keeps floating to the surface for the admin. Blackwell, Gaffney, Rohrabacker, etc. They are out of politics for a reason. 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: audidave on November 16, 2016, 04:54:10 PM
I think it might be a bloodsport deciding between nugent vs duck dynasty dude over who will be secretary of huntin
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: jmecklenborg on November 16, 2016, 05:26:57 PM
I think to some degree Trump will suffer from not knowing enough people and not knowing their full background, but I think he's also messing with a bunch of these guys.  Giving a bunch of them the idea that they're "in", when they're not.  Meanwhile, he needs to have his kids involved because he needs to have people in there who he can trust. 

I also kind of wonder what this is doing for his brand awareness overseas -- we all know who the guy is but I wonder if people in some countries are being dazzled and that will help his existing properties, at least the overseas ones. 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on November 16, 2016, 07:38:25 PM
I think to some degree Trump will suffer from not knowing enough people and not knowing their full background, but I think he's also messing with a bunch of these guys.  Giving a bunch of them the idea that they're "in", when they're not. 


"You're fired!"
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: audidave on November 16, 2016, 09:35:36 PM
Gosh i hope his brand isn't suffering too much overseas. Hopefully both of his istanbool towers can be profitable. Erdogan can probably tell his people to book it up if trump sends over gulen for a show trial.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: surfohio on November 16, 2016, 11:32:55 PM
Maybe Giuliani and Gov. Christy can be cellmates?

If Hillary Clinton Belongs in Prison, So Does Rudy Giuliani
Jacob Sullum
Nov. 16, 2016

During the presidential campaign, Rudy Giuliani argued (correctly) that Hillary Clinton could be charged with a federal felony for mishandling classified information through her sloppy email practices as secretary of state even if she did not intend to break the law. But there is also a strong case to be made that the former New York City mayor, who reportedly is in the running for attorney general or secretary of state in the Trump administration, committed multiple federal felonies by assisting Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK), an Iranian opposition group that the State Department listed as a terrorist organization until September 2012.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/16/if-hillary-clinton-belongs-in-prison-so
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 17, 2016, 09:53:09 AM
Update: More Than 400 Incidents of Hateful Harassment and Intimidation Since the Election
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/11/15/update-more-400-incidents-hateful-harassment-and-intimidation-election
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on November 17, 2016, 10:16:08 AM
Update: More Than 400 Incidents of Hateful Harassment and Intimidation Since the Election
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/11/15/update-more-400-incidents-hateful-harassment-and-intimidation-election

Probably caused by George Soros's army of rabble rousers.

400 incidents is hardly a problem in the grand scheme of things. It is part of living in a free country. Sometimes we have to put up with a little crap, but it is worth it because of the benefits that freedom brings.

I encourage you to move on, take your head out of its bubble and quit stewing about each perceived individual slight that may happen and enjoy life. It is too short to worry about Donald Trump
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 17, 2016, 10:19:43 AM
Yeah Ken.  You should try to emulate the GOP after Obama's elections.  Don't worry about the POTUS, what he does, and what he stands for.  Just move on and enjoy life.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: SixthCity on November 17, 2016, 10:30:16 AM
Long but worth the read.

You Are Still Crying Wolf

http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on November 17, 2016, 11:50:46 AM
Yeah Ken.  You should try to emulate the GOP after Obama's elections.  Don't worry about the POTUS, what he does, and what he stands for.  Just move on and enjoy life.

He does not have to love the fact Trump won, I get it, but c'mon, quit being such a Debbie downer. 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Urbanophile on November 17, 2016, 12:12:57 PM
If being offended by a spike of hate crimes in the wake of Trump's victory makes someone a Debbie downer, then I guess I'm a proud Debbie downer.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on November 17, 2016, 12:18:34 PM
^ Not a spike in hate crimes, Ken just goes out seeking negative information and trying to find anything negative to justify his views. Finding a few stories about a hate crime or two does not make a trend. This stuff will go on periodically, it is part of living in a free country. However, it is the rare exception and not the norm. Ken likes to find these one in a million problems and act like they are going on regularly on every corner when in fact they are a rare exception.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 17, 2016, 12:24:11 PM
^^and if you're following the news you know that those hate crimes are being committed by people on both sides of the political divide, so maybe we should just call for an end to all of them. Or maybe someone being attacked for wearing a Make America Great Again hat doesn't get the benefit of being the victim of a hate crime?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 17, 2016, 12:30:54 PM
^Whether or not that is a hate crime depends on the hate crime laws in the particular state it happened, and while I wish it were more, the states which designate political affiliation or beliefs as a hate crime category are few and far between.  That said, no reasonable person would not denounce anyone who physically assaults a Trump supporter and you certainly won't find many people at all who would say the attackers should not be prosecuted.  They should be arrested and vigorously prosecuted, just like any other physical assault.

^ Not a spike in hate crimes, Ken just goes out seeking negative information and trying to find anything negative to justify his views. Finding a few stories about a hate crime or two does not make a trend. This stuff will go on periodically, it is part of living in a free country. However, it is the rare exception and not the norm. Ken likes to find these one in a million problems and act like they are going on regularly on every corner when in fact they are a rare exception.

You are seriously due for one of these moments...

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/IlpjRSf4d_k/hqdefault.jpg)

Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: rockandroller on November 17, 2016, 12:31:41 PM
Ok, Ken goes out SEEKING NEGATIVE INFORMATION? This stuff is EVERYWHERE. There are so many incidents it's impossible to escape them. I see at least 20 a day in my various social media feeds.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on November 17, 2016, 12:46:34 PM


You are seriously due for one of these moments...

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/IlpjRSf4d_k/hqdefault.jpg)



Whoa now, that opens you up for an "I learned it by watching you!"
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on November 17, 2016, 01:07:56 PM
Ok, Ken goes out SEEKING NEGATIVE INFORMATION? This stuff is EVERYWHERE. There are so many incidents it's impossible to escape them. I see at least 20 a day in my various social media feeds.

Yes, it is sensationalist and perpetuated in the social media bubble that you are in. I am not unrealistic and not saying that it does not exist, but to the extent of the doom and gloom and day or reckoning that Ken likes to post, I am saying that the world is not that bad.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 17, 2016, 01:10:39 PM
^^Well, I think Ken could rightfully say that after the eight years of drivel we had to read on here about the Obama Presidency, including every conspiracy theory.  The pic I posted captures the dad's face at the moment of realization that he did learn it from him..... which I why I posted it.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on November 17, 2016, 01:17:22 PM
^ I for one never posted anything about right wing conspiracy moments on this site. While I was never a fan of Obama I generally thought both he and his family ran the office well and kept the dignity of the presidents office in high esteem. I hated his policies and did not vote for him either time and glad his time is done.

I was not a trump nor Hillary fan. Nor do I buy in these conspiracy stories. So to your point, Ken did not learn his behavior from me over the last 8 years.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 17, 2016, 01:21:01 PM
^Fair enough.  I can't say I remember you doing that.  But I also can't remember you ever decrying others for doing so over the course of the past 8 years.  It's only been a week and you are already all over KJP.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 17, 2016, 01:23:27 PM
^Whether or not that is a hate crime depends on the hate crime laws in the particular state it happened, and while I wish it were more, the states which designate political affiliation or beliefs as a hate crime category are few and far between.  That said, no reasonable person would not denounce anyone who physically assaults a Trump supporter and you certainly won't find many people at all who would say the attackers should not be prosecuted.  They should be arrested and vigorously prosecuted, just like any other physical assault.

The commotion is over an article on the SPLC's website. It simply states they have received an influx of reports of "harassment and intimidation." So we aren't even talking about actual hate crimes, we don't know that all of these reported events actually happened, and if any of them actually were crimes, there's absolutely no way anyone has been found guilty yet - they likely haven't even been charged or made it to a grand jury yet.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on November 17, 2016, 01:27:59 PM
^Fair enough.  I can't say I remember you doing that.  But I also can't remember you ever decrying others for doing so over the course of the past 8 years.  It's only been a week and you are already all over KJP.

To be honest, I have called out some conspiracy theories as such, however, not so much on this page as other sites I frequent. Typically, I had not really frequented the politics section of UO much in the past and was more interested in the development side of things.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: rockandroller on November 17, 2016, 01:37:14 PM
i don't deny there's a certain "echo chamber" to my friends' posts, but much of my social media, especially twitter, is a very, very broad base of sources of news.

There IS an increase in hate crimes since this election. That's not a conspiracy theory or echo chamber. It's happening. It's happened to several people I know PERSONALLY and that's not "echo chamber-dependent." I have a friend who was called a disparaging term for a gay person. I have another friend who got a threatening note under their car windshield. These are actual people, not fringy tin-foil hat sites reporting on people being "worried" about what might happen.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 17, 2016, 01:45:54 PM
i don't deny there's a certain "echo chamber" to my friends' posts, but much of my social media, especially twitter, is a very, very broad base of sources of news.

There IS an increase in hate crimes since this election. That's not a conspiracy theory or echo chamber. It's happening. It's happened to several people I know PERSONALLY and that's not "echo chamber-dependent." I have a friend who was called a disparaging term for a gay person. I have another friend who got a threatening note under their car windshield. These are actual people, not fringy tin-foil hat sites reporting on people being "worried" about what might happen.

Name calling and anonymous notes are not always reported, now of course they are because of the election.   Neither is nice, but neither rises to the level of what we would normally call "hate crimes".   The stuff reported against people assumed to be pro-Trump does.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: jmecklenborg on November 17, 2016, 02:23:10 PM
CNN reporting that Christie was pushed out by Trump's son-in-law:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/16/opinions/jared-kushner-opinion-louis/index.html

You know it's easy to have a cocky walk and ask out Trump's daughter when at age 25 you've had enough money given to you that you can buy the New York Observer.  By contrast, when I was 25 I had a net worth of -$50,000 or thereabouts. 

Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: ck on November 17, 2016, 02:28:28 PM
^^and if you're following the news you know that those hate crimes are being committed by people on both sides of the political divide, so maybe we should just call for an end to all of them. Or maybe someone being attacked for wearing a Make America Great Again hat doesn't get the benefit of being the victim of a hate crime?

I wish we could just wait before jumping to dramatic conclusions.  How often do we hear something that seems like a terrible thing only to later learn we had no context or there was more to the story?  We just need to not be so reactionary.  There's ample time to get things right before acting, we should use that time. 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Columbo on November 17, 2016, 02:39:30 PM
CNN reporting that Christie was pushed out by Trump's son-in-law:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/16/opinions/jared-kushner-opinion-louis/index.html


Well, Chris Christie did prosecute the case that sent Jared Kushner's father to jail.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 17, 2016, 02:57:54 PM
^Whether or not that is a hate crime depends on the hate crime laws in the particular state it happened, and while I wish it were more, the states which designate political affiliation or beliefs as a hate crime category are few and far between.  That said, no reasonable person would not denounce anyone who physically assaults a Trump supporter and you certainly won't find many people at all who would say the attackers should not be prosecuted.  They should be arrested and vigorously prosecuted, just like any other physical assault.

The commotion is over an article on the SPLC's website. It simply states they have received an influx of reports of "harassment and intimidation." So we aren't even talking about actual hate crimes, we don't know that all of these reported events actually happened, and if any of them actually were crimes, there's absolutely no way anyone has been found guilty yet - they likely haven't even been charged or made it to a grand jury yet.

I don't see how that is responsive at all to my reply to EVD.  He was talking about the video YOU have continually referenced.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: jmecklenborg on November 17, 2016, 03:11:33 PM
It is now being speculated that Trump will nominate Mitt Romney for Secretary of State.  Drain the swamp?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 17, 2016, 03:18:31 PM
^Whether or not that is a hate crime depends on the hate crime laws in the particular state it happened, and while I wish it were more, the states which designate political affiliation or beliefs as a hate crime category are few and far between.  That said, no reasonable person would not denounce anyone who physically assaults a Trump supporter and you certainly won't find many people at all who would say the attackers should not be prosecuted.  They should be arrested and vigorously prosecuted, just like any other physical assault.

The commotion is over an article on the SPLC's website. It simply states they have received an influx of reports of "harassment and intimidation." So we aren't even talking about actual hate crimes, we don't know that all of these reported events actually happened, and if any of them actually were crimes, there's absolutely no way anyone has been found guilty yet - they likely haven't even been charged or made it to a grand jury yet.

I don't see how that is responsive at all to my reply to EVD.  He was talking about the video YOU have continually referenced.

I was addressing the argument in general - most of the incidents on SPLC's website are not hate crimes. The video I posted very likely was a hate crime. The evidence points to the fact that the crowd was mad about Trump's election, and wanted to beat up a white guy. However, the fact that it happened in Chicago means charges likely won't be pursued adequately.

Trump did go on national television and say "Stop it" to any of his supporters who might be committing violent acts.  I haven't heard Clinton or Obama or anyone on the left call on their supporters to stop the violence even though by all measures there's more coming from that side than the other. I suppose when Trump goes high, they go low?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on November 17, 2016, 03:26:50 PM
It is now being speculated that Trump will nominate Mitt Romney for Secretary of State.  Drain the swamp?

That's the fourth name I've heard in a week for Sec of State.

Didn't Romney trash him pretty hard during the campaign?  I don't know what sort of Sec of State Romney would make but you can't say he's surrounding himself with "yes-men". 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 17, 2016, 03:44:16 PM
^Whether or not that is a hate crime depends on the hate crime laws in the particular state it happened, and while I wish it were more, the states which designate political affiliation or beliefs as a hate crime category are few and far between.  That said, no reasonable person would not denounce anyone who physically assaults a Trump supporter and you certainly won't find many people at all who would say the attackers should not be prosecuted.  They should be arrested and vigorously prosecuted, just like any other physical assault.

The commotion is over an article on the SPLC's website. It simply states they have received an influx of reports of "harassment and intimidation." So we aren't even talking about actual hate crimes, we don't know that all of these reported events actually happened, and if any of them actually were crimes, there's absolutely no way anyone has been found guilty yet - they likely haven't even been charged or made it to a grand jury yet.

I don't see how that is responsive at all to my reply to EVD.  He was talking about the video YOU have continually referenced.

I was addressing the argument in general - most of the incidents on SPLC's website are not hate crimes. The video I posted very likely was a hate crime. The evidence points to the fact that the crowd was mad about Trump's election, and wanted to beat up a white guy. However, the fact that it happened in Chicago means charges likely won't be pursued adequately.

Trump did go on national television and say "Stop it" to any of his supporters who might be committing violent acts.  I haven't heard Clinton or Obama or anyone on the left call on their supporters to stop the violence even though by all measures there's more coming from that side than the other. I suppose when Trump goes high, they go low?

Violence is not being committed by Clinton or Obama "supporters".  Just because someone is black doesn't mean they are liberal supporters.  And Obama has numerous times called for an end to violence at protests.   That wasn't reported on the alt-right sites, so I will give you a pass.

Here's just one of many examples...

“We saw in San Jose these protesters starting to pelt stuff and Trump supporters,” Mr. Obama said at a fundraiser near Biscayne Bay, Florida. “That’s not what our democracy is about. That’s not what you do. There’s no room for violence. There’s no place for shouting. There’s no room for a politics that fails to at least listen to the other side — even if you vehemently disagree.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/3/obama-calls-democrats-stop-violence-trump-rallies/
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: ColDayMan on November 17, 2016, 03:55:10 PM
(http://rs1009.pbsrc.com/albums/af215/bowierocks/smiley_nope.gif~c200)

Japanese American internment is ‘precedent’ for national Muslim registry, prominent Trump backer says

A spokesman for a major super PAC backing Donald Trump said Wednesday that the mass internment of Japanese Americans during World War II was a “precedent” for the president-elect’s plans to create a registry for immigrants from Muslim countries.

During an appearance on Megyn Kelly’s Fox News show, Carl Higbie said a registry proposal being discussed by Trump’s immigration advisers would be legal and would “hold constitutional muster.”

“We’ve done it with Iran back awhile ago. We did it during World War II with the Japanese,” said Higbie, a former Navy SEAL and a spokesman for the pro-Trump Great America PAC.

Kelly seemed taken aback by the idea.

“Come on, you’re not proposing we go back to the days of internment camps, I hope,” she said.

“I’m not proposing that at all,” Higbie told her. “But I’m just saying there is precedent for it.”

More below:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/17/japanese-internment-is-precedent-for-national-muslim-registry-prominent-trump-backer-says/
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: ColDayMan on November 17, 2016, 04:01:24 PM
Trump will remake agency that ruled against his Vegas hotel

A Las Vegas hotel owned by President-elect Donald Trump is locked in a battle with the federal agency charged with enforcing the nation's labor laws.

The problem: As President, Trump will soon appoint three of its five members.

The issue before the National Labor Relations Board is whether the Trump International Hotel must negotiate with Unite Here, a coalition of the Culinary Workers union and Bartenders union. The employees, in a 238 to 209 vote last year, said they want to be represented by the group.

Despite that, Trump's hotel management has refused to recognize the union, charging that employees were intimidated into voting Yes. The labor board heard the hotel's complaints and rejected them in a November 3 ruling.

All three members of the labor board -- two Democrats and one Republican -- ruled the hotel must recognize the union and negotiate with the union. Trump's attorneys have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the ruling.

More below:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/17/news/companies/trump-hotel-labor-dispute/index.html
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: ColDayMan on November 17, 2016, 04:03:11 PM
Bills would target burqas, whiny college students, abortions
...
Iowa Rep. Bobby Kaufmann is upset that college students reacted to Donald Trump's election by retreating to "cry rooms" and blocking Interstate 80 with their protests.

Kaufmann says he'll file a bill that will penalize state colleges that fund election-related sit-ins and grief counseling beyond what is normally available, the Des Moines Register reports.

Schools would be subject to a budget cut twice what they spent on such an activity. His bill would set new criminal penalties for protesters who shut down highways.

"You've got a right to be a brat," Kaufmann said, according to CNN affiliate WQAD. "You've got a right to protest, that's constitutionally protected. But you do not have a right to throw a temper tantrum on I-80 and put my constituents' lives in danger."

More below:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/17/politics/proposed-bills-trnd/index.html
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: ColDayMan on November 17, 2016, 04:04:29 PM
Pence tells House GOP to 'buckle up' for breakneck pace

Vice President-elect Mike Pence told his former colleagues in the House Thursday to "buckle up" for an ambitious open to the new administration, marked by efforts to roll back Obamacare and regulations and tackle tax reform.

"I'm very confident that as we move towards inauguration, bring together a great team, work in concert with leaders in the House and Senate, and we're going to move an agenda that's going to rebuild our military, revive our economy, and -- in a word -- make America great again," Pence said Thursday after he left his meeting with the House Republican Conference -- a group he used to chair when he was in Congress four years ago.

Pence, embracing his role as a chief liaison to Congress for the new administration of Donald Trump, was clearly happy as he headed to the Hill. He has multiple meetings with Congressional leaders throughout the day Thursday, including with House Speaker Paul Ryan, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

More below:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/17/politics/mike-pence-house-republicans/index.html
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: taestell on November 17, 2016, 05:07:57 PM
I wonder how many of these Baby Boomers were part of protests and boycotts in their younger days, and are now yelling at "the youth" for being upset and protesting the outcome of this election.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 17, 2016, 05:20:09 PM
Trump is rumored to be considering Romney for SoS.  I kinda like that if it's true.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 17, 2016, 05:30:20 PM
^I do too. I also like Haley for the position. Giuliani scares the sh!t out of me.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on November 17, 2016, 05:35:39 PM

Japanese American internment is ‘precedent’ for national Muslim registry, prominent Trump backer says

A spokesman for a major super PAC backing Donald Trump said Wednesday that the mass internment of Japanese Americans during World War II was a “precedent” for the president-elect’s plans to create a registry for immigrants from Muslim countries.

During an appearance on Megyn Kelly’s Fox News show, Carl Higbie said a registry proposal being discussed by Trump’s immigration advisers would be legal and would “hold constitutional muster.”

Justice Scalia had some words on Korematsu many years ago that I thought were just him being his usual ascerbic self at the time, but which are a little bit more ominous now.  He said that the ruling was wrong, but that the executive would still be likely to get away with a similar program in the future anyway, just because "inter arma enim silent leges" (in time of war, the laws fall silent).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/08/justice-scalia-on-kelo-and-korematsu/

Nevertheless, that's far from a ringing endorsement of Korematsu as law.  More an empirical warning that the Supreme Court alone cannot enforce its will on a rogue executive; if the executive ignores the judiciary and the legislature ignores the executive ignoring the judiciary, the recourse (other than the ultimate Second Amendment one) of the citizenry is somewhat limited.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on November 17, 2016, 05:36:54 PM
^I do too. I also like Haley for the position. Giuliani scares the sh!t out of me.
  Romney or Haley at least are convincing as diplomats, regardless of experience, just because of personality and demeanor.

Which is probably why the pick will be someone like Bolton or Gaffney.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Cleburger on November 17, 2016, 06:59:30 PM
^ Not a spike in hate crimes, Ken just goes out seeking negative information and trying to find anything negative to justify his views. Finding a few stories about a hate crime or two does not make a trend. This stuff will go on periodically, it is part of living in a free country. However, it is the rare exception and not the norm. Ken likes to find these one in a million problems and act like they are going on regularly on every corner when in fact they are a rare exception.


The problem is, Ken doesn't have to go out of his way to find this kind of attitude.   He only needs to look here:  https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

Take a scroll through the last year with hundreds of tweets demeaning women, Mexicans and other people he doesn't agree with.  Go back even further and follow his years of claiming Obama wasn't legitimate, and people should resist anything he wants to do.   

These are not exceptions in Trumps world.  They are the norm.   

This started as a joke, but we are beginning to see the guy doesn't have the slightest clue what he's doing.   He's draining the swamp, but saving some of the water to pump right back into it.   

 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Cleburger on November 17, 2016, 07:01:01 PM
Pence tells House GOP to 'buckle up' for breakneck pace

Vice President-elect Mike Pence told his former colleagues in the House Thursday to "buckle up" for an ambitious open to the new administration, marked by efforts to roll back Obamacare and regulations and tackle tax reform.

"I'm very confident that as we move towards inauguration, bring together a great team, work in concert with leaders in the House and Senate, and we're going to move an agenda that's going to rebuild our military, revive our economy, and -- in a word -- make America great again," Pence said Thursday after he left his meeting with the House Republican Conference -- a group he used to chair when he was in Congress four years ago.

Pence, embracing his role as a chief liaison to Congress for the new administration of Donald Trump, was clearly happy as he headed to the Hill. He has multiple meetings with Congressional leaders throughout the day Thursday, including with House Speaker Paul Ryan, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

More below:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/17/politics/mike-pence-house-republicans/index.html

This scares me more than Trump!   Pence will try to rewind America 100 years if he gets his way, especially if he gets a Supreme Court on his side.   
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 17, 2016, 09:24:51 PM
^ Not a spike in hate crimes, Ken just goes out seeking negative information and trying to find anything negative to justify his views. Finding a few stories about a hate crime or two does not make a trend. This stuff will go on periodically, it is part of living in a free country. However, it is the rare exception and not the norm. Ken likes to find these one in a million problems and act like they are going on regularly on every corner when in fact they are a rare exception.


I don't find the news. It finds me. I pick a few of the articles in my Twitter and Facebook news feeds to share here. If I posted them all, I'd be spending a lot more than the 10-20 minutes I spend now in sharing them. I don't read most of the articles I post because most news makes me furious and sick to my stomach. The headlines are awful enough for me. It's why I gave up watching cable TV news networks years ago. I'd get so angry at the general meanness of people that I'd want to burn down the world. And I really am an optimist who prefers to advocate for transportation projects that build the world up. I can't be an optimist if I read or watch the news, but I also want to have some idea of what's going on in the world. And since I'm really not interested in a discussion with many of you, posting articles is my way of saying "I don't care enough about what you think regarding a political issue to respond in my own words, so here's an article for you to chew on instead." And if you don't like it, so much the better.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 17, 2016, 10:14:46 PM
Nope, didn't read this one either....

Ken Burns: Trump is using Nazi playbook
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/10/20/ken-burns-trump-intv-amanpour.cnn
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: mu2010 on November 17, 2016, 10:49:39 PM
False equivalency will be the downfall of the world.

1. Donald Trump runs the ridiculous campaign he ran, with all the rhetoric we've discussed ad nauseum, and is elected president anyways.

2. BUT THIS ANTI-TRUMP PROTESTER IN PORTLAND BROKE A WINDOW LAST WEEK!!! THE LEFT IS JUST AS BAD!!!

And then so many people just accept these types of gas-lighting arguments. It's misdirection, brainwashing.

THE LEFT ACCUSED TRUMP OF HATE AND NOW LOOK AT ALL THE HATE THEY'RE SHOWING TO HIM!!! HYPOCRITES

If you can't tell the difference between

1) scaring children into believing they're going to be deported, and 2) hating the guy who scared them

you're an idiot. and a coward.

"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict." - MLK

I know what's right and what's wrong, and I don't give a f%$# what some protesters did.  Our democratic norms and institutions are in danger. But HRC deleted some emails guys. They're both bad!™
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 18, 2016, 08:24:51 AM
Trump To Name Picks For National Security Adviser, Attorney General, CIA Director

The president of the NAACP called Sessions' appointment "troubling," while a legislative counsel at the ACLU called him "the senator with probably the most anti-immigrant, anti-refugee, anti-child record in the Senate."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/18/502207098/trump-picks-sen-jeff-sessions-for-attorney-general
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 18, 2016, 08:45:31 AM
I know what's right and what's wrong, and I don't give a f%$# what some protesters did.  Our democratic norms and institutions are in danger. But HRC deleted some emails guys. They're both bad!™

You, and liberals en masse, are not the arbitrators of right and wrong. Morality is subjective. It is not "wrong" to deport  illegal immigrants. If that scares some children along the way (and I'm being gracious to even address that because 'please think of the children' arguments are some of the lamest out there) it isn't Trump's fault - it's the fault of the parents who broke the law to sneak into the US, and it's their fault alone.

What is wrong, and immoral, is assaulting someone because of how they voted. The only false equivalencies here are the ones your making to justify the violence and hate the left is spewing. Hate is hate - whether you hate someone for their political views or their birthplace you're still a hateful person.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 18, 2016, 08:54:03 AM
What is wrong, and immoral, is assaulting someone because of how they voted.

It's also a very dangerous trend.   

For the time being it's only being practiced by the undisciplined.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 18, 2016, 09:08:50 AM
That one video of an isolated incident is going to be the alt-right's battle cry for some time now.  It's the new New Black Panthers video.  They may as well run it on continuous loop on the front page of Breitbart, if it isn't already.  It will be used to justify anything and everything they want to do to #MAWA 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 18, 2016, 09:14:59 AM
That one video of an isolated incident is going to be the alt-right's battle cry for some time now.  It's the new New Black Panthers video.  They may as well run it on continuous loop on the front page of Breitbart, if it isn't already.  It will be used to justify anything and everything they want to do to #MAWA 

That's not the only one.   Just the worst so far.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 18, 2016, 09:29:56 AM
^Has Obama offered to pay the attackers' legal fees?

Nobody should make excuses for that type of behavior, regardless of whether the attack was unprovoked or caused by a Trump or Clinton supporter agitating a fired up crowd.  But isolated incidents of violence are not going anywhere.  They happened at Trump rallies (I don't recall any happening at Clinton rallies), with his supporters physically assaulting protesters, and they happen at protests against Trump, with the protesters assaulting people who are there to counter protest.  And then you have this white nationalist porn video of some black hooligans beating a white man with the crowd in the background agitating the situation further by saying the white guy voted for Trump.  Those are all criminal acts, regardless of the context.  But what really bothers me is this notion that those acts by random people somehow justify hate being spewed and injustice being inflicted by elected officials and being made part of an actual political agenda.  It is that line of thinking which the southerners used to justify their Jim Crow laws.  It's beyond a slippery slope.  It's a cliff.  Trump's team knows that nothing motivates his base supporters like fear.  Watch him use it.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: IAGuy39 on November 18, 2016, 09:30:40 AM
I'm a pretty neutral person, I never liked either Trump or Clinton.

I can see unequivocally that people are reacted really in an absolute ridiculous way about Trump winning.

I do not feel sorry at all for people being afraid they will be deported.  If they are legal, why would they be afraid?  Ohhh, well you brought your children here, or you came in here illegally and had children, so you get a pass?  While taxpayers and citizens of this country pay for your roads that get you your food, etc. etc.  And then people on the far left are so so so offended by what Trump said originally when really it wasn't anything different than anyone has said in the past, maybe he said it in a more crude manner.

Lastly, I don't think anyone has gone as low as Bill Clinton did in 1991 or 1992 in executing a man who basically had a labatomy and every single person who was around asked for clemency because the man was turned into a child.  Clinton killed him anyways because he wanted to be looked at as a law and order candidate.  Think if Trump did that? 

If I went to a country illegally, like Canada, and sucked on the teet of that country and their taxpayers, I highly highly doubt that anyone in Canada would feel bad for me and give me a pass.  And this is more than 11 million people who came into our country, not just a few.  In fact, there were some Canadian friends and also my gf's Canadian friend said something like, "Trump is going to screw Canada because now all the illegal immigrants are going to come up here and ruin our economy", and do any of you all think that most Canadians feel that way?  It's a bizzaro world that's for sure.

Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 18, 2016, 09:34:56 AM
Yes, very neutral.  I guess I'm pretty neutral too since I also never liked either Trump or Clinton.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: rockandroller on November 18, 2016, 09:47:16 AM
It's amazing that people think that nobody is going to be unfairly targeted or have their status decided for them incorrectly and then they'll be thrown out.

It's like thinking there are no innocent people that ever go to prison.

Come on. Do you really think if the government decided they didn't want you here, they couldn't easily find a reason to invalidate whatever legal papers or reason you have to be here so that they can get rid of you? If 12 racist dicks complain about the Muslim at work and claim he's illegal, even if his papers are in order and he's there legally, you can bet they will find a reason a T wasn't crossed or an I wasn't dotted correctly so that they can deport them. And in the meantime, EVEN WHEN PEOPLE'S STUFF WILL EVENTUALLY CHECK OUT, they'll be likely jailed temporarily or at minimum, harassed horribly until such time as a decision is made, and even then, do you really think the people who complained are going to be all, oh, ok, you checked him out and he's good?

I cannot believe people are that naive. Like it's just a matter of people handing over their papers and everyone going, nope, you're good, carry on.

Have you ever been involved in a lawsuit for which you were not at fault and maybe were even a 3rd or 4th party, completely unrelated to the original complaint? It can take years to untangle and cost thousands of dollars. I had a friend lose her job at a new company because she left the old one when the boss made her take part in illegal practices regarding buying and selling cars. Then the car company sued the boss and included her in the suit, and she had to get a lawyer to get out of the suit and pay thousands of dollars proving she was only doing what she was told. she is now filing for bankruptcy. This is real. These things happen. It's not happenstance and anecdotal. Having a "show us your papers" country is not going to simply and only yield people who are here illegally.

And what of the children born on American soil to those who are here illegally. They are american citizens by law. Let's say the father brought the family over for a job, then he was killed and now the Mom is targeted as an illegal immigrant. You just send her to jail? And then deport her? The kid has a right to grow up as a citizen.

What of the lab worker who is doing specialized research on a grant, then the grant lapses and it's 6 months until the new one comes up. Without this person's key research, we might miss an important medical advancement. But instead of waiting until the 6 months is over and the person can be here legally under the grant again, just throw them the hell out immediately? And come back when you get the grant again?

These issues are much, much more complex than show us your papers and if you're here illegally, you're gone.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: rockandroller on November 18, 2016, 09:48:57 AM
Honestly, this is the same naiveté and blindness people have when they say, if the black people had just done what they were told to when they were stopped by the police, there would never have been a problem. It's now been documented hundreds of times that even when people do this, things still go horribly wrong and they are unfairly targeted. BECAUSE OF BIAS. This is what's going to happen to people who have to show their papers either. Well, I thought he was an illegal, so I started an argument with him and then he got mad and I had to shoot him. I mean, it's really going to be bad.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: IAGuy39 on November 18, 2016, 09:50:54 AM
"Rosenzweig explained to Clinton that it was all a horrible misunderstanding, Rector was “a zombie — it couldn’t, it shouldn’t be done. He’s a child. It’s like killing a child.” Rosenzweig begged Clinton not to allow the execution to proceed. “His execution,” Rosenzweig said, “would be remembered as a disgrace to the state.” After listening patiently to what Rosenzweig had to say, Clinton “hung up with a non-committal pleasantry.”

Still, Rosenzweig believed Clinton couldn’t execute Rector, now that he had the facts. “I thought he just might not want to be seen as merciless,” Rosenzweig recollected.

Clinton refused to grant clemency. Rector was executed on January 24, 1992. It is unlikely he had any idea what was about to happen. When he had his last meal, Rector set the dessert aside for later, even though there wouldn’t be a later. And in a pitiful and poignant detail, the night before his execution, watching Clinton on television, Rector said that he planned to vote for him in November.

Clinton’s plan to appear “tough on crime” had worked. In the following months, the political value of Rector’s execution became abundantly clear. It knocked the law-and-order issue out of the campaign. One commentator said it showed Clinton was “a different sort of Democrat.” As another put it, “he had someone put to death who only had half a brain. You don’t find them any tougher than that.”"

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/bill-clinton-rickey-rector-death-penalty-execution-crime-racism/

Now, I'm not saying everything Trump did was good or he didn't make things that make you screech or cringe or anything, and I hope with everything we keep moving forward as a country, but it's unfair to say that the same things haven't happened with Clinton on a different level.  I heard a lot of people say, "the Clinton's are career criminals in my mind".  Yet they are all labeled racists for voting against her, just ridiculous.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: IAGuy39 on November 18, 2016, 09:57:18 AM
It's amazing that people think that nobody is going to be unfairly targeted or have their status decided for them incorrectly and then they'll be thrown out.

It's like thinking there are no innocent people that ever go to prison.

Come on. Do you really think if the government decided they didn't want you here, they couldn't easily find a reason to invalidate whatever legal papers or reason you have to be here so that they can get rid of you? If 12 racist dicks complain about the Muslim at work and claim he's illegal, even if his papers are in order and he's there legally, you can bet they will find a reason a T wasn't crossed or an I wasn't dotted correctly so that they can deport them. And in the meantime, EVEN WHEN PEOPLE'S STUFF WILL EVENTUALLY CHECK OUT, they'll be likely jailed temporarily or at minimum, harassed horribly until such time as a decision is made, and even then, do you really think the people who complained are going to be all, oh, ok, you checked him out and he's good?

I cannot believe people are that naive. Like it's just a matter of people handing over their papers and everyone going, nope, you're good, carry on.

Have you ever been involved in a lawsuit for which you were not at fault and maybe were even a 3rd or 4th party, completely unrelated to the original complaint? It can take years to untangle and cost thousands of dollars. I had a friend lose her job at a new company because she left the old one when the boss made her take part in illegal practices regarding buying and selling cars. Then the car company sued the boss and included her in the suit, and she had to get a lawyer to get out of the suit and pay thousands of dollars proving she was only doing what she was told. she is now filing for bankruptcy. This is real. These things happen. It's not happenstance and anecdotal. Having a "show us your papers" country is not going to simply and only yield people who are here illegally.

And what of the children born on American soil to those who are here illegally. They are american citizens by law. Let's say the father brought the family over for a job, then he was killed and now the Mom is targeted as an illegal immigrant. You just send her to jail? And then deport her? The kid has a right to grow up as a citizen.

What of the lab worker who is doing specialized research on a grant, then the grant lapses and it's 6 months until the new one comes up. Without this person's key research, we might miss an important medical advancement. But instead of waiting until the 6 months is over and the person can be here legally under the grant again, just throw them the hell out immediately? And come back when you get the grant again?

These issues are much, much more complex than show us your papers and if you're here illegally, you're gone.

Oh I am sure it happens, no doubt, but you act like 1 in 1,000 should be an exception to everything.  Point blank, if you illegally go into another country, you should pay the penalty.  Just like Obama has been doing the past 8 years, too.  That's not being naive, that's being realistic.

And yeah, Sh** happens.  I got mugged in Cincinnati and was told "stay the f*** out of our neighborhood white boy", but I am not going out screaming blacks are racists against whites or became a racist because of it.  I had to spend $3k of my own money for my hospital bills until the victim of crime compensation came through a year later, but I'm not mad at the system. 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hootenany on November 18, 2016, 09:58:30 AM
^^Why are we talking about Bill Clinton in the Trump Presidency thread?  And in order to be properly labeled a "career criminal" you, you know, actually have to be convicted of several crimes over the course of your life.  It's an inflammatory, hyperbolic statement with no basis in fact.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: rockandroller on November 18, 2016, 09:59:20 AM
Bill Clinton was not running for office this election. What does this have to do with how horrible it is to elect Trump? Because Cambodia had Pol Pot, they should elect someone else who is also horrible? Because Hitler had Germany, they should do it again?

One good turn deserves another is really the argument for electing a horrible monster?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: IAGuy39 on November 18, 2016, 10:01:40 AM
Bill Clinton was not running for office this election. What does this have to do with how horrible it is to elect Trump? Because Cambodia had Pol Pot, they should elect someone else who is also horrible? Because Hitler had Germany, they should do it again?

One good turn deserves another is really the argument for electing a horrible monster?

I'm not sayiing that, all I was trying to say is that this vote was as much against the Clinton's as it was for Trump.  And if you don't think that, then that is naive.  That's all I am saying.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hootenany on November 18, 2016, 10:03:10 AM
^Sure, but I highly doubt the Ricky Rector case has anything to do with even a single person voting against Clinton.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: IAGuy39 on November 18, 2016, 10:07:41 AM
^Sure, but I highly doubt the Ricky Rector case has anything to do with even a single person voting against Clinton.

What do you mean?  You don't think the cumulative affect of actions over the years doesn't change the perception of a person or family for groups of people?  That logic makes no sense at all
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hootenany on November 18, 2016, 10:11:05 AM
^We aren't talking about the cumulative effect of the vast right wing conspiracyTM against the Clintons we are talking about a single case.  You think Trump voters are against the execution of a killer who also shot a cop and then turned himself into a vegetable by shooting himself in the head when they tried to arrest him?  Give me a break.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 18, 2016, 10:12:37 AM
Judge tells new citizens Trump is their president, don't like it they can go to another country -- https://t.co/1Bgct8pOoA
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: IAGuy39 on November 18, 2016, 10:20:48 AM
^ You are missing my logic, completely missing my logic.  I am saying both sides are completely guilty of hypocritical accusations.  Both sides extrapolate the truth and bend it to fit their narrative.  The left says Trump is a monster, the rigth says Clinton is a monster.  I said that the Clinton's are viewed as career criminals by a lot of people. You say that is not based in fact.  I gave you an example of why some people think that. 

Now you say, how does that have anything to do with now or Trump, I say, it's a cumulative effect over the years. 

So all I am saying, no matter what side you are on, it's hypocritical to say "Oh it's BS for people to think Clinton's are career criminals, no facts, etc.", I present a specific case of why people have that impression and that impression grew over the years, not even to mention Clinton's lies and secrecacy, then you come back and say it is irrelevant.  When in fact, you are doing the same exact thing about Trump.

I don't want to argue, I don't, I just think it's amusing people come out and point out the arrow lodged in someones leg when their own side also has an arrow lodged into their leg.

By the way I didn't vote for Trump.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 18, 2016, 10:31:04 AM
Kanye West: I would have voted for Donald Trump, if I had voted

Chaos and projectile shoes at concert as rapper gives hour-long pro-Trump speech

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/kanye-west-vote-donald-trump-speech-concert-san-jose-president-2020-a7424316.html
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 18, 2016, 10:35:39 AM
^Of course he would have.  It sets up his 2020 run for the WH rather nicely.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: mu2010 on November 18, 2016, 10:50:37 AM
What is wrong, and immoral, is assaulting someone because of how they voted. The only false equivalencies here are the ones your making to justify the violence and hate the left is spewing. Hate is hate - whether you hate someone for their political views or their birthplace you're still a hateful person.

Sorry but no. What you're doing is the exact thing my post is criticizing. Muddying the waters and making a false equivalency to distract from what Trump wants to do and is going to do.

I never assaulted anyone for how they voted and I never "justified" any violence. Anyone who damages anything while protesting should be arrested and charged. What I said is that a protester in the street doing something, whatever he/she does, is not equal to the president-elect of the united states. OK, so you think my "think of the children argument" is lame. (I don't.) But fine, I can go through pages and pages of things he's said and things he's done and frankly we all know what they are so I shouldn't even have to.

Stop and frisk and "law and order," how about that one? He lies and says crime is going up when it isn't, he lies about the conditions of "inner cities" to his suburban and rural base (which I think this board knows more than anyone, don't have realistic images of cities) and he says he wants to implement stop and frisk, a failed policy that unfairly affects millions of people. Not equal to a broken window by a venting protester. NOT EQUAL.

Using the fact that the New York Times has a left-leaning editorial page to pretend it invalidates all their reporting, and therefore pretending anything they report is equal to anything conservativetodaywebnews.net reports. NOT EQUAL.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: SixthCity on November 18, 2016, 11:09:45 AM
How is Donald Trump going to implement a national stop and frisk policy?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 18, 2016, 11:22:12 AM
^He can't.  But his DOJ can and probably will look the other way on civil rights violations by the local authorities.  That is the real danger here.  Not that Trump and his team will be overtly racist, but that they won't do anything to stop racism by local authorities in "Kentucky USA"
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: SixthCity on November 18, 2016, 11:23:02 AM
^He can't.  But his DOJ can and probably will look the other way on civil rights violations by the local authorities.  That is the real danger here.  Not that Trump and his team will be overtly racist, but that they won't do anything to stop racism by local authorities in "Kentucky USA"

That is a legitimate concern.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: audidave on November 18, 2016, 11:28:45 AM
I really wonder at the capability of the Trump regime. I don't really care about his deportation policy. I think it will end up that Obama will have deported more people than him anyways. But Obama will have had 8 years and the trumpster if he"s lucky 4.  To me that is a non-issue.
   I worry about the about the idiots he's going to put in charge of all the departments. NSA idiot is Putin's favorite general. He wants a convicted felon that actually has issue keeping secrets as a DoD secretary. It really looks like wingnut central for his cabinet.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 18, 2016, 12:20:10 PM
this is heartening. Not all Hillary voters are as unhinged as the phony protesters that are in the news day and night--

Jason Riley: Harlem Gives President Trump a Chance

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/11/16/jason-riley-harlem-gives-president-trump-chance

"This may come as a shock to the political left, but not everyone who opposed Donald Trump is as angry or despondent as the demonstrators who grabbed headlines nationwide over the past week or the pundits who intellectualized the Democratic hissy fit.

On Monday I took a stroll around New York City’s Harlem neighborhood and asked a couple of dozen black residents to respond to the election and subsequent protests. I didn’t come across any Trump voters—or at least any who admitted it—but many told me they had expected Hillary Clinton’s defeat. No one thought it was the end of the world."
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Jskinner on November 18, 2016, 12:27:03 PM
^ What is with the "phoney protestor" label?  I hear this from people at work who said all the protesters in Cincinnati were getting checks from George Soros. Come on people think about it
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 18, 2016, 12:41:49 PM
I guess they go hand-in-hand with the phony "hate crimes" now supposedly so widespread following Trump's election
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 18, 2016, 12:45:29 PM
this is heartening. Not all Hillary voters are as unhinged as the phony protesters that are in the news day and night--

Jason Riley: Harlem Gives President Trump a Chance

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/11/16/jason-riley-harlem-gives-president-trump-chance

"This may come as a shock to the political left, but not everyone who opposed Donald Trump is as angry or despondent as the demonstrators who grabbed headlines nationwide over the past week or the pundits who intellectualized the Democratic hissy fit.

On Monday I took a stroll around New York City’s Harlem neighborhood and asked a couple of dozen black residents to respond to the election and subsequent protests. I didn’t come across any Trump voters—or at least any who admitted it—but many told me they had expected Hillary Clinton’s defeat. No one thought it was the end of the world."


That's ironic, because I suspect if anyone is shocked by this, it is the readers and viewers of Fox, who view the left as being made up entirely of welfare queens who use American flags to burn effigies of Christ while chatting on their Obama phones
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: mu2010 on November 18, 2016, 01:00:17 PM
^ What is with the "phoney protestor" label?  I hear this from people at work who said all the protesters in Cincinnati were getting checks from George Soros. Come on people think about it

It is once again misdirection as I was talking about above. Trying to distract from the real issue which is what the people are there protesting. They know they won't win that argument so they talk about broken windows and George Soros checks. If there's a protest of anything be it Trump, Black Lives Matter, whatever, these people will always try to make the discussion about the biggest idiot in the group of protesters, or accusations of phoniness or whatever. Of course they always say they support the first amendment, but that this particular protest is dumb. But they apply that to every protest. Misdirection. Changing the subject. Muddying the waters. Repeat a lie til it becomes true. Welcome to our new White House.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 18, 2016, 01:10:23 PM
^ What is with the "phoney protestor" label?  I hear this from people at work who said all the protesters in Cincinnati were getting checks from George Soros. Come on people think about it

It is once again misdirection as I was talking about above. Trying to distract from the real issue which is what the people are there protesting. They know they won't win that argument so they talk about broken windows and George Soros checks. If there's a protest of anything be it Trump, Black Lives Matter, whatever, these people will always try to make the discussion about the biggest idiot in the group of protesters, or accusations of phoniness or whatever. Of course they always say they support the first amendment, but that this particular protest is dumb. But they apply that to every protest. Misdirection. Changing the subject. Muddying the waters. Repeat a lie til it becomes true. Welcome to our new White House.
as I wondered already last week: What is it that they're protesting? Trump doesn't take office for another two months! All I can conclude is that they're protesting our very system of choosing a president, since they are unable to accept the results of what at least seems to be a free and fair election.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: mu2010 on November 18, 2016, 01:12:16 PM
^ What is with the "phoney protestor" label?  I hear this from people at work who said all the protesters in Cincinnati were getting checks from George Soros. Come on people think about it

It is once again misdirection as I was talking about above. Trying to distract from the real issue which is what the people are there protesting. They know they won't win that argument so they talk about broken windows and George Soros checks. If there's a protest of anything be it Trump, Black Lives Matter, whatever, these people will always try to make the discussion about the biggest idiot in the group of protesters, or accusations of phoniness or whatever. Of course they always say they support the first amendment, but that this particular protest is dumb. But they apply that to every protest. Misdirection. Changing the subject. Muddying the waters. Repeat a lie til it becomes true. Welcome to our new White House.
as I wondered already last week: What is it that they're protesting? Trump doesn't take office for another two months! All I can conclude is that they're protesting our very system of choosing a president, since they are unable to accept the results of what at least seems to be a free and fair election.

No, this has also been repeated ad nauseum. It is not about contesting the election. It's a way to show Trump that not everybody in the country agrees with him and we will be watching what he does. This is how a free society works.

I highly doubt that Mitt Romney would have caused such a reaction. If you are mad about the sheer volume of protests then you need to take a look in the mirror and think about what exactly is so different about your candidate that has caused this. I can lead you to the water but I can't make you drink.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 18, 2016, 01:15:51 PM


 It's a way to show Trump that not everybody in the country agrees with him

ummmm, that's why we had an election.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Jskinner on November 18, 2016, 01:17:57 PM
Does that make them phony?  If you see a train wreck about to happen, do you just sit and watch or do you speak out? 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: mu2010 on November 18, 2016, 01:19:15 PM


 It's a way to show Trump that not everybody in the country agrees with him

ummmm, that's why we had an election.

OK so by that logic you should have kept your mouth shut during 8 years of Obama which I highly doubt you did. Because apparently you're not allowed to say anything after an election. Guess I missed that part of the first amendment..

Political minorities and election losers have the right to make themselves heard. That's part of why we have free speech and I think you know that.

The question is why do so many people feel the need to do this, so early on?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 18, 2016, 01:24:39 PM


 It's a way to show Trump that not everybody in the country agrees with him

ummmm, that's why we had an election.

OK so by that logic you should have kept your mouth shut during 8 years of Obama which I highly doubt you did. Because apparently you're not allowed to say anything after an election. Guess I missed that part of the first amendment.
there's a big difference between peacefully protesting the policies of a President once in office and rampaging in the streets 2 minutes after election day angry that your candidate wasn't chosen. Apparently to you there's no distinction.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: SixthCity on November 18, 2016, 01:25:54 PM
The End of Identity Liberalism

It is a truism that America has become a more diverse country. It is also a beautiful thing to watch. Visitors from other countries, particularly those having trouble incorporating different ethnic groups and faiths, are amazed that we manage to pull it off. Not perfectly, of course, but certainly better than any European or Asian nation today. It’s an extraordinary success story.

But how should this diversity shape our politics? The standard liberal answer for nearly a generation now has been that we should become aware of and “celebrate” our differences. Which is a splendid principle of moral pedagogy — but disastrous as a foundation for democratic politics in our ideological age. In recent years American liberalism has slipped into a kind of moral panic about racial, gender and sexual identity that has distorted liberalism’s message and prevented it from becoming a unifying force capable of governing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: IAGuy39 on November 18, 2016, 01:26:43 PM
I am OK with the protests on Trump, I guess more so if they are for equality, etc.  I am not for stuff like shutting down an Interstate because Trump was elected.

Things like Black Lives Matter, etc. protesting killings of blacks by police, shutting down a highway, though I think it is highly dangerous, I don't have too much of a problem with that.

You all are right that anyone but Trump probably wouldn't cauase this reaction... well maybe Ted Cruz.  But at the same time, would everyone else have beat Hillary Clinton, no matter who the R nominee was?  The fact of the matter is that Clinton could not get people to come out and vote for her in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, heck almost Minnesota flipped to Red.

She didn't get them out to vote because she didn't work to get their vote.  Even if we can't ever bring back all the jobs that were lost in manufacturing, etc., we can slow it down.  My mom worked for a plant called Eaton in Belmond, IA.  It employed about 750 people, and they made fenders and other metal works parts for Caterpillar and a few other customers.

Caterpillar decided to build their own plant in China, have all the parts made there, then ship them over in containers to California, and rail them over to Peoria, IL to make their tractors.  I think the at least two Eaton plants in Iowa lost about 1,000 employess in the last year because of that move by Caterpillar.

I dare anyone to try to export a good over to China.  It may be the most difficult country to export to.  Yet if China wants to send anything over here, all they got to do is send over their label, SDS and specifications sheet and they are good to go. 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: mu2010 on November 18, 2016, 01:28:01 PM


 It's a way to show Trump that not everybody in the country agrees with him

ummmm, that's why we had an election.

OK so by that logic you should have kept your mouth shut during 8 years of Obama which I highly doubt you did. Because apparently you're not allowed to say anything after an election. Guess I missed that part of the first amendment.
there's a big difference between peacefully protesting the policies of a President once in office and rampaging in the streets 2 minutes after election day angry that your candidate wasn't chosen. Apparently to you there's no distinction.

You don't get to choose the terms of when and why people should protest. If they want to take to the streets 2 minutes after election day, that's their prerogative. Wouldn't have happened for Mitt Romney. You should be thinking about what it is about Trump that has inspired so many to take this unprecedented step.

Public opinion always matters in Democracy because it pressures elected bodies. These protests could actually help to change how he handles his transition or change how members of congress approach his confirmation hearings for cabinet members. It definitely challenges his idea of a mandate and weakens his political capital, and that's how it's supposed to work. If people feel so passionately about it this early on, that's just part of the game. Stop saying they shouldn't protest and start countering their arguments.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: mu2010 on November 18, 2016, 01:30:19 PM
The End of Identity Liberalism

It is a truism that America has become a more diverse country. It is also a beautiful thing to watch. Visitors from other countries, particularly those having trouble incorporating different ethnic groups and faiths, are amazed that we manage to pull it off. Not perfectly, of course, but certainly better than any European or Asian nation today. It’s an extraordinary success story.

But how should this diversity shape our politics? The standard liberal answer for nearly a generation now has been that we should become aware of and “celebrate” our differences. Which is a splendid principle of moral pedagogy — but disastrous as a foundation for democratic politics in our ideological age. In recent years American liberalism has slipped into a kind of moral panic about racial, gender and sexual identity that has distorted liberalism’s message and prevented it from becoming a unifying force capable of governing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html

I read this article this morning and I think it's very thought provoking. There's another like it:

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-working-class-and-the-left-fail-as-a-couple-and-what-to-do-about-it/

In the end I hope we can figure out a way to go forward in the way these articles are talking about, without throwing minority issues under the bus. There has to be a halfway point and Dems need to change how they communicate with the public at large.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: audidave on November 18, 2016, 01:39:04 PM
The issue is that the republican party put a despicable person up versus Hillary so that voters had to decide which as if it really is a binary option. We've gone over the outrageous and disgusting things he said. Apparently that doesn't matter as they are just words. We've looked at his business acumen. It is prefty pathetic with all the bankruptcies. We can't look at his taxes and he has no public office audit trail to compare since he is an outsider.  He has had closing in on 5000 lawsuits he's been a part of. He just settled the Trump University lawsuit in California today for almost $25 million. That sounds a bit fraudulent to me. He's got a rape case coming up with a 13yr old.  I wonder how much he can pay her off for. She might take $10 million to keep her mouth shut.
   This is why he is such a lousy businessman. He has to lie, cheat, and steal aka not pay for services rendered to get ahead. Eventually people get tired of trying to get their money or go out of business and Trump doesn't need to worry about paying them.  Or with the banks he gave them back 10 cents on the dollar and called it a day.
   For anyone that has a care at all about foreign policy or digs deeper than headlines on any policy, it is obvious trump is only a gut level interest. We're back at W again.  At least W surrounded himself with a lot of his dad's advisors.  The guys Trump is surrounding himself with are pobably about the worst one could pick for these positions. I really wouldn't put it past Trump to put David Duke up for some minority outreach coordinator. 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 18, 2016, 01:44:56 PM
Alright, roll call - has anyone been missing from Urban Ohio for the last few days?

Ohio Man Charged With Threatening Trump's Life on Twitter

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ohio-man-charged-threatening-trump-s-life-twitter-n685656

Zachary Benson, 24, of the Cleveland suburb of Fairview Park, could face five years in prison if he's convicted of the single count of making threats against the president and successors to the presidency.

In an affidavit included in the criminal complaint, the U.S. Secret Service said Benson sent the threatening tweet in the wee hours of the morning on Nov. 9, the day after Election Day.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: rockandroller on November 18, 2016, 01:59:26 PM
Oh, the 13 y.o. rape case was dropped a few weeks ago. She suddenly decided to go away about it. Gosh, I wonder how that happened.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 18, 2016, 02:23:44 PM
^He can't.  But his DOJ can and probably will look the other way on civil rights violations by the local authorities.  That is the real danger here.  Not that Trump and his team will be overtly racist, but that they won't do anything to stop racism by local authorities in "Kentucky USA"

I don't think he will look the other way on blatant civil rights violations, but I think he will be repeatedly accused of doing so. Eric Holder didn't take any heat for concluding that Darren Wilson did nothing wrong in Ferguson, Sessions would have been attacked by the media incessantly for drawing the same conclusion. The media will never give him a fair shake, anything he does will be assumed by the left to be racist.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 18, 2016, 02:24:24 PM
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
The Right Way to Resist Trump
By LUIGI ZINGALES
NOVEMBER 18, 2016

Five years ago, I warned about the risk of a Donald J. Trump presidency. Most people laughed. They thought it inconceivable.

I was not particularly prescient; I come from Italy, and I had already seen this movie, starring Silvio Berlusconi, who led the Italian government as prime minister for a total of nine years between 1994 and 2011. I knew how it could unfold.

Now that Mr. Trump has been elected president, the Berlusconi parallel could offer an important lesson in how to avoid transforming a razor-thin victory into a two-decade affair. If you think presidential term limits and Mr. Trump’s age could save the country from that fate, think again. His tenure could easily turn into a Trump dynasty.

Mr. Berlusconi was able to govern Italy for as long as he did mostly thanks to the incompetence of his opposition. It was so rabidly obsessed with his personality that any substantive political debate disappeared; it focused only on personal attacks, the effect of which was to increase Mr. Berlusconi’s popularity. His secret was an ability to set off a Pavlovian reaction among his leftist opponents, which engendered instantaneous sympathy in most moderate voters. Mr. Trump is no different.

MORE:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/opinion/the-right-way-to-resist-trump.html
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: ColDayMan on November 18, 2016, 03:24:52 PM
Donald Trump settles Trump University lawsuits

Donald Trump has agreed to pay $25 million to settle three lawsuits against Trump University.

The deal will keep the president-elect from having to testify in a trial in San Diego that was set to begin November 28.

More below:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/18/news/trump-university-settlement/index.html
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: ColDayMan on November 18, 2016, 03:25:28 PM
Former Rep. John Dingell blasts 'deplorable' Trump Cabinet picks

With President-elect Donald Trump's preliminary Cabinet picks already gaining criticism, former Michigan Rep. John Dingell added his own personal disdain in a tweet Friday.

"Forget the basket. The truly deplorable ones end up in the Cabinet," said Dingell, who served in the House longer than any other representative in history, making reference to a statement Hillary Clinton made during the presidential race calling some Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables."

More below:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/18/politics/john-dingell-donald-trump-tweet/index.html
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: ck on November 18, 2016, 04:44:30 PM
The End of Identity Liberalism
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html

There's a whole lot I agree with in that article - thanks for posting it.

Quote
National politics in healthy periods is not about “difference,” it is about commonality.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 18, 2016, 04:54:48 PM
^He can't.  But his DOJ can and probably will look the other way on civil rights violations by the local authorities.  That is the real danger here.  Not that Trump and his team will be overtly racist, but that they won't do anything to stop racism by local authorities in "Kentucky USA"
I don't think he will look the other way on blatant civil rights violations, but I think he will be repeatedly accused of doing so. Eric Holder didn't take any heat for concluding that Darren Wilson did nothing wrong in Ferguson, Sessions would have been attacked by the media incessantly for drawing the same conclusion. The media will never give him a fair shake, anything he does will be assumed by the left to be racist.

First of all, that was not Holder's conclusion. That's like saying Comey found that Clinton did nothing wrong with her emails. Secondly, he faced a ton of blowback for his decision not to bring charges.

Sessions will rightful be viewed with a very skeptical eye. There were few picks that would have been worse for AG.  The ACLU is going to be needed more than it has been in recent times. That much is for sure.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eyehrtfood on November 18, 2016, 08:15:30 PM
"ACLU" - the four most offensive, stomach turning letters in the U-S-of-A. Well, after P-R-O-T-E-S-T, of course.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 18, 2016, 09:50:15 PM
^please tell me you're joking.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Clevelander17 on November 19, 2016, 11:48:03 AM
"ACLU" - the four most offensive, stomach turning letters in the U-S-of-A. Well, after P-R-O-T-E-S-T, of course.


Why's that? Because they actually defend crazy concepts like free speech and equality?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 19, 2016, 12:22:26 PM
When we are asked to apologize for an appeal for liberty, justice, and equality, then we as the United States of America are in serious trouble. Go f*ck yourself, Criminal Trump.

Trump demands apology from ‘Hamilton’ after cast’s message to Pence
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/11/19/trump-demands-apology-from-hamilton-after-casts-message-to-pence/?tid=sm_fb
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 19, 2016, 12:43:06 PM
I guess this is an example of the "diversity" that Mike Pence was lectured about by the Hamilton cast last night
 (https://c4.staticflickr.com/6/5481/31001641251_ef85dcdaee_z.jpg)
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 19, 2016, 01:09:55 PM
And do you know why, or are you just going to use that as a flimsy platform to make an ignorant point?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 19, 2016, 01:39:12 PM
there are appropriate times and places to make one's point. I guess Mike Pence should have expected a certain amount of booing from the public while attending a performance in heavily Democrat and liberal New York (particularly for a politically-based show like Hamilton), which he got, as well as some applause. I don't know if he personally paid for the highly expensive tickets, but regardless, he was there to see a musical, not to be condescendingly lectured from the stage by the actors. If the cast was really interested in engaging Pence in a dialogue, they could have pre-arranged to meet with him after the show backstage to perhaps have a more in-depth conversation about fears they might have about a Trump administration, but this sort of grandstanding was highly unprofessional, to say the least. Since Hamilton is the most super-successful show in decades and there's no way a boycott can possibly affect ticket sales, this undoubtedly contributed to the hubris they had to feel they could get away with such a stunt.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 19, 2016, 02:08:42 PM
The cast's statement gave me hope about about our ability to fight back against a turn to dark times. Trump's response to it quickly turned that hope to fear that those dark times are real, unavoidable and will be darker than most can possibly imagine...

In the meantime, how about a little levity...

People Are Trolling Mike Pence By Making Up Musicals About Him
https://www.buzzfeed.com/juliareinstein/name-a-pence-musical?utm_term=.dt7LNmNv3
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 19, 2016, 02:14:07 PM
BTW....

@TomFTroy Pence always says "that's what freedom sounds like" when somebody disrupts his rallies. https://t.co/nzKmH5QgqJ
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: taestell on November 19, 2016, 02:22:57 PM
I guess this is an example of the "diversity" that Mike Pence was lectured about by the Hamilton cast last night
 (https://c4.staticflickr.com/6/5481/31001641251_ef85dcdaee_z.jpg)

Umm, yeah, companies that make theatre/movies/television/commercials are allowed to "discriminate" and hire people based on their race, height, weight, etc. Because, you know, if you have a role designed for a certain race and gender, you kinda have to hire a person of that race and gender to play that part...
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 19, 2016, 02:26:08 PM
there are appropriate times and places to make one's point. I guess Mike Pence should have expected a certain amount of booing from the public while attending a performance in heavily Democrat and liberal New York (particularly for a politically-based show like Hamilton), which he got, as well as some applause. I don't know if he personally paid for the highly expensive tickets, but regardless, he was there to see a musical, not to be condescendingly lectured from the stage by the actors. If the cast was really interested in engaging Pence in a dialogue, they could have pre-arranged to meet with him after the show backstage to perhaps have a more in-depth conversation about fears they might have about a Trump administration, but this sort of grandstanding was highly unprofessional, to say the least. Since Hamilton is the most super-successful show in decades and there's no way a boycott can possibly affect ticket sales, this undoubtedly contributed to the hubris they had to feel they could get away with such a stunt.

The left always likes to talk about the "rules of civility" whenever anyone questions political correctness. Make a joke about women? They'll call you an uncivilized brute. Act extremely rude to make a political point so you can feel good about yourself? They'll applaud you. These are the types of double standards the rest of the country is tired of, and one of the big reasons Trump won. The fact that so many can't realize that and just continue to dig deeper is sad.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 19, 2016, 02:31:40 PM
Umm, yeah, companies that make theatre/movies/television/commercials are allowed to "discriminate" and hire people based on their race, height, weight, etc. Because, you know, if you have a role designed for a certain race and gender, you kinda have to hire a person of that race and gender to play that part...

Well, to some extent. No one seems to have any issues with a person of color playing a role of a character who is white, but the opposite is completely unacceptable.

Plus there's a difference between casting a certain character based on their appearance, skin color, sex, etc. and outright saying you're going to have any entire cast with no white people. Try producing a show with a casting call that specifies only "non-black" actors need apply, and see if you run into any trouble.

Here's an interesting take on Hamilton from a few months back:

http://www.pajiba.com/web_culture/whats-going-on-with-hamiltons-casting-call-.php
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 19, 2016, 02:44:44 PM
I guess this is an example of the "diversity" that Mike Pence was lectured about by the Hamilton cast last night
 (https://c4.staticflickr.com/6/5481/31001641251_ef85dcdaee_z.jpg)

Umm, yeah, companies that make theatre/movies/television/commercials are allowed to "discriminate" and hire people based on their race, height, weight, etc. Because, you know, if you have a role designed for a certain race and gender, you kinda have to hire a person of that race and gender to play that part...
I wonder what roles were being filled with this particular casting call. Since many of the prominent historical figures in Hamilton were actually white, and are being played by black and Latino actors in the show, I assumed (I guess wrongly) that color-blind casting was more determinative than "a role designed for a certain race and gender."

Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 19, 2016, 02:57:26 PM
I guess we can all agree that Mike pence needs his safe space.   What a special little snowflake.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: TBideon on November 19, 2016, 03:05:02 PM
Pence is a disgusting human being and a significant part of this truly shameful political era -- but the cast should not have gotten involved. It was unprofessional and a slap to the face to people in the audience who spent hundreds of dollars for a few hours of escapism.

This felt like Kanye at the Katrina event.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 19, 2016, 03:07:54 PM
I thought the cast was eloquent and professional.   Nothing they said was rude or harassment.   DJT is a just a weak person.  Mike Pence heard him out and stayed in the lobby afterward for photos.   
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: smith on November 19, 2016, 03:21:56 PM
Umm, yeah, companies that make theatre/movies/television/commercials are allowed to "discriminate" and hire people based on their race, height, weight, etc. Because, you know, if you have a role designed for a certain race and gender, you kinda have to hire a person of that race and gender to play that part...

Well, to some extent. No one seems to have any issues with a person of color playing a role of a character who is white, but the opposite is completely unacceptable.

Plus there's a difference between casting a certain character based on their appearance, skin color, sex, etc. and outright saying you're going to have any entire cast with no white people. Try producing a show with a casting call that specifies only "non-black" actors need apply, and see if you run into any trouble.

Here's an interesting take on Hamilton from a few months back:

http://www.pajiba.com/web_culture/whats-going-on-with-hamiltons-casting-call-.php

Jesus Christ!! 95 pct of shows are full of "non-black" actors!!! This is called giving an opportunity to other than white people, who get all the roles.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 19, 2016, 03:32:37 PM
The speech was an examples of typical condescending, know-it-all, "I'm right you're wrong!" tone and style that the left has adopted over the last decade or so, and it is a huge turn off to the vast majority of Americans.  The guy was evening waving his finger - give me a break. The fact that it was done at a completely inappropriate time, to the detriment of so many paying customers was just exemplified the total lame-ness of the whole ordeal.

One interesting historical parallel here is that we all know how well things went the last time Hamilton taunted and insulted a vice president, don't we?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Hamilton-burr-duel.jpg)
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: audidave on November 19, 2016, 03:36:10 PM
This is such a nothing issue. The cast used their free speech rights to make a point. They are not wealthy people that they can afford access to politicians or buy airtime to have their point heard. They were not rude. It was very civil. If this would happen to Obama or Biden It would be forgotten the next day. Right wingers are thin skinned that are upset about getting lectured by some minorities.
   If you can't take the free speech rights then you can leave this country for many others on th world that are happy to crack down on free speech. In fact that is exactly what their speech was about. They are afraid that Trump is going to start cracking down on free speech and any other rights. Trump said he's all about stop and frisk.  He likes torture. Who knows what else his ego will try to subvert of rights that we expect as Americans.
  Trump took the bait again.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 19, 2016, 03:38:36 PM
One of the best so far...
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 19, 2016, 03:42:08 PM
^ I'm not sure why the left is trying to culturally appropriate Biden memes. We all know the real Biden meme is Creepy Biden:

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/inappropriate-joe-biden

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/919/526/c50.gif)
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: audidave on November 19, 2016, 04:47:04 PM
So the thinking is that Trumpster blew this stupid thing up to have people stop talking about his $25 million settlement for fraud. They were seeking $100 million so i guess he did ok.
  Besides ivanka hanging out with the Japanese PM during Trump's meeting being a conflict of interest. The wingnuts all had their pants in a bunch about Hillary's supposed pay for access. Trump is now pushing foreign diplomats to start booking at his brand new DC hotel if they are wanting to meet him. Bookings are starting to climb with foreign diplomats now. Sleazy fraudster.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 19, 2016, 06:17:12 PM
I don't think there was any premeditation on Trump's part.  He has shown that he cannot accept criticism.  He is weak and thin skinned. 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Cleburger on November 19, 2016, 06:23:02 PM
This is such a nothing issue. The cast used their free speech rights to make a point. They are not wealthy people that they can afford access to politicians or buy airtime to have their point heard. They were not rude. It was very civil. If this would happen to Obama or Biden It would be forgotten the next day. Right wingers are thin skinned that are upset about getting lectured by some minorities.
   If you can't take the free speech rights then you can leave this country for many others on th world that are happy to crack down on free speech. In fact that is exactly what their speech was about. They are afraid that Trump is going to start cracking down on free speech and any other rights. Trump said he's all about stop and frisk.  He likes torture. Who knows what else his ego will try to subvert of rights that we expect as Americans.
  Trump took the bait again.

Trump absolutely took the bait.    And Pence handled it professionally, after all, he's used to getting slapped around for being stupid.   Remember that nice little "religious freedom" law he signed which sparked a national uproar against Indiana?  Nothing like staying beholden to your handlers, and in the meantime chasing away the NCAA, several corporations and potentially a Super Bowl.   His tail was quickly between his legs.     

Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 19, 2016, 06:50:12 PM
Trump just tweeted about the Hamilton thing again.  He is such a special snowflake.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Clevelander17 on November 19, 2016, 07:03:58 PM
Well, to some extent. No one seems to have any issues with a person of color playing a role of a character who is white, but the opposite is completely unacceptable.

Completely unacceptable. Or perfectly acceptable. Either way, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewashing_in_film
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 19, 2016, 07:07:30 PM
Well, to some extent. No one seems to have any issues with a person of color playing a role of a character who is white, but the opposite is completely unacceptable.

Completely unacceptable. Or perfectly acceptable. Either way, though.

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


I'm a big fan of blonde haired Jesus
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 19, 2016, 08:26:00 PM
This is such a nothing issue. The cast used their free speech rights to make a point. They are not wealthy people that they can afford access to politicians or buy airtime to have their point heard. They were not rude. It was very civil. If this would happen to Obama or Biden It would be forgotten the next day. Right wingers are thin skinned that are upset about getting lectured by some minorities.
   If you can't take the free speech rights then you can leave this country for many others on th world that are happy to crack down on free speech. In fact that is exactly what their speech was about. They are afraid that Trump is going to start cracking down on free speech and any other rights. Trump said he's all about stop and frisk.  He likes torture. Who knows what else his ego will try to subvert of rights that we expect as Americans.
  Trump took the bait again.
No one is saying the Hamilton cast didn't have the right to free speech, but this was not the appropriate venue. Think of how it would feel to someone who's obese going to a restaurant and ordering what most people would regard as an excessive amount of food, then being lectured by the server about what an unhealthy choice that is. Free speech, right? But I assume you would condemn someone doing that!
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 19, 2016, 08:42:31 PM
Protesting in the street - not the right venue.
Kneeling for national anthem - not the right venue
Broadway play - not the right venue.

Freedom of speech in limited circmustances that don't offend the right wing PC police
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Clevelander17 on November 19, 2016, 08:59:32 PM
Protesting in the street - not the right venue.
Kneeling for national anthem - not the right venue
Broadway play - not the right venue.

Freedom of speech in limited circmustances that don't offend the right wing PC police

They want the entire world to be their safe space.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 19, 2016, 09:05:45 PM
How often will someone get the chance to speak directly to a Vice President?  I think it would be un-American not to speak.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 19, 2016, 09:12:36 PM
I don't remember Obama whining on Twitter about this.  Funny conservatives thought it was patriotic to boo him.


http://www.mrconservative.com/2014/12/53625-obama-booed-by-stadium-of-patriotic-americans/
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: mu2010 on November 20, 2016, 12:32:05 AM
According to conservatives, the only proper venue for dissent is to protest in your room quietly with the lights off. Anything else is just plain rude and uncalled for.

They'll argue about venues all day long because they don't want to address the actual issues being protested.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: audidave on November 20, 2016, 01:31:32 AM
To put this back on the "conservatives" that feel slighted by free speech. What part of the hamilton speech are you actually upset about? 
  This is so ridiculous that this white governor of a mostly white state is seeing a political musical and doesn't want to be cluttered with a respectful yet political speech from the minority cast.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 20, 2016, 08:14:18 AM
When I post articles, I usually post only from mainstream media. Here's a sample of some of the far-left "other stuff" that shows up in Facebook timeline and Twitter feeds that I avoid posting...

ANTI-FASCISTS STORM RESTAURANT HOSTING NEO-NAZI, ALT-RIGHT NPI DINNER November 19, 2016 Facebooktwitterredditpinterest
From DC Direct Action News

On the 18th of November, the “suit-and-tie Nazi” National Policy Institute (NPI) attempted to hold a quiet dinner meeting on the subject of white supremacy at an Italian restaurant on Wisconsin Ave called Maggiano’s. Anti-fascist protesters stormed the restaurant and got most of the way up the stairs to the second floor where NPI was meeting. A few got in via the elevator. The Washington Post is reporting that “a foul smelling liquid” was sprayed on NPI President Richard Spencer, notorious for peddling “white nationalism.”

One security guard or NPI member (not sure which) pushed back hard trying to force activists back down the stairs. He did so even though his pushing caused the wooden rail on the staircase to bow and bend under the weight of people being forced against it. Due to the height of the staircase this constituted acting in reckless disregard of human life, though anyone familiar with the history of fascism and Naziism would know this is par for the course.

MORE:
https://itsgoingdown.org/anti-fascists-storm-restaurant-hosting-neo-nazi-alt-right-npi-dinner/
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 20, 2016, 09:28:23 AM
President Elect still whining about Hamilton.    Also whining about SNL being one sided.  I thought Trumpers hate being PC.

In other news,  Trump is still meeting with his Indian business partners.   I'm sure Congress will look into the conflicts of interest as soon as 769th Benghazi hearing concludes
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 20, 2016, 10:04:28 AM
I wonder if $25 million is the largest ever 'nuisance' settlement.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 20, 2016, 10:24:26 AM
The speech was an examples of typical condescending, know-it-all, "I'm right you're wrong!" tone and style that the left has adopted over the last decade or so, and it is a huge turn off to the vast majority of Americans.  The guy was evening waving his finger - give me a break. The fact that it was done at a completely inappropriate time, to the detriment of so many paying customers was just exemplified the total lame-ness of the whole ordeal.

One interesting historical parallel here is that we all know how well things went the last time Hamilton taunted and insulted a vice president, don't we?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Hamilton-burr-duel.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxowkjSW8AAWfOx.jpg)
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 20, 2016, 11:01:58 AM
To put this back on the "conservatives" that feel slighted by free speech. What part of the hamilton speech are you actually upset about? 
  This is so ridiculous that this white governor of a mostly white state is seeing a political musical and doesn't want to be cluttered with a respectful yet political speech from the minority cast.
apparently, once again, people don't actually read the posts of others with a different point of view (or maybe just mine), or are incapable of grasping anything outside their own echo chamber. Re my last post: I never said the Hamilton cast doesn't have the right to free speech, in the appropriate setting. Alluding to my example of the fictitious overweight restaurant customer (which I doubt you even read) who was shamed by a staff member for ordering too much food, likewise the theatergoer (Mike Pence) who, in exchange for a ticket for which he expected to be treated to an evening of entertainment, is additionally blindsided by a simplistic Civics 101 polemic with a highly partisan point of view, which is clearly not customarily part of any Broadway show experience, and for which he paid good money (or in likelihood was given a pass by a donor). Is this so hard to understand?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 20, 2016, 11:11:48 AM
Freedom of speech as long as it doesn't offend conservative snowflakes.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: smith on November 20, 2016, 11:52:28 AM
To put this back on the "conservatives" that feel slighted by free speech. What part of the hamilton speech are you actually upset about? 
  This is so ridiculous that this white governor of a mostly white state is seeing a political musical and doesn't want to be cluttered with a respectful yet political speech from the minority cast.
apparently, once again, people don't actually read the posts of others with a different point of view (or maybe just mine), or are incapable of grasping anything outside their own echo chamber. Re my last post: I never said the Hamilton cast doesn't have the right to free speech, in the appropriate setting. Alluding to my example of the fictitious overweight restaurant customer (which I doubt you even read) who was shamed by a staff member for ordering too much food, likewise the theatergoer (Mike Pence) who, in exchange for a ticket for which he expected to be treated to an evening of entertainment, is additionally blindsided by a simplistic Civics 101 polemic with a highly partisan point of view, which is clearly not customarily part of any Broadway show experience, and for which he paid good money (or in likelihood was given a pass by a donor). Is this so hard to understand?

Your comparison to an overweight person ordering too much food is a terrible comparison.  Pence is an elected official, as such, he works for the taxpayers and elected officials should be held to a higher standard and accountable for their decisions.   

This sums it up to me:
"Politicians do not deserve respect simply on the basis of the fact that they’re politicians. They do, however, deserve to be treated in accordance with their actions. " (from http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/boo-mike-pence-whenever-possible-1789164882, read the article for list of his actions).
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Cleburger on November 20, 2016, 12:04:11 PM
This is such a nothing issue. The cast used their free speech rights to make a point. They are not wealthy people that they can afford access to politicians or buy airtime to have their point heard. They were not rude. It was very civil. If this would happen to Obama or Biden It would be forgotten the next day. Right wingers are thin skinned that are upset about getting lectured by some minorities.
   If you can't take the free speech rights then you can leave this country for many others on th world that are happy to crack down on free speech. In fact that is exactly what their speech was about. They are afraid that Trump is going to start cracking down on free speech and any other rights. Trump said he's all about stop and frisk.  He likes torture. Who knows what else his ego will try to subvert of rights that we expect as Americans.
  Trump took the bait again.
No one is saying the Hamilton cast didn't have the right to free speech, but this was not the appropriate venue. Think of how it would feel to someone who's obese going to a restaurant and ordering what most people would regard as an excessive amount of food, then being lectured by the server about what an unhealthy choice that is. Free speech, right? But I assume you would condemn someone doing that!

Or conversely, imagine going to a restaurant in Indiana and ordering an excessive amount of food, only to be lectured by the server to leave the restaurant because the owner of the restaurant has religious beliefs that run counter to your lifestyle.    I assume you could condemn someone for doing that?   What about signing it into the law of the state?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 20, 2016, 12:23:36 PM
DID RUSSIA INSTALL DONALD TRUMP AS THE NEXT U.S. PRESIDENT?
http://www.newsweek.com/did-russia-install-donald-trump-next-us-president-520272
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on November 20, 2016, 02:35:46 PM
Pence takes the high road.  Doesn't exactly make up for his boss taking the low road, but definitely better than nothing, considering he was the one actually in attendance.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/306931-pence-i-wasnt-offended-by-hamilton-message
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: X on November 20, 2016, 03:54:37 PM
DID RUSSIA INSTALL DONALD TRUMP AS THE NEXT U.S. PRESIDENT?
http://www.newsweek.com/did-russia-install-donald-trump-next-us-president-520272

The scariest thing about this is that the precedent has been set.  Expect more tampering in all future US elections.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 20, 2016, 04:10:09 PM
91% spike in number of Americans searching for how to move to Ireland
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/91-spike-in-number-of-americans-searching-for-how-to-move-to-ireland-764686.html
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 20, 2016, 04:11:10 PM
Military Leaders Urge Trump to See Climate as a Security Threat
Dozens of military and defense experts advised the president-elect that global warming should transcend politics
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/military-leaders-urge-trump-to-see-climate-as-a-security-threat/?WT.mc_id=SA_TW_ENGYSUS_NEWS
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: jmecklenborg on November 20, 2016, 04:29:33 PM
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Dumbledore on November 20, 2016, 04:57:58 PM

How come none of th people wanting to run from AMerica never choose Mexico or venezuela or somewhere else beyond our southern border?
its always canada.
Is it because the others arent _______ enough? fill in the blank as you wish.
whatever the reason, it shows Mexico no love.
Is it because english is not a dominant language in central and south America?
that proves the characterization of Americans as uneducated monolingual boors.
Couldnt at least our celebs in southern Calif., who are much closer to the mexican border than the canadian one, choose Mexico or maybe S. America?
that reminds me have those boorish americans like Miley Cyrus and Cher packed their bags yet? i like them as artists and many of thier songs, but....bye-bye
Maybe there are some sanctuary cities in mexico, i dont know
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 20, 2016, 05:13:34 PM
Belize and Costa Rica sound like great places to live. My sister loves Belize. But I need a city and a country with a rail system.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 20, 2016, 05:15:45 PM
I'm obviously no Trump fan, and he's certainly not worth sacrificing oneself over....

Man, 69, sets himself on fire in Highland Square moments after ranting about President-elect Trump
http://www.ohio.com/news/local/man-69-sets-himself-on-fire-in-highland-square-moments-after-ranting-about-president-elect-trump-1.728435#.WDIRYOlO7vl.facebook
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: David on November 20, 2016, 05:31:00 PM
What kind of question is that? LOL

People are mostly interested in Canada for many reasons. Culturally, it's just not much different. In fact, it's just like America but more liberal. It's not about being racist or anything like that. I remember the good ol' days, when I took a trip with ColDayMan and NorthAndre and met up with MikeToronto from Skyscraperpage and visited Toronto and other areas of Canada. It was a wonderful experience that I'll always remember. It was certainly somewhat different from the U.S. but mostly just in that it didn't seem to have a lot of the social issues that America does. For the most part, Canada was pretty 'familiar.' There were no language barriers and there were still a lot of things that were recognizable, like chain restaurants. Essentially, it was only different in ways that liberal Americans would appreciate and the quality of life actually seemed better for the average Joe, compared to here. If you're rich, you'd probably think Canada doesn't offer as much for you.

To put it crudely, Mexico and most South American countries are sh!t holes. They have corrupt governments in bed with drug cartels, for Christ's sake. It's preventing them from becoming first world countries. The standard of living / quality of life just doesn't compare to Canada. I'm sure some of the larger cities like Sao Paulo and Buenos Aires are great (although I'm sure they're pretty crime-ridden) but overall, they couldn't possibly have a quality of life that compares to Canada. Canada is also relatively close. If you wanted to take a trip to the U.S., you could easily drive to see your family, especially if they live in the Midwest. It wouldn't feel like you're very far from 'home.'

More importantly, Canada has really relaxed immigration policies. Other than Argentina and Brazil, I'm not sure that you could as easily move to those countries.

Americans are well-received in Canada and if you're trying to obtain citizenship in another country, you're going to want to be a citizen of a country who has values and a culture you identify with, so Canada seems like a sensible choice if you're a U.S. liberal.

That said, I've always been fascinated by Buenos Aires. It seems like paradise. I just couldn't imagine becoming a citizen in a country that far away. Like I said, Canada isn't very far so it just seems less risky, closer to home and more 'familiar.' I don't think it's unreasonable at all that Canada is almost always where people want to go when they threaten to leave the U.S.

Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Dumbledore on November 20, 2016, 05:40:57 PM

^oh that's rich ,and proves the nuanced point i was making
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 20, 2016, 05:44:13 PM

^oh that's rich ,and proves the nuanced point i was making

What, that conservatives are jerks?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Dumbledore on November 20, 2016, 05:53:50 PM
What kind of question is that? LOL

..... It's not about being racist or anything like that. ....Canada was pretty 'familiar.' There were no language barriers and there were still a lot of things that were recognizable, like chain restaurants. Essentially, it was only different in ways that liberal Americans would appreciate and the quality of life actually seemed better for the average Joe, compared to here. If you're rich, you'd probably think Canada doesn't offer as much for you.

To put it crudely, Mexico and most South American countries are sh!t holes. They have corrupt governments in bed with drug cartels, for Christ's sake. ...

More importantly, Canada has really relaxed immigration policies. Other than Argentina and Brazil, I'm not sure that you could as easily move to those countries.

Americans are well-received in Canada and if you're trying to obtain citizenship in another country, you're going to want to be a citizen of a country  just seems less risky, closer to home and more 'familiar.' I don't think it's unreasonable at all that Canada is almost always where people want to go when they threaten to leave the U.S.



1 oh yes it is
2 LMAO
3 elitist
4 which americans?
5 woosie
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on November 20, 2016, 06:13:25 PM
DID RUSSIA INSTALL DONALD TRUMP AS THE NEXT U.S. PRESIDENT?
http://www.newsweek.com/did-russia-install-donald-trump-next-us-president-520272

If that's a legitimate question, the answer is obviously "no".  But that's the nature of media today.  Headlines state an alarming question "Is Hillary a Lesbian?"  When the answer is obvious, the question itself is ridiculous and the article is probably baseless, but in our quick-click, scan-link media, the point is made.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Clevelander17 on November 20, 2016, 06:18:41 PM
If that's a legitimate question, the answer is obviously "no".  But that's the nature of media today.  Headlines state an alarming question "Is Hillary a Lesbian?"  When the answer is obvious, the question itself is ridiculous and the article is probably baseless, but in our quick-click, scan-link media, the point is made.

Install? No, of course not. But the article isn't baseless. Americans have a right to know the extent of Russia's role in this election.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Cleburger on November 21, 2016, 09:39:44 AM
So Melania and Baron are not moving to the White House?    I wonder how the Obama-haters who were worried about the costs of his occasional golf trips will react to the BILLIONS that are about to be spent over the next 4 years in Midtown Manhattan protecting Trump's "staycation" home?

http://nypost.com/2016/11/20/melania-and-barron-trump-wont-be-moving-to-the-white-house/
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 21, 2016, 09:48:33 AM
^ The fact you're missing is that they won't move until the end of the school year, according to Trump. They will move then. That's a very respectable decision - upending and moving a kid in the middle of a school year is never easy, and if you have the choice and resources to avoid doing that, it is almost always the better choice for the child.

DID RUSSIA INSTALL DONALD TRUMP AS THE NEXT U.S. PRESIDENT?
http://www.newsweek.com/did-russia-install-donald-trump-next-us-president-520272

If that's a legitimate question, the answer is obviously "no".  But that's the nature of media today.  Headlines state an alarming question "Is Hillary a Lesbian?"  When the answer is obvious, the question itself is ridiculous and the article is probably baseless, but in our quick-click, scan-link media, the point is made.

Newsweek has a name that was once respectable, but don’t forget they were bought out by a tabloid style blog (Daily Beast) and have the same dumb click-bait titles that are so pervasive these days. It’s not a legitimate question to ask, it’s a crappy tabloid headline that probably wouldn’t make it past the editors at the National Enquirer or Globe’s editors, and the article itself wouldn’t be fit for printing on their pages. It’s a shame the Newsweek name has fallen so far, but the fact that this is what they’re doing now is a good sign as to why they aren’t in print anymore.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Floods7 on November 21, 2016, 10:03:16 AM
I'm obviously no Trump fan, and he's certainly not worth sacrificing oneself over....

Man, 69, sets himself on fire in Highland Square moments after ranting about President-elect Trump
http://www.ohio.com/news/local/man-69-sets-himself-on-fire-in-highland-square-moments-after-ranting-about-president-elect-trump-1.728435#.WDIRYOlO7vl.facebook

lol...dude that's hilarious

I think I would have just kept the camera rolling
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 21, 2016, 10:06:06 AM
Here's another all too common reminder that although Trump won the election, the media is still not giving him a fair shake. There's bias, and then there's outright lies. This is the latter, via NBC:

NBC News under fire for misleading tweets about Trump chief of staff's answer on Muslim registry

http://uk.businessinsider.com/nbc-criticism-trump-tweet-muslim-registry-reince-2016-11?r=US&IR=T

NBC News came under fire Sunday morning for two tweets that removed context from an answer Reince Priebus, President-elect Donald Trump's pick for White House chief of staff, offered on the idea of a Muslim registry.

Priebus appeared "Meet the Press" and was asked by host Chuck Todd whether he could rule out the idea of placing Muslims on a registry.

Here was the exchange:

TODD: Can you equivocally rule out a registry for Muslims?

PRIEBUS: Look, I’m not going to rule out anything. But, we are not going to have a registry based on religion.

The public relations account for NBC News tweeted out the exchange twice but left out the second part of Priebus' response:

"Can you rule out a registry for Muslims?" asks @ChuckTodd.

"I'm not going to rule out anything..." says @Reince on @MeetThePress #MTP


Elipses are meant to leave out less relevent information, not information that completely changes the entire meaning of the quote. Someone should be fired for these Tweets - but they won't and NBC will keep doing it.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 21, 2016, 10:23:13 AM
^ The fact you're missing is that they won't move until the end of the school year, according to Trump. They will move then. That's a very respectable decision - upending and moving a kid in the middle of a school year is never easy, and if you have the choice and resources to avoid doing that, it is almost always the better choice for the child.

Agreed, but Trump refused to confirm that they will "move then".
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: audidave on November 21, 2016, 10:23:17 AM
Well it isn't a fireable offense at all obviously. Mere hours later to parse this silliness more, various people in the new admin were quoted as saying that islam is not a real religion.  So in fact, that would allow them to do a registry since they do not deem it to be a religion.  So NBC is absolutely correct.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 21, 2016, 10:25:33 AM
Well it isn't a fireable offense at all obviously. Mere hours later to parse this silliness more, various people in the new admin were quoted as saying that islam is not a real religion.  So in fact, that would allow them to do a registry since they do not deem it to be a religion.  So NBC is absolutely correct.

They aren't.   Because they left out what Priebius said.

Who "in the new administration" said that.   Keep in mind no one is really "in it" yet.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: audidave on November 21, 2016, 10:44:06 AM
^ i believe it was Bannon and also Gen flynn.   I saw various sources and tweets about this on Sunday. Here is an article describing his beliefs that it is an ideology and not a religion.
http://qz.com/841197/islam-is-a-malignant-cancer-the-hateful-rhetoric-of-michael-flynn-trumps-new-national-security-adviser/
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on November 21, 2016, 10:46:00 AM
If that's a legitimate question, the answer is obviously "no".  But that's the nature of media today.  Headlines state an alarming question "Is Hillary a Lesbian?"  When the answer is obvious, the question itself is ridiculous and the article is probably baseless, but in our quick-click, scan-link media, the point is made.

Install? No, of course not. But the article isn't baseless. Americans have a right to know the extent of Russia's role in this election.

I agree, and I said a week ago earlier in this thread that I'd be in favor of the FBI looking into his relations with Russia to see if there's any actual harmful relationships.  So far, lots of allegations but no smoking gun
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 21, 2016, 11:04:44 AM
Well it isn't a fireable offense at all obviously. Mere hours later to parse this silliness more, various people in the new admin were quoted as saying that islam is not a real religion.  So in fact, that would allow them to do a registry since they do not deem it to be a religion.  So NBC is absolutely correct.

They chopped a quote down in a manner that made it mean the exact opposite of what it originally meant. They literally couldn't be more wrong than that - short of fabricating the quote altogether.

^ The fact you're missing is that they won't move until the end of the school year, according to Trump. They will move then. That's a very respectable decision - upending and moving a kid in the middle of a school year is never easy, and if you have the choice and resources to avoid doing that, it is almost always the better choice for the child.

Agreed, but Trump refused to confirm that they will "move then".

He didn't swear on the bible or anything but he did say they will move after the school year.

Trump spoke Sunday to reporters gathered at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, during a day of private meetings with potential administration officials. He said he will live in the White House and wife Melania Trump and 10-year-old son Barron will move “right after he finishes school.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-wife-son-will-move-to-white-house-after-school-year/2016/11/20/6fff70e0-af66-11e6-bc2d-19b3d759cfe7_story.html
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: audidave on November 21, 2016, 11:44:21 AM
I find it rich that you are upset that a news orgnization learned how to use clickbait to get people to actually check out what was said in its entirety.
   If you believe that islam is not a religion then it totally is true. They have all options available to them including registering muslims.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hootenany on November 21, 2016, 12:12:07 PM
Well it isn't a fireable offense at all obviously. Mere hours later to parse this silliness more, various people in the new admin were quoted as saying that islam is not a real religion.  So in fact, that would allow them to do a registry since they do not deem it to be a religion.  So NBC is absolutely correct.

They chopped a quote down in a manner that made it mean the exact opposite of what it originally meant. They literally couldn't be more wrong than that - short of fabricating the quote altogether.

Let's go over this quote again.

TODD: Can you equivocally rule out a registry for Muslims?

PRIEBUS: Look, I’m not going to rule out anything. But, we are not going to have a registry based on religion.


Priebus has literally just said nothing.  He said he can't rule anything out and he also said that they won't have a registry.  How can he claim that there won't be a registry if he can't rule anything out?  The bottom line is that we'll have to wait and see what this administration proposes, but the fact that we even need to have these discussions is pretty depressing to me.  The leader of a country founded on religious freedom appears to be looking for a way to discriminate against an entire religion. 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 21, 2016, 12:15:12 PM
Well it isn't a fireable offense at all obviously. Mere hours later to parse this silliness more, various people in the new admin were quoted as saying that islam is not a real religion.  So in fact, that would allow them to do a registry since they do not deem it to be a religion.  So NBC is absolutely correct.

They chopped a quote down in a manner that made it mean the exact opposite of what it originally meant. They literally couldn't be more wrong than that - short of fabricating the quote altogether.

Let's go over this quote again.

TODD: Can you equivocally rule out a registry for Muslims?

PRIEBUS: Look, I’m not going to rule out anything. But, we are not going to have a registry based on religion.


Priebus has literally just said nothing.  He said he can't rule anything out and he also said that they won't have a registry.  How can he claim that there won't be a registry if he can't rule anything out?  The bottom line is that we'll have to wait and see what this administration proposes, but the fact that we even need to have these discussions is pretty depressing to me.  The leader of a country founded on religious freedom appears to be looking for a way to discriminate against an entire religion. 

There is no way in Hell, Hades, or Jannaham that the United States of America is going to declare that Islam is not a legitimate religion. 

Trump said a lot of off the wall stuff while he was a candidate.   But there’s solid signs that he didn’t mean quite a bit of it.  For example, the leading candidate for Defense Secretary is a retired Marine General who supports the Ukranians versus the Russians, has criticized both Obama and Trump for dismissing the value of allies, and while in command in the Middle East took great pains to ensure his troops were sensitive to local (Muslim) concerns.   

Even if he listened to his true believers from the wading section of the gene pool long enough to try such a thing, the courts would strike it down very quickly.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 21, 2016, 12:20:23 PM
^^ There's no need to go over the quote again. I've gone over it several times and I keep seeing the part where he said "we are not going to have a registry based on religion," the key part that was absent from NBC's series of Tweets and headlines.

The previous sentence was just reality. He can't rule anything out because he is employed at the discretion of the president.

The truth of the matter (and you're right in saying it's depressing) is that we have little to no current infrastructure in place to combat the spread of radicalization, neither in the middle east nor our own country. That's something I'm hopeful Trump will put into place, as our current president has done an abysmal job at it.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on November 21, 2016, 12:26:06 PM
Most of what I've seen bandied about about the registry is some kind of reinstatement of NSEERS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Entry-Exit_Registration_System

Obama discontinued it (and replaced it with the US-VISIT program), but Trump could reinstate it, and he wouldn't be reaching deep into unprecedented territory, since it's a registry of immigrants and visa holders by country (which of course were predominantly Muslim, but still, by country and applicable only to non-US citizens).  By contrast, if he demands a registry of native-born U.S. citizens who happen to be Muslim, that would definitely be unprecedented (and would be nearly certain to go to the Supreme Court, quite possibly before Trump could name more than one nominee to it).
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: rockandroller on November 21, 2016, 12:58:44 PM
I absolutely believe they intend to "decide" that being Muslim is not a religion and thus allow a "loophole" to create a registry for a "dangerous ideology." When someone in politics says they can't rule something out, that means that's exactly what they're going to do.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hootenany on November 21, 2016, 02:15:31 PM
^^ There's no need to go over the quote again. I've gone over it several times and I keep seeing the part where he said "we are not going to have a registry based on religion," the key part that was absent from NBC's series of Tweets and headlines.

The previous sentence was just reality. He can't rule anything out because he is employed at the discretion of the president.

I absolutely love this.  He very clearly made two contradictory statements because he knows that people will hear what they want to hear.  If you are someone that wants to see a Muslim registry he just told you that there will be one because it's up to his boss who has very clearly advocated for it.  If you are against a registry you just heard him say that there won't be one even though the sentence before that he told you it's not up to him.  It's actually good politics on Priebus' part.

The truth of the matter (and you're right in saying it's depressing) is that we have little to no current infrastructure in place to combat the spread of radicalization, neither in the middle east nor our own country. That's something I'm hopeful Trump will put into place, as our current president has done an abysmal job at it.

What infrastructure should be in place to combat radicalization in the US?  The Obama administration has worked on outreach toward Muslim American communities to prevent radicalization before it starts.  What else can really be done without threatening the the constitutionally protected freedoms of US citizens?  How much freedom is the Trump adminstration willing to sacrafice in the name of security?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/15/obama-administration-american-muslims-radicalization
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on November 21, 2016, 02:50:35 PM
I absolutely believe they intend to "decide" that being Muslim is not a religion and thus allow a "loophole" to create a registry for a "dangerous ideology." When someone in politics says they can't rule something out, that means that's exactly what they're going to do.

Whether they call it a religion or not, I think they'd have the same First Amendment problems that they'd have if they conceded it was a religion, and opponents of the registry would still have the same arguments available to them under the Constitution.  Consider, for example, whether they could enforce a registry of all atheists.

Note that the government can, most likely, make its own list based on people's public professions of their faith or ideology, just like Google makes stunningly granular profiles of your commercial, political, and probably even sexual interests based on your search history.  Therefore, if you come out and openly declare yourself to be Muslim, or atheist, or Catholic, or Third Christ Almighty Baptist Superchurch of Texas, the government is generally not required to close its eyes and respect a right of "privacy" in information that you volunteered to the world.  But that is different than compelling speech (compelling profession of an ideology), much less compelling conduct based on it (e.g., presenting oneself for periodic inspection, let alone of course internment).
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 21, 2016, 05:56:16 PM
It will likely be NSEERS on steroids, which is horrible policy regardless of principle. There were very good reasons that system was abandoned, most notably that it wasn't only ineffective, it was counterproductive. It's pouring gasoline on a fire while also aiming the nearest water hose down the drain.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 21, 2016, 06:08:42 PM
Video: At alt-right conference in DC, Trump’s victor met with cheers & Nazi salutes https://t.co/92AWRUpKNl

Restaurant apologizes for hosting alt-right meeting, will donate profits to Jewish group
https://t.co/AyCpZS7vEB
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 21, 2016, 06:16:51 PM
More conflict of interest?

Argentine media: Trump asked President Macri to help with construction permits for a Trump building in Buenos Aires. https://t.co/YKahSlC3RP https://t.co/K89vu08IzX
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 21, 2016, 06:42:47 PM
Video: At alt-right conference in DC, Trump’s victor met with cheers & Nazi salutes https://t.co/92AWRUpKNl

Restaurant apologizes for hosting alt-right meeting, will donate profits to Jewish group
https://t.co/AyCpZS7vEB

There is a tweet from tila tequilla from the event.  I guess if you fail at porn, you hang out with white supremacist losers.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: jmecklenborg on November 21, 2016, 06:56:58 PM
Video: At alt-right conference in DC, Trump’s victor met with cheers & Nazi salutes https://t.co/92AWRUpKNl

Restaurant apologizes for hosting alt-right meeting, will donate profits to Jewish group
https://t.co/AyCpZS7vEB

There is a tweet from tile tequilla from the event.  I guess if you fail at porn, you hang out with white supremacist losers.

She was famously pelted and run out of the Gathering of the Juggalos:
http://www.avclub.com/article/when-juggalos-attack-a-firsthand-account-of-the-ti-44221


Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: moonloop on November 21, 2016, 07:28:50 PM
Here's some Alt Right conference "highlights". Held at Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C.

https://youtu.be/1o6-bi3jlxk
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 21, 2016, 08:31:18 PM
Don't call them racists though or else they will vote for a racist just to stick it to you.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 21, 2016, 08:41:38 PM
Here are only a few of Trump's action items for his first 100 days in office (plenty of these are 'reach across the aisle' ideas, unlike anything we've seen in the last 8 years):



On the topic of reaching across the aisle, here's an interesting statement from Tulsi Gabbard after her meeting today with Trump. Gabbard was Bernie's VP choice in California where he was a write-in candidate:

http://gabbard.house.gov/index.php/press-releases/655-gabbard-statement-on-meeting-with-president-elect-donald-trump

“President-elect Trump and I had a frank and positive conversation in which we discussed a variety of foreign policy issues in depth. I shared with him my grave concerns that escalating the war in Syria by implementing a so-called no fly/safe zone would be disastrous for the Syrian people, our country, and the world. It would lead to more death and suffering, exacerbate the refugee crisis, strengthen ISIS and al-Qaeda, and bring us into a direct conflict with Russia which could result in a nuclear war. We discussed my bill to end our country’s illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government, and the need to focus our precious resources on rebuilding our own country, and on defeating al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other terrorist groups who pose a threat to the American people.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 21, 2016, 08:51:38 PM
Donald Trump’s media summit was a ‘f—ing firing squad’

http://nypost.com/2016/11/21/donald-trumps-media-summit-was-a-f-ing-firing-squad/


Donald Trump scolded media big shots during an off-the-record Trump Tower sitdown on Monday, sources told The Post.

“It was like a f–ing firing squad,” one source said of the encounter.

“Trump started with [CNN chief] Jeff Zucker and said ‘I hate your network, everyone at CNN is a liar and you should be ashamed,’ ” the source said.

“The meeting was a total disaster. The TV execs and anchors went in there thinking they would be discussing the access they would get to the Trump administration, but instead they got a Trump-style dressing down,” the source added.

A second source confirmed the fireworks...

Trump spokeswoman Kellyanne Conway told reporters the gathering went well.

“Excellent meetings with the top executives of the major networks,” she said during a gaggle in the lobby of Trump Tower. “Pretty unprecedented meeting we put together in two days.”
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hootenany on November 22, 2016, 07:55:42 AM
^This does not bode well for the next 4 years.  We now have a President with an axe to grind against the major news networks (essentially everybody except Hannity).  Maybe Trump will start his own government news network.  I'm sure he can ask Putin how best to set that up.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: TBideon on November 22, 2016, 07:58:33 AM
Listen to Gabbard Mr Trump and stay the f-k out of Syria.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 22, 2016, 08:27:02 AM
Isn't it ironic how Trump and his supporters are so easily offended?  Thin skin does not begin to properly describe it.  This is going to be a highly comical four years.... best case scenario.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 22, 2016, 08:50:36 AM
Trump always goes on a Twitter tirade to distract everyone from a real scandal.  Today he distracting everyone from his crooked foundation and his violation of the Emolument Clause the day he takes office.

Info on crooked Trump foundation:

https://t.co/EGUGjxOiZr

Lock Him Up!
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 22, 2016, 09:36:28 AM
I still don't understand how the Trump Organization and Trump Foundation are going to continue to operate while he is in office.  Putting them in a blind trust administered by his children won't quell many concerns about conflicts of interest.  That would, at the very least, cause a strong appearance of impropriety.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 22, 2016, 09:40:37 AM
He will not have a blind trust at all.  A blind trust will require far more than having his kids run things. 


LOCK HIM UP!
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Pablo on November 22, 2016, 09:56:09 AM
Looks like Trump is breaking another campaign promise.

In an appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program, Kellyanne Conway, the former Trump campaign manager and a senior adviser to his transition, said the president-elect wanted to “move beyond the issues of the campaign” and confirmed that Mr. Trump did not want his promised Clinton investigations to take place.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-investigation.html?_r=0
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: taestell on November 22, 2016, 09:56:24 AM
(http://s.mlkshk-cdn.com/r/1ADGX)

(http://s.mlkshk-cdn.com/r/1ADGY)

(http://s.mlkshk.com/r/1ADGZ)

What was all that ruckus about "proper handling of sensitive information" again?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: rockandroller on November 22, 2016, 10:11:28 AM
I know I sound increasingly tinfoil hat but I think this was about as much of an accident as a celeb suddenly going to a paparazzi-heavy starbucks to show off a new engagement ring (or for someone in a troubled marriage, the suddenly gone wedding ring).
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 22, 2016, 10:32:13 AM
^ I'm with you. That doesn't seem like an accident to me given what text is visible. It reads like too much of a Trump campaign promise list. It was being widely celebrated by Trump supporters everywhere - particularly this excerpt:

"1989 miles planned for rapid construction"

Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 22, 2016, 10:32:20 AM
This closed door meeting between Trump and the media is astonishing.  Is he really trying to bully the press into giving him the type of coverage his jock-boy Hannity gives him?  This guy has been around way too many 'yes men' his entire life.  He is in for a rude awakening and a very long four years.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 22, 2016, 10:39:18 AM
This closed door meeting between Trump and the media is astonishing.  Is he really trying to bully the press into giving him the type of coverage his jock-boy Hannity gives him?  This guy has been around way too many 'yes men' his entire life.  He is in for a rude awakening and a very long four years.

That's always been the take on him, too many "yes men".   We'll see what his cabinet picks look like.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 22, 2016, 10:44:43 AM
Video: At alt-right conference in DC, Trump’s victor met with cheers & Nazi salutes https://t.co/92AWRUpKNl

Restaurant apologizes for hosting alt-right meeting, will donate profits to Jewish group
https://t.co/AyCpZS7vEB

There is a tweet from tila tequilla from the event.  I guess if you fail at porn, you hang out with white supremacist losers.

Oh okay, that's why the woman doing the salute with a smirk looked familiar.  And very much like she was trolling, which she does.

Or maybe she just likes insane clowns....
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on November 22, 2016, 10:59:00 AM
I know I sound increasingly tinfoil hat but I think this was about as much of an accident as a celeb suddenly going to a paparazzi-heavy starbucks to show off a new engagement ring (or for someone in a troubled marriage, the suddenly gone wedding ring).

Even if it wasn't deliberate, Trump if he chooses could easily spin it that way, and it would be hard to tell.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on November 22, 2016, 11:02:03 AM
This closed door meeting between Trump and the media is astonishing.  Is he really trying to bully the press into giving him the type of coverage his jock-boy Hannity gives him?  This guy has been around way too many 'yes men' his entire life.  He is in for a rude awakening and a very long four years.

That's always been the take on him, too many "yes men".   We'll see what his cabinet picks look like.

One thing about Trump is he is beating the media at their own game with his Twitter.  He can do his own press and policy announcements if he chooses to
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on November 22, 2016, 11:17:29 AM
This closed door meeting between Trump and the media is astonishing.  Is he really trying to bully the press into giving him the type of coverage his jock-boy Hannity gives him?  This guy has been around way too many 'yes men' his entire life.  He is in for a rude awakening and a very long four years.

That's always been the take on him, too many "yes men".   We'll see what his cabinet picks look like.

One thing about Trump is he is beating the media at their own game with his Twitter.  He can do his own press and policy announcements if he chooses to

That would certainly be in keeping with how he rendered them essentially irrelevant and impotent in the campaign (not a single major newspaper endorsed him, for example, including many that had never endorsed a Democrat, or hadn't in generations).  Trump is at least as good or better at new media technologies as most old-line press outlets are, since a lot of them are reluctant to abandon old models, and Trump's thought-free thoughts are perfectly suited to Twitter (though I doubt he has the humor to use a Snapchat filter), and I see he's branching out to YouTube.  But that doesn't mean the old guard media, diminished as they are, have to bow and scrape for him.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 22, 2016, 11:17:37 AM
I  wish the media would stop focusing on his whining on Twitter.  He obviously does this when news of his corruption or malfeasance  is about hit the news cycle.  Focus on the real story people.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Cleburger on November 22, 2016, 11:53:03 AM
Can you imagine the GOP outcry if Michelle Obama had decided to park in Chicago with the girls for a few years and rang up a billion dollar security bill?

Protecting Donald Trump costs New York City more than $1 million a day


http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/21/news/protecting-donald-trump/index.html
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 22, 2016, 11:58:46 AM
There are currently three more Mike's in Trump's cabinet than there are minorities or women. 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 22, 2016, 12:04:37 PM
I know I sound increasingly tinfoil hat but I think this was about as much of an accident as a celeb suddenly going to a paparazzi-heavy starbucks to show off a new engagement ring (or for someone in a troubled marriage, the suddenly gone wedding ring).

Even if it wasn't deliberate, Trump if he chooses could easily spin it that way, and it would be hard to tell.

I do think he’s doing a certain amount of trolling, putting out a completely unacceptable name as a trial balloon (Bannon as Chief of Staff) then coming up with someone who looks good by comparison.  So yes, that fits.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 22, 2016, 12:16:29 PM
The President elect is trolling?  That's comforting. 

Bannon, btw, is essentially the Chief of Staff, I don't care what they call him.  His duties are more comparable to Chief of Staff than anything else they want to call him.  Priebus is more like Deputy Chief of Staff.  Bannon is the one who will be running the show.  Priebus will answer to him and won't have access to Trump without Bannon's say so.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: jmecklenborg on November 22, 2016, 12:23:10 PM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2016/11/22/exclusive-interview-how-jared-kushner-won-trump-the-white-house/#5113989c2f50

This Forbes article is a bit disturbing. We should all be upset that somebody can be so rich as to be able to buy a $1.8 billion office building at age 26, take a huge bath on it during the crash none of the supposedly super-smart people foresaw, and come out the other end still getting to be a rich a-hole.  Most people who make a business (or just grad school) mistake at age 26 see their lives completely thrown off-track. 

It's like, the guy who owns the 24-unit apartment building across the street from my house got it for $700k back during the recession.  He was like 27 when his dad or uncle fronted the money for him to get that thing that basically sets him up for life getting 20% returns on money that wasn't even his.  But there are obviously levels so much higher than that, and they get to make big mistakes so many times that when something they worked on works out, suddenly they're a genius. 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 22, 2016, 12:25:02 PM
The President elect is trolling?  That's comforting. 

That's who he is, he's been doing it all along.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 22, 2016, 12:31:50 PM
Bannon, btw, is essentially the Chief of Staff, I don't care what they call him.  His duties are more comparable to Chief of Staff than anything else they want to call him.  Priebus is more like Deputy Chief of Staff.  Bannon is the one who will be running the show.  Priebus will answer to him and won't have access to Trump without Bannon's say so.

Can you please provide an MLA format citation for this?

Can you imagine the GOP outcry if Michelle Obama had decided to park in Chicago with the girls for a few years and rang up a billion dollar security bill?

Protecting Donald Trump costs New York City more than $1 million a day


http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/21/news/protecting-donald-trump/index.html

Do presidents ever move into the White House before inauguration? This cost, through inauguration in January, would be incurred no matter what. The article also mentions that most of the cost is for covering Trump's adult children and their kids. Trump has a big, happy family so the costs are inevitably going to be more than a smaller family like the Clintons, for example. Melania and Barron staying back likely make little to no impact since the rest of Trump's kids and grandkids are under secret service protection as well. The amount of whining about this is a bit ridiculous - it's so nit-pickey.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on November 22, 2016, 12:39:49 PM

Bannon, btw, is essentially the Chief of Staff, I don't care what they call him.  His duties are more comparable to Chief of Staff than anything else they want to call him.  Priebus is more like Deputy Chief of Staff.  Bannon is the one who will be running the show.  Priebus will answer to him and won't have access to Trump without Bannon's say so.

By elevating Bannon to Chief of Staff (in KJP's mind) he's already made the association mentally that the country is being run by a racist, which connects the dots in his brain that he's supposed to hate everything that comes from the new President
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 22, 2016, 12:41:21 PM
lol! I guess they were too busy rehearsing :laugh:

Several ‘Hamilton’ Cast Members Haven’t Voted in Years

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/11/22/several-hamilton-havent-voted-years-lectured-mike-pence-politics/
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Cleburger on November 22, 2016, 12:47:14 PM
Bannon, btw, is essentially the Chief of Staff, I don't care what they call him.  His duties are more comparable to Chief of Staff than anything else they want to call him.  Priebus is more like Deputy Chief of Staff.  Bannon is the one who will be running the show.  Priebus will answer to him and won't have access to Trump without Bannon's say so.

Can you please provide an MLA format citation for this?

Can you imagine the GOP outcry if Michelle Obama had decided to park in Chicago with the girls for a few years and rang up a billion dollar security bill?

Protecting Donald Trump costs New York City more than $1 million a day


http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/21/news/protecting-donald-trump/index.html

Do presidents ever move into the White House before inauguration? This cost, through inauguration in January, would be incurred no matter what. The article also mentions that most of the cost is for covering Trump's adult children and their kids. Trump has a big, happy family so the costs are inevitably going to be more than a smaller family like the Clintons, for example. Melania and Barron staying back likely make little to no impact since the rest of Trump's kids and grandkids are under secret service protection as well. The amount of whining about this is a bit ridiculous - it's so nit-pickey.

Exactly.  So was the whining about Obama's occasional golf trip, which was by far less vacation than George W Bush took.....
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 22, 2016, 12:50:21 PM
Bannon, btw, is essentially the Chief of Staff, I don't care what they call him.  His duties are more comparable to Chief of Staff than anything else they want to call him.  Priebus is more like Deputy Chief of Staff.  Bannon is the one who will be running the show.  Priebus will answer to him and won't have access to Trump without Bannon's say so.

Can you please provide an MLA format citation for this?

Can you imagine the GOP outcry if Michelle Obama had decided to park in Chicago with the girls for a few years and rang up a billion dollar security bill?

Protecting Donald Trump costs New York City more than $1 million a day


http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/21/news/protecting-donald-trump/index.html

Do presidents ever move into the White House before inauguration? This cost, through inauguration in January, would be incurred no matter what. The article also mentions that most of the cost is for covering Trump's adult children and their kids. Trump has a big, happy family so the costs are inevitably going to be more than a smaller family like the Clintons, for example. Melania and Barron staying back likely make little to no impact since the rest of Trump's kids and grandkids are under secret service protection as well. The amount of whining about this is a bit ridiculous - it's so nit-pickey.

Exactly.  So was the whining about Obama's occasional golf trip, which was by far less vacation than George W Bush took.....

"occasional???"

President Obama plays 300th round of golf as president

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-obama-plays-300th-round-of-golf-as-president/
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 22, 2016, 12:54:51 PM
Bannon, btw, is essentially the Chief of Staff, I don't care what they call him.  His duties are more comparable to Chief of Staff than anything else they want to call him.  Priebus is more like Deputy Chief of Staff.  Bannon is the one who will be running the show.  Priebus will answer to him and won't have access to Trump without Bannon's say so.

Can you please provide an MLA format citation for this?

Bannon, Steve. Grab This!: Capitalizing on the Fear and Wimpy-ness of the Alt-Right (1st Ed.).  Trump Publishing (2016).
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: taestell on November 22, 2016, 12:54:55 PM
^ And Bush took 879 vacation days while he was in office. What's your point?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 22, 2016, 12:55:54 PM
lol! I guess they were too busy rehearsing :laugh:

Several ‘Hamilton’ Cast Members Haven’t Voted in Years

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/11/22/several-hamilton-havent-voted-years-lectured-mike-pence-politics/

The ranting actor was probably too busy making racist, sexist jokes about sexual assault on Twitter to find the time to vote:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/11/21/hamilton-star-lectured-pence-fire-racist-sexist-tweets/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 22, 2016, 12:59:02 PM
^Breitbart to the rescue of their favorite puppet administration.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 22, 2016, 01:02:20 PM
^well, someone's gotta report the stories the NY Times always seems to "miss."  :wink:
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 22, 2016, 01:13:34 PM
Why do Alt-Right people seem to think the NYT is the only newspaper in the country?  What is your obsession with that publication?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: ryanlammi on November 22, 2016, 01:17:07 PM
^something about liberal coastal elites and PC nazis wanting to start a world economy
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 22, 2016, 01:22:02 PM
Why do Alt-Right people seem to think the NYT is the only newspaper in the country?  What is your obsession with that publication?
because it's still considered to be the premier newspaper in the country, and many other news organizations base their lead stories on what the Times decides is important, using their highly editorialized content in their own publications and television reports.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: ColDayMan on November 22, 2016, 01:22:23 PM
Trump disavows 'alt-right' supporters

(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/8138/production/_92608033_hi036530794.jpg)

Donald Trump has repudiated the fringe "alt-right" group that celebrated his election win with Nazi salutes.

In a far-ranging interview with the New York Times, the US president-elect was quoted as saying: "I condemn them. I disavow, and I condemn."

He said he did not want to "energise" the group, which includes neo-Nazis, white nationalists and anti-Semites.

Alt-right supporters were filmed on Saturday in Washington DC cheering as a speaker shouted: "Hail Trump."

More below:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38069469
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on November 22, 2016, 01:28:59 PM
He didn't disavow them before the election!
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on November 22, 2016, 01:32:26 PM
Can you imagine the GOP outcry if Michelle Obama had decided to park in Chicago with the girls for a few years and rang up a billion dollar security bill?

Protecting Donald Trump costs New York City more than $1 million a day


http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/21/news/protecting-donald-trump/index.html

I really want context for this statistic, though.  How much did it cost to protect Obama between when he won and when he took office in 2008?

Note that Joe Biden takes the Amtrak to and from Delaware fairly regularly.  From a distance, they play it up as Uncle Joe's Regular Joe schtick, but the people who are actually on the train experience it very differently (train is locked down while he's embarking and disembarking, he has a car all to himself, Secret Service fans out through basically every station in front of him, etc.).  And that's for the VP.  Not that the VP is just a sack of potatoes, but I'm sure the president himself gets a much larger (and more paranoid) security detail than the VP.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 22, 2016, 01:43:49 PM
This is the single most dangerous thing Donald Trump said in his New York Times interview
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/22/this-is-the-single-most-dangerous-thing-donald-trump-said-in-his-new-york-times-interview/?tid=sm_tw
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 22, 2016, 01:49:53 PM
^ Clinton got away with using her position as Secretary of State to advance her foundation's wealth and agenda. That was actually illegal (note that the exceptions don't apply to cabinet members, just the "President, the Vice President, a Member of Congress, or a Federal judge."

So not only is Trump in a perfectly legal area, he can refer to the woman he ran against as a very recent precedent for such behavior. Democrats didn't care then, and even Republicans let her off easy - so why all the hubbub now?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: audidave on November 22, 2016, 02:07:03 PM
^pure bunk. There was assumption by the republicans that she was using her office to enrich her foundation. No proof. That is why the fbi and hearings were going through her emails.
  If it were that big of an operation to bring people in don't you think they would've uncovered something? 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 22, 2016, 02:19:59 PM
Gen. Flynn, who is Trump's pick for National Security advisor, ranted in August about Islam being a cancer.  That Trump team member whose first name is Boris (can't recall his last name) was being interviewed about how Flynn could say that a religion of 1.7 billion people could be a cancer.  He replied that the comments were likely taken out of context and that Flynn didn't mean to imply that the entire religion was a cancer.  The interviewer then played the whole clip in which Flynn said the cancer was growing in all 1.7 billion Muslims.  Boris said that type of rhetoric was divisive.  When asked why he thought Flynn's rhetoric was divisive, he says he was referring to the questions about Flynn's statement.  Un-f'in-believable.  It hasn't quite settled in that these pathological liars and scam artists (bad ones at that) are going to be running the country.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 22, 2016, 02:25:38 PM
maybe you're right. the country made a bad choice. It would have been so much better if we had chosen good, professional "pathological liars and scam artists" like the Clintons :-(
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 22, 2016, 02:36:05 PM
I don't know if you can quite say the "country" made that choice.  Certainly not by any straightforward democratic standards.  2 million is a LOT to lose the popular vote by. 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 22, 2016, 03:04:51 PM
maybe you're right. the country made a bad choice. It would have been so much better if we had chosen good, professional "pathological liars and scam artists" like the Clintons :-(

It's sad when a complaint is made about a candidate, and the supporter of that candidate can only respond by painting the opponent as a criminal and a cancer. In magic, it's called misdirection. And it's how a criminal, cancerous candidate won the most powerful elected office in the world.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 22, 2016, 03:54:16 PM
I don't know if you can quite say the "country" made that choice.  Certainly not by any straightforward democratic standards.  2 million is a LOT to lose the popular vote by. 

The "country" chose Trump to be our president in the same manner in which we chose the other 43 guys before him. He was chosen by straightforward American standards - the same standards we will continue to choose our presidents by for the foreseeable future. The sooner people come to terms with these 200+ year old standards that we have all known about since 2nd grade, stop erroneously claiming "not my president," and stop whining about irrelevant popular vote results the sooner we can try to put to rest the hateful divisiveness of the 2016 election.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: ColDayMan on November 22, 2016, 04:00:08 PM
The sooner people come to terms with these 200+ year old standards that we have all known about since 2nd grade, stop erroneously claiming "not my president," and stop whining about irrelevant popular vote results the sooner we can try to put to rest the hateful divisiveness of the 2016 election.

Well, seeing how "we" elected a divisive president, good luck with that.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 22, 2016, 06:03:47 PM
The sooner people come to terms with these 200+ year old standards that we have all known about since 2nd grade, stop erroneously claiming "not my president," and stop whining about irrelevant popular vote results the sooner we can try to put to rest the hateful divisiveness of the 2016 election.

Well, seeing how "we" elected a divisive president, good luck with that.

We had a choice between two of them.  It was a race to the bottom that the Democrats won.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 22, 2016, 06:05:19 PM
Gen. Flynn, who is Trump's pick for National Security advisor, ranted in August about Islam being a cancer.  That Trump team member whose first name is Boris (can't recall his last name) was being interviewed about how Flynn could say that a religion of 1.7 billion people could be a cancer.  He replied that the comments were likely taken out of context and that Flynn didn't mean to imply that the entire religion was a cancer.  The interviewer then played the whole clip in which Flynn said the cancer was growing in all 1.7 billion Muslims.  Boris said that type of rhetoric was divisive.  When asked why he thought Flynn's rhetoric was divisive, he says he was referring to the questions about Flynn's statement.  Un-f'in-believable.  It hasn't quite settled in that these pathological liars and scam artists (bad ones at that) are going to be running the country.

On the other hand, General Mattis had a very good record dealing with Muslim populations while in command over there.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 22, 2016, 06:08:59 PM
^^he's going to be my president, unfortunately.  Very unfortunate. But my president nonetheless. That said, he was not chosen in the same manner as every other president. In fact, he is in rare company. Extremely rare company. It does indeed matter how one is elected. If you win in a landslide, that says something. If you lose the popular vote, especially by such a significant margin, that says something too. He's still going to be President, absent the EC exercising the discretion the Founders envisioned. But he has to take into account that only about 4 in 10 voters who took part in this election wanted him to win.  And that's putting aside that his favor ability ratings are lower than that. 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 23, 2016, 06:18:27 AM
^^he's going to be my president, unfortunately.  Very unfortunate. But my president nonetheless. That said, he was not chosen in the same manner as every other president. In fact, he is in rare company. Extremely rare company. It does indeed matter how one is elected. If you win in a landslide, that says something. If you lose the popular vote, especially by such a significant margin, that says something too. He's still going to be President, absent the EC exercising the discretion the Founders envisioned. But he has to take into account that only about 4 in 10 voters who took part in this election wanted him to win.  And that's putting aside that his favor ability ratings are lower than that. 

I'm extremely skeptical of course, but there's indications that his rhetoric was just that.   Which of course is a big part of why I didn't vote for him. 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 23, 2016, 07:24:20 AM
Are you saying that if he really intended to follow through on all that rhetoric you would've voted for him?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 23, 2016, 07:31:30 AM
That said, he was not chosen in the same manner as every other president.

He was chosen by winning the most electors - that's the same was every president is chosen. Everything else is small potatoes - popular vote has no actual impact on anything that matters.

Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 23, 2016, 07:45:24 AM
Are you saying that if he really intended to follow through on all that rhetoric you would've voted for him?

Depends.   My concern was he didn’t mean the things I approved of and did mean the crazy stuff.

No way do I vote for a guy that advocates religious bigotry.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 23, 2016, 08:25:32 AM
A less-informed America means more demagogues like Trump get elected...

Trump to scrap NASA climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’ https://t.co/0uStjpQjDi
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 8Titles on November 23, 2016, 08:33:30 AM
How much longer and in how many ways do we have to rehash the fact that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats lost the presidential election?  It doesn't matter what stats you want to partially use or otherwise purposefully skew, she/they LOST plain & simple.  The Democrats also failed in all other election goals; the Senate and House.  The people have spoken..

Now, the D's and mainstream media would be better served to stop trying to create their artificial realities and start thinking about changes to their platform that represent more Americans.  If anything, this election should teach the D's that no amount of attacks by the left through the Clinton News Network and other usual suspects will not win them elections, they have to actually do something that will benefit people, ALL people.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 23, 2016, 08:36:53 AM
If Melania and her son are staying in the Trump Tower, doesn't that mean that the Secret Service will need a significant 24 hour presence there as well?  I'd assume that a sizeable suite, separate from the Trump penthouse will be needed.  Who foots the bill for that?  How much will it be?  Can the Trump Organization rightfully pocket that money?

That said, he was not chosen in the same manner as every other president.

He was chosen by winning the most electors - that's the same was every president is chosen. Everything else is small potatoes - popular vote has no actual impact on anything that matters.

I'm sure you would be saying the same if the situation were reversed.  To be clear, I don't deny he won the election.  But he did not win it the same way Reagan won it or Obama.  He won it the same way Bush won it in 2000 (well, sort of... since the margin was much closer in 2000) and different from every single president in the 20th century.  Those are facts, whether you consider them 'small potatoes' or not.  Sorry that it gets under your skin so much.  I happen to think it is important.  JMO.  I'm disappointed he is the presumptive President elect.  But I'm slightly encouraged "the American people", at least how the Right has liked to use that term recently, did not support him.  That doesn't mean he will be any less president than his predecessors.  He will still have all the authority granted to him by the constitution.  But it is perfectly fair game for his opponents to feel more emboldened in their opposition considering the manner in which he won.  If there was ever a time to implement the type of obstructionist attitude we saw from Congress over the past 8 years, now is it. 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 8Titles on November 23, 2016, 08:41:55 AM
A less-informed America means more demagogues like Trump get elected...

Trump to scrap NASA climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’ https://t.co/0uStjpQjDi
2/3's of white college educated males voted against Hillary. 

Who is this mystery "more-informed" pool of overs supposed to be if the largest college educated pool of voters voted heavily against Hillary and the D's?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 23, 2016, 08:45:07 AM
A less-informed America means more demagogues like Trump get elected...

Trump to scrap NASA climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’ https://t.co/0uStjpQjDi

It seems his plan is to redirect NASA’s focus to deep space exploration, Mars, etc. instead of climate research – which is a job that should be probably be done by NOAA, anyway, via satellites and other equipment launched by private contractors like SpaceX. I really think this is a great idea and eliminates some wasteful bureaucratic overlap. Redirect those billions to putting a man on Mars, landing more robots on Jupiter’s moons, etc.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 23, 2016, 08:53:13 AM
A less-informed America means more demagogues like Trump get elected...

Trump to scrap NASA climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’ https://t.co/0uStjpQjDi
2/3's of white college educated males voted against Hillary. 

Who is this mystery "more-informed" pool of overs supposed to be if the largest college educated pool of voters voted heavily against Hillary and the D's?

How about all other college educated people?

And then there is this -- http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/ - I can save you the time by summarizing the findings as this: Clinton overwhelmingly won the most educated counties (in fact, she improved on those results from how Obama had performed) and Trump overwhelmingly won the least educated counties (also improving on how Romney had done in those counties).
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: SixthCity on November 23, 2016, 09:01:10 AM
If the shoe was on the other foot and Republicans were promoting/arguing the fact that their electorate was wealthier and more educated, the shrieking from Democrats would require every pane of glass in the US be replaced.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 8Titles on November 23, 2016, 09:03:52 AM
Again, I'm not getting into skewed or partial data.  Again, according to the D's the largest college educated pool of voters that voted against Hillary more than 2/3's of the time are the dumb one's that need to get educated and "with the program".  Keep thinking like that and they'll enjoy another 4 years of R dominance.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 23, 2016, 09:08:38 AM
^^C'mon man.  The Right has always made that argument and I haven't replaced the windows in my house in over a decade.  Indeed, what the Right argued/promoted in 2008 and 2012 was much, much worse.  What they alleged was that Obama was elected by..... what is the term?..... oh yeah, "low information voters" from the inner-cities.  Everyone voted for him because they wanted free cell phones and other handouts.  "Real America" (remember that phras?) allegedly did not support him and that lack of support justified the 8 years of obstructionist tactics.

^You are the one using partial data.  Why limit your analysis to just part of the college educated population?  Are college educated white men really a voting block?  What portion of that group has graduate degrees and does it include community college and trade school educations? 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 23, 2016, 09:11:22 AM
If the shoe was on the other foot and Republicans were promoting/arguing the fact that their electorate was wealthier and more educated, the shrieking from Democrats would require every pane of glass in the US be replaced.

Yep, and they would hopefully elect someone who could help them. Let me know when Trump brings those jobs and better education back to rural America. If the deep, red, rural south is any indication, they're going to be waiting a long time....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_n_4855191.html

Except Trump is worse than the Republicans. He doesn't believe in anything except pleasuring himself.

Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: SixthCity on November 23, 2016, 09:16:03 AM
What they alleged was that Obama was elected by..... what is the term?..... oh yeah, "low information voters" from the inner-cities. 

And the shrieking was intense was it not?  I remember it being.

Uneducated low information voters are the scourge of society when they vote for the other guy but the righteous vox populi! when they vote for your guy.  That goes for both sides.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 8Titles on November 23, 2016, 09:16:41 AM
^^C'mon man.  The Right has always made that argument and I haven't replaced the windows in my house in over a decade.  Indeed, what the Right argued/promoted in 2008 and 2012 was much, much worse.  What they alleged was that Obama was elected by..... what is the term?..... oh yeah, "low information voters" from the inner-cities.  Everyone voted for him because they wanted free cell phones and other handouts.  "Real America" (remember that phras?) allegedly did not support him and that lack of support justified the 8 years of obstructionist tactics.
Isn't that true?  Low information voters won Obama both elections??  They bought into Hope & Change and got slow growth and record debt among other perks like ISIS explosion and cop killings.  Some of those low information voters didn't fall for it again and is why Hillary and the D's lost.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 23, 2016, 09:29:11 AM
^I rest my case
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 23, 2016, 09:31:23 AM
What they alleged was that Obama was elected by..... what is the term?..... oh yeah, "low information voters" from the inner-cities. 

And the shrieking was intense was it not?  I remember it being.

Not really.  Again, my windows are fine and I live in one of the most liberals areas of the state.  But more to the point, it simply wasn't true, so the collective hissy fit we see now from the Trumpsters wasn't really necessary.  Plus, having thicker skin and a bit of toughness helps.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on November 23, 2016, 09:39:48 AM
A less-informed America means more demagogues like Trump get elected...

Trump to scrap NASA climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’ https://t.co/0uStjpQjDi

It seems his plan is to redirect NASA’s focus to deep space exploration, Mars, etc. instead of climate research – which is a job that should be probably be done by NOAA, anyway, via satellites and other equipment launched by private contractors like SpaceX. I really think this is a great idea and eliminates some wasteful bureaucratic overlap. Redirect those billions to putting a man on Mars, landing more robots on Jupiter’s moons, etc.

The real question is whether the budget is shifted (to a different agency) or simply axed.  If it's axed, then there is a real question of what happens to all the satellites and other hardware that NASA has deployed for monitoring purposes.  Even as one of this board's resident AGW alarmism skeptics, I approve of the fact that we're monitoring the atmosphere, and would not want to see us stop--it's a legitimate function of government and not all that expensive in the grand scheme of things.  If they want to move it back to the Navy (the original home of government weather-monitoring research, for rather predictable reasons), fine, or to some completely new agency, maybe.  But I'd be disappointed (to put it mildly) to see us just switch the satellites off.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 327 on November 23, 2016, 09:43:20 AM
Most voters can go either way, which is why we rarely see the same party win 3 presidential elections in a row.  Smart, dumb, educated, not, none of those data points mean as much as the issues and the messages.  Clinton's campaign went overboard with identity and segmentation.  Let's not do that again.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 8Titles on November 23, 2016, 09:57:32 AM
^I rest my case
Great, when you have something that proves the 22% of Americans that are receiving government assistance making up easily over 10M votes that always overwhelmingly vote straight D are somehow "more informed" than college educated white male voters, we can reopen the discussion.  Because the lower turnout for the D's of this 22% pool of Americans was the difference between the Obama and Hillary elections.  She didn't get the same numbers of this apparently "highly informed" voter pool in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida, which is why the D's lost.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: sir2gees on November 23, 2016, 10:08:48 AM
^Cop killings? More cops were killed under Bush than Obama. One of those lies the right has been pushing I can't stand.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: jmecklenborg on November 23, 2016, 10:12:51 AM
^I rest my case
Great, when you have something that proves the 22% of Americans that are receiving government assistance making up easily over 10M votes that always overwhelmingly vote straight D are somehow "more informed" than college educated white male voters, we can reopen the discussion.  Because the lower turnout for the D's of this 22% pool of Americans was the difference between the Obama and Hillary elections.  She didn't get the same numbers of this apparently "highly informed" voter pool in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida, which is why the D's lost.

Yep.  The Democrats take poor blacks for granted, and the group obviously shows up in larger numbers when a black candidate is on the ticket.  If you remember back 15-20 years, Democrats were terrified that Colin Powell was going to run for president as a Republican.  That said, there are examples of the black electorate not voting in significant numbers for black Republicans, i.e. Ken Blackwell. 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Clefan98 on November 23, 2016, 10:13:40 AM
^I rest my case
Great, when you have something that proves the 22% of Americans that are receiving government assistance making up easily over 10M votes that always overwhelmingly vote straight D are somehow "more informed" than college educated white male voters, we can reopen the discussion.  Because the lower turnout for the D's of this 22% pool of Americans was the difference between the Obama and Hillary elections.  She didn't get the same numbers of this apparently "highly informed" voter pool in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida, which is why the D's lost.

Another lie.

Clinton won all 18 states where an above average share of the population has advanced degrees. She lost 29 of the other 32.

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/796939882430078976
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: taestell on November 23, 2016, 10:20:07 AM
^I rest my case
Great, when you have something that proves the 22% of Americans that are receiving government assistance making up easily over 10M votes that always overwhelmingly vote straight D are somehow "more informed" than college educated white male voters, we can reopen the discussion.  Because the lower turnout for the D's of this 22% pool of Americans was the difference between the Obama and Hillary elections.  She didn't get the same numbers of this apparently "highly informed" voter pool in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida, which is why the D's lost.

I agree, people receiving government assistance shouldn't get the right to vote. Especially all of those freeloaders receiving Medicare and Social Security.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 23, 2016, 10:30:10 AM
^I rest my case
Great, when you have something that proves the 22% of Americans that are receiving government assistance making up easily over 10M votes that always overwhelmingly vote straight D are somehow "more informed" than college educated white male voters, we can reopen the discussion.  Because the lower turnout for the D's of this 22% pool of Americans was the difference between the Obama and Hillary elections.  She didn't get the same numbers of this apparently "highly informed" voter pool in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida, which is why the D's lost.

No.  That is not why Clinton lost.  She lost because of high turnout amongst the "low information" voters in rural areas, where government assistance is just as wide-spread.  She also lost because of the white working class voters who switched from voting for Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016.  You can see those results in the blue collar suburbs around Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, etc. 

Trump won Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, South Dakota, Missouri, Montana, and Georgia all by significant margins.  What do those states have in common? Those are the "moocher" states which, percentage-wise, RECEIVE more federal assistance than any other state.  They also use the most food stamps.  They are subsidized by the other states which pay out more than they receive.   
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: jmecklenborg on November 23, 2016, 10:31:19 AM
I agree, people receiving government assistance shouldn't get the right to vote. Especially all of those freeloaders receiving Medicare and Social Security.

If everyone was required to vote in every election (primary, special, and general), then none of this stuff would be an issue.  That would require a constitutional amendment, and would need to be enforced by fining non-voters through their tax returns.  There is no way such an amendment would go anywhere, however, since the current balance of power is completely dependent upon low voter turnout. 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on November 23, 2016, 10:37:07 AM
The only other First World country that uses an electoral college is Italy who also has mandatory voting. Though, Italy is more like a 1.5-World country just like us.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: jmecklenborg on November 23, 2016, 10:44:42 AM
The only other First World country that uses an electoral college is Italy who also has mandatory voting. Though, Italy is more like a 1.5-World country just like us.

I don't like that people resent groups of people for showing up or not showing up to vote.  It's a big problem for local and state elections as much as the presidential years. 

What's really frustrating is that almost nobody seems to understand which government body is assigned to which tasks.  Why does Ohio have townships but not "towns"?  What are all counties required to do?  How is property tax tabulated?  I could go on and on.  Get 10 Ohioans with college degrees together and ask them questions like that and you're lucky if 1 in 10 can answer them. 


Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on November 23, 2016, 10:51:25 AM
So many things in this country were made up as we went along specifically to avoid being like the 18th Century British. Some of the ideas work or worked and some don't.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 8Titles on November 23, 2016, 10:55:49 AM
^I rest my case
Great, when you have something that proves the 22% of Americans that are receiving government assistance making up easily over 10M votes that always overwhelmingly vote straight D are somehow "more informed" than college educated white male voters, we can reopen the discussion.  Because the lower turnout for the D's of this 22% pool of Americans was the difference between the Obama and Hillary elections.  She didn't get the same numbers of this apparently "highly informed" voter pool in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida, which is why the D's lost.

No.  That is not why Clinton lost.  She lost because of high turnout amongst the "low information" voters in rural areas, where government assistance is just as wide-spread.  She also lost because of the white working class voters who switched from voting for Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016.  You can see those results in the blue collar suburbs around Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, etc. 

Trump won Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, South Dakota, Missouri, Montana, and Georgia all by significant margins.  What do those states have in common? Those are the "moocher" states which, percentage-wise, RECEIVE more federal assistance than any other state.  They also use the most food stamps.  They are subsidized by the other states which pay out more than they receive.   
No, she lost because of lower (than Obama) turnout of low information urban voters.  Again, If she had got the same numbers for this group as Obama in just two states she would be the President-elect.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: jmecklenborg on November 23, 2016, 11:04:23 AM
So many things in this country were made up as we went along specifically to avoid being like the 18th Century British. Some of the ideas work or worked and some don't.

Exactly, and because the average American has no idea how England works then or now, they can't understand this.  The average U.S. college graduate has no idea what the House of Lords is, that the oldest sons of about 500 families along with bishops (the younger sons of those same aristocratic families) in the Church of England get automatic lifetime seats in it, etc.  It's 2016 and babies born this year in England are guaranteed seats in the country's upper house whenever their dads die.   
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 23, 2016, 11:06:39 AM
A less-informed America means more demagogues like Trump get elected...

Trump to scrap NASA climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’ https://t.co/0uStjpQjDi

It seems his plan is to redirect NASA’s focus to deep space exploration, Mars, etc. instead of climate research – which is a job that should be probably be done by NOAA, anyway, via satellites and other equipment launched by private contractors like SpaceX. I really think this is a great idea and eliminates some wasteful bureaucratic overlap. Redirect those billions to putting a man on Mars, landing more robots on Jupiter’s moons, etc.

The real question is whether the budget is shifted (to a different agency) or simply axed.  If it's axed, then there is a real question of what happens to all the satellites and other hardware that NASA has deployed for monitoring purposes.  Even as one of this board's resident AGW alarmism skeptics, I approve of the fact that we're monitoring the atmosphere, and would not want to see us stop--it's a legitimate function of government and not all that expensive in the grand scheme of things.  If they want to move it back to the Navy (the original home of government weather-monitoring research, for rather predictable reasons), fine, or to some completely new agency, maybe.  But I'd be disappointed (to put it mildly) to see us just switch the satellites off.

Agree on all points, let NOAA do the monitoring or even farm it out to colleges, but don't turn off stuff that is already in place.  But get NASA back on track, exploring deep space and reestablishing our foothold in nearer space.   
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 327 on November 23, 2016, 11:12:26 AM
Clinton lost because she convinced fewer voters than Trump did, in the states where it counted.  In doing so she lost sizeable portions of the Democratic base, which includes (or used to include) less-educated voters in all geographical areas. 

She believed targeting suburban Republicans was the answer, and she was wrong. She believed she could leave the party's traditional base behind, and she was wrong.  She believed messaging based on gender and culture would work, and she was wrong.  But the final result was still razor-thin, suggesting that Trump could never have beaten a competent Democratic candidate. 

Next time we need to have a legitimate primary.  The Republican "clown car" primary engaged voters and made them feel like they mattered, while the Democratic "coronation" approach pushed voters away.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 23, 2016, 11:14:03 AM
If the shoe was on the other foot and Republicans were promoting/arguing the fact that their electorate was wealthier and more educated, the shrieking from Democrats would require every pane of glass in the US be replaced.

The whole argument is dumb because more educated does not always mean more intelligent, which is what liberals are really trying to imply. Some of the smartest and most successful people out there stopped with a bachelors degree or got into a trade early and run their own businesses despite not having a college education. On the flip side, some of the dumbest people I know spent the better part of a decade getting several useless college degrees. Wealth is probably a closer indicator of intelligence than college degrees (face it, anyone who can get a loan or otherwise pay the bill can get a degree, no one actually flunks out if they pay), but it isn't perfect because plenty of dumb people had rich parents, and plenty of smart people don't care much about money beyond living a comfortable lifestyle doing something they enjoy.

The argument gets even dumber when you break it down by something like who won which county, because you have no way of knowing which way people voted. Hamilton County, for example, went blue but I'd venture a guess that the middle and upper class residents voted red.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 23, 2016, 11:16:08 AM
Clinton lost because she convinced fewer voters than Trump did, in the states where it counted.  In doing so she lost sizeable portions of the Democratic base, which includes (or used to include) less-educated voters in all geographical areas. 

She believed targeting suburban Republicans was the answer, and she was wrong. She believed she could leave the party's traditional base behind, and she was wrong.  She believed messaging based on gender and culture would work, and she was wrong.  But the final result was still razor-thin, suggesting that Trump could never have beaten a competent Democratic candidate. 

Next time we need to have a legitimate primary.  The Republican "clown car" primary engaged voters and made them feel like they mattered, while the Democratic "coronation" approach pushed voters away.

Not to mention the rigging of the process....
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on November 23, 2016, 11:25:44 AM


Next time we need to have a legitimate primary.  The Republican "clown car" primary engaged voters and made them feel like they mattered, while the Democratic "coronation" approach pushed voters away.


Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 23, 2016, 12:28:53 PM
There are currently three more Mike's in Trump's cabinet than there are minorities or women.

Is there a quota on how many minorities and women Trump must have on his cabinet?

I don't think it matter at all what color someones skin is or what gender they are - but for those that put undo scrutiny on such matters, you should be pleased with the two appointments announced so far today:

Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education:

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

Nikki Haley as US Ambassador the to United Nations:

https://www.greatagain.gov/news/president-elect-donald-j-trump-intends-nominate-south-carolina-governor-nikki-haley-us.html
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: musky on November 23, 2016, 12:38:04 PM

So I figured I might as well check and see if there's a thread on Trump. Even though technically, he does not get the vote until December 19... a likely scenario.


* * *  T E N   P A G E S   L A T E R   * * *
(http://i.giphy.com/vC2hIDeImcwVO.gif)
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 23, 2016, 01:02:54 PM
There are currently three more Mike's in Trump's cabinet than there are minorities or women.

Is there a quota on how many minorities and women Trump must have on his cabinet?

I don't think it matter at all what color someones skin is or what gender they are - but for those that put undo scrutiny on such matters, you should be pleased with the two appointments announced so far today:

Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education:

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

Nikki Haley as US Ambassador the to United Nations:

https://www.greatagain.gov/news/president-elect-donald-j-trump-intends-nominate-south-carolina-governor-nikki-haley-us.html

Is there really a website called greatagain.gov?  Hahaha

So now the count is 3 Mikes vs. 2 women.  Still up 3 over minorities.  No, there is no quota.  But it certainly "reinforces stereotypes"

Speaking of DeVos, a YUGE gop donor and lobbyist, she must be the first step in 'draining the swamp'
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 23, 2016, 01:17:10 PM
^ Nikki Haley, nee Randhawa, is an Indian-American and Ben Carson might very well be in charge of HUD soon so Trump appears to be working toward those (allegedly nonexistent) quotas so many Democrats have.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Clevelander17 on November 23, 2016, 01:21:06 PM
The ranting actor was probably too busy making racist, sexist jokes about sexual assault on Twitter to find the time to vote:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/11/21/hamilton-star-lectured-pence-fire-racist-sexist-tweets/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Shameful comments, but he's an actor and not a public servant. But what does it matter now that the leader of the free world has said that much and arguably worse?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 23, 2016, 01:30:58 PM
^ Nikki Haley, nee Randhawa, is an Indian-American and Ben Carson might very well be in charge of HUD soon so Trump appears to be working toward those (allegedly nonexistent) quotas so many Democrats have.

Why are you getting so ruffled?  Thicken up that skin, man.  We are allowed to talk about the Trump presidency and his decisions in a less than glowing manner, correct?  Not everyone worships the guy.  He needs to get used to this close scrutiny and constant criticism.  It is part of the job description. 

I thought Carson said he wasn't qualified to run a government agency given his lack of prior experience?  (never mind that he wanted to be POTUS)
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 23, 2016, 01:36:42 PM
Why are you getting so ruffled?  Thicken up that skin, man.  We are allowed to talk about the Trump presidency and his decisions in a less than glowing manner, correct?  Not everyone worships the guy.  He needs to get used to this close scrutiny and constant criticism.  It is part of the job description. 

One of the silver linings of this cloud is sensible people on the right are definitely delivering that scrutiny, now that Hillary has been beaten.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 23, 2016, 01:40:45 PM
^ Nikki Haley, nee Randhawa, is an Indian-American and Ben Carson might very well be in charge of HUD soon so Trump appears to be working toward those (allegedly nonexistent) quotas so many Democrats have.

Why are you getting so ruffled?  Thicken up that skin, man.  We are allowed to talk about the Trump presidency and his decisions in a less than glowing manner, correct?  Not everyone worships the guy.  He needs to get used to this close scrutiny and constant criticism.  It is part of the job description. 

I thought Carson said he wasn't qualified to run a government agency given his lack of prior experience?  (never mind that he wanted to be POTUS)

You're allowed to criticize Trump all you want, I just point out when that criticism is invalid or irrelevant - as it was in this case.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 23, 2016, 01:43:55 PM
Which you have attempted (without much success, btw) at every..... little..... bit.... of criticism he has faced.  He's infallible to you.  A lot of it hasn't really even been criticism, but rather just fair questioning of the presumptive president elect.  No need to be so reactionary.  He's going to have some faults.  He will make some errors in judgment.  Every president does. 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 23, 2016, 02:37:37 PM
^ While we're on this topic of putting invalid criticism to rest, here's a picture that slipped through the cracks here - it appears that Trump's hands are, in fact, larger than Obama's hands:

(http://i.imgur.com/FRJViQt.jpg)

Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: SixthCity on November 23, 2016, 02:46:45 PM
I demand to see an independent certified measure of his hands.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 23, 2016, 03:09:59 PM
^I rest my case
Great, when you have something that proves the 22% of Americans that are receiving government assistance making up easily over 10M votes that always overwhelmingly vote straight D are somehow "more informed" than college educated white male voters, we can reopen the discussion.  Because the lower turnout for the D's of this 22% pool of Americans was the difference between the Obama and Hillary elections.  She didn't get the same numbers of this apparently "highly informed" voter pool in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida, which is why the D's lost.

I agree, people receiving government assistance shouldn't get the right to vote. Especially all of those freeloaders receiving Medicare and Social Security.

Or rural folks who get paid by the government to cook up crystal meth for all the trailer babies' single mothers.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 23, 2016, 03:11:38 PM
There are currently three more Mike's in Trump's cabinet than there are minorities or women.

Is there a quota on how many minorities and women Trump must have on his cabinet?

I don't think it matter at all what color someones skin is or what gender they are - but for those that put undo scrutiny on such matters, you should be pleased with the two appointments announced so far today:

Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education:

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

Nikki Haley as US Ambassador the to United Nations:

https://www.greatagain.gov/news/president-elect-donald-j-trump-intends-nominate-south-carolina-governor-nikki-haley-us.html

DeVos is everything Trump said is wrong in America—a wealthy heiress who uses her money to game the system.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: EagleFan on November 23, 2016, 03:35:20 PM
Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education:

DeVos is an excellent choice for the post.  Kudos to Trump for recruiting her!
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: audidave on November 23, 2016, 04:05:11 PM
Well Jill Stein is demanding a recount in WI, MI, and PA.  She is raising money for it very quickly online.  I guess that is one positive thing she can do. 
https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 23, 2016, 04:06:46 PM
^ While we're on this topic of putting invalid criticism to rest, here's a picture that slipped through the cracks here - it appears that Trump's hands are, in fact, larger than Obama's hands:

Your not accounting for distance there.  The camera is playing tricks on you.  Plus, the picture is likely altered by Team Trump.  Why does Obama left hand appear to be twice the size of his right?  Look, we can argue about policy all we want, but it is undisputed that Trump has extremely teenie-weenie hands, especially for a man of his size.  Very stubby fingers, despite the implants he recently had.  He can't even palm a softball.

(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/021/605/trump_small_hands.jpg)
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: SixthCity on November 23, 2016, 04:10:29 PM
Or rural folks who get paid by the government to cook up crystal meth for all the trailer babies' single mothers.

As I said earlier:

Uneducated voters on my team: Hardworkin' folks with a whole lotta common sense who voted together for a fair shot at the American Dream. The salt of the earth.

Undeducted voters on the other team: Mouth-breathing resentful scum. Net takers. Scoundrels too stupid or hateful to vote for their "best interests" (as defined by me).

Rs and Ds are interchangeable.  What's important is you understand this is a team sport.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Clevelander17 on November 23, 2016, 04:27:27 PM
DeVos is an excellent choice for the post.  Kudos to Trump for recruiting her!

She's an heiress to a pyramid scheme fortune who supports unproven policies that aim to destroy public education. She's an awful selection, but hopefully a variety of factors will make it a moot point.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 23, 2016, 06:03:42 PM
DeVos is an excellent choice for the post.  Kudos to Trump for recruiting her!

She's an heiress to a pyramid scheme fortune who supports unproven policies that aim to destroy public education. She's an awful selection, but hopefully a variety of factors will make it a moot point.

She supports "Common Core".   In other words, the federalization of educational standards.   No thanks.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: CBC on November 23, 2016, 06:12:11 PM
She was for Common Core before she was only for Common Core at the state level. Huh?

Carson for HUD had me scratching my head.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 23, 2016, 06:35:25 PM
She was for Common Core before she was only for Common Core at the state level. Huh?

Carson for HUD had me scratching my head.


Me too.   I could see Surgeon General or even HHS.

But a HUD secretary should have some experience in planning or development, or at the very least project management.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Cleburger on November 23, 2016, 06:48:10 PM
^Cop killings? More cops were killed under Bush than Obama. One of those lies the right has been pushing I can't stand.

Not according to 8Titles  Facebook feed...which is all that matters.

Multiply this times 60 million and you have American politics.   

Thanks Obama Zuckerberg!
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 23, 2016, 08:32:34 PM
^ While we're on this topic of putting invalid criticism to rest, here's a picture that slipped through the cracks here - it appears that Trump's hands are, in fact, larger than Obama's hands:

Your not accounting for distance there.  The camera is playing tricks on you.  Plus, the picture is likely altered by Team Trump.  Why does Obama left hand appear to be twice the size of his right?  Look, we can argue about policy all we want, but it is undisputed that Trump has extremely teenie-weenie hands, especially for a man of his size.  Very stubby fingers, despite the implants he recently had.  He can't even palm a softball.

I'm accounting for both distance and lens distortion. I'd wager a guess that we're looking at a photo taken with a ~50mm lens, which tends to flatten images and make distant and close objects appear as if they were in the same plane - or at least, much closer to the same plane than our instincts would infer. If anything, the photo is helping Obama's hands look closer in size to Trump's than they really are.

There's a whole other dominance issue pictured here regarding coming in from the top for a handshake but I don't want to even bring that up.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 23, 2016, 09:16:40 PM
Trump's hands are tiny.  There is proof at Madame Tussaud's wax museum in New York.  His hand print is there and the measurement places him in the 15th percentile.   You do not need to defend everything about your God Emperor.  It's kinda sad.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: ColDayMan on November 23, 2016, 11:03:31 PM
^ While we're on this topic of putting invalid criticism to rest, here's a picture that slipped through the cracks here - it appears that Trump's hands are, in fact, larger than Obama's hands:

Your not accounting for distance there.  The camera is playing tricks on you.  Plus, the picture is likely altered by Team Trump.  Why does Obama left hand appear to be twice the size of his right?  Look, we can argue about policy all we want, but it is undisputed that Trump has extremely teenie-weenie hands, especially for a man of his size.  Very stubby fingers, despite the implants he recently had.  He can't even palm a softball.

I'm accounting for both distance and lens distortion. I'd wager a guess that we're looking at a photo taken with a ~50mm lens, which tends to flatten images and make distant and close objects appear as if they were in the same plane - or at least, much closer to the same plane than our instincts would infer. If anything, the photo is helping Obama's hands look closer in size to Trump's than they really are.

There's a whole other dominance issue pictured here regarding coming in from the top for a handshake but I don't want to even bring that up.

Meanwhile, in reality...

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/how-small-are-trumps-hands-916593

&

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/08/05/yes-donald-trumps-hands-are-actually-pretty-small/
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 24, 2016, 07:32:50 AM
^ While we're on this topic of putting invalid criticism to rest, here's a picture that slipped through the cracks here - it appears that Trump's hands are, in fact, larger than Obama's hands:

Your not accounting for distance there.  The camera is playing tricks on you.  Plus, the picture is likely altered by Team Trump.  Why does Obama left hand appear to be twice the size of his right?  Look, we can argue about policy all we want, but it is undisputed that Trump has extremely teenie-weenie hands, especially for a man of his size.  Very stubby fingers, despite the implants he recently had.  He can't even palm a softball.

I'm accounting for both distance and lens distortion. I'd wager a guess that we're looking at a photo taken with a ~50mm lens, which tends to flatten images and make distant and close objects appear as if they were in the same plane - or at least, much closer to the same plane than our instincts would infer. If anything, the photo is helping Obama's hands look closer in size to Trump's than they really are.

There's a whole other dominance issue pictured here regarding coming in from the top for a handshake but I don't want to even bring that up.

The President appears to be in a defensive posture, probably just in case the presumptive President elect is planning to grab something else.

The small hands thing does perhaps answer the question of how one does "grab the pu&&y".. Most of us with man hands are still trying to figure out how that would even work in practice.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: westerninterloper on November 24, 2016, 08:38:44 AM
Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education:

DeVos is an excellent choice for the post.  Kudos to Trump for recruiting her!


If your aim is to destroy urban public education and take that mess to the suburbs and rural areas, yes, she's an excellent selection.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Floods7 on November 24, 2016, 10:05:16 AM
Trump's hands are tiny.  There is proof at Madame Tussaud's wax museum in New York.  His hand print is there and the measurement places him in the 15th percentile.   You do not need to defend everything about your God Emperor.  It's kinda sad.

The fact that you know what percentile some guys hands are in is hilariously sad.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 24, 2016, 10:05:44 AM
Breitbart Could Become America’s RT
The U.S. media landscape is about to get a lot weirder
https://warisboring.com/breitbart-could-become-americas-rt-d777049c1156?gi=8d008eebd0a8#.6zesh47vd
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 24, 2016, 10:07:17 AM
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p480x480/15219653_1271355676240787_7672559276642268841_n.jpg?oh=81c94ea30ef903831147713ea1ec4ca2&oe=58D39056)
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 24, 2016, 10:13:06 AM
Trump's hands are tiny.  There is proof at Madame Tussaud's wax museum in New York.  His hand print is there and the measurement places him in the 15th percentile.   You do not need to defend everything about your God Emperor.  It's kinda sad.

The fact that you know what percentile some guys hands are in is hilariously sad.

It took a 5 second google search to figure it out.  The fact that Trumpians hate facts so much is rather sad.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Floods7 on November 24, 2016, 10:15:35 AM
I am on the exact same page as her in just about every category listed.

I assume you meant that picture as a somewhat sarcastic shot at showing how she is not fit for the under your own views but don't forget there are alot of people that believe what she believes. Just because you do or don't believe what others believe doesn't make you right or wrong.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: X on November 24, 2016, 11:13:41 AM
No Education Degree, No Teaching Experience, No Experience Working in a School Environment?  How about those?  Do you think people should have to know anything about the things they are about to have huge impacts upon?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Clevelander17 on November 24, 2016, 11:28:31 AM
I am on the exact same page as her in just about every category listed.

I assume you meant that picture as a somewhat sarcastic shot at showing how she is not fit for the under your own views but don't forget there are alot of people that believe what she believes. Just because you do or don't believe what others believe doesn't make you right or wrong.

Oh she's wrong. The educational experiments that she supports have overwhelmingly failed in the places where they have been tried. The education results in Michigan, where she has had the most impact and influence, are below average.

It seems however, thankfully, her ability to implement the worst of her policies will be to a large extent limited by the bipartisan passage of the ESSA last December. It would still be nice to see a coalition of Senate Democrats and Tea Party Republicans team up to sink her nomination.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: westerninterloper on November 24, 2016, 11:37:31 AM
I am on the exact same page as her in just about every category listed.

I assume you meant that picture as a somewhat sarcastic shot at showing how she is not fit for the under your own views but don't forget there are alot of people that believe what she believes. Just because you do or don't believe what others believe doesn't make you right or wrong.

Yes, facts and research are meaningless; it's all about "what we believe". Please note continued sarcasm.

Her positions have done nothing to improve educational outcomes for the people they are purported to help; the main beneficiaries of charter schools have been the companies who profit off the public school funds. I pay my taxes to a school district to support my community's schools, just like everyone else. School taxes are not for individual students or their parents to use as they wish; or for the benefit of skeezy companies, my monies are to support public institutions.

Think, for example, if I wanted my "policing dollars" to go to pay a private company to watch my house in particular. Should I be able to use "my money" to pay a private company? May I also take out "my money" from the public kitty to pave my personal driveway? I'd rather my tax dollars go for something that's going to help me directly.

Should, for example, a parent who takes a public voucher be allowed to reenroll their child in a public school at a later date? Or do they take their children out of the system for good? People contribute to public schools their entire working lives, why should parents who don't want their own children to attend public schools be allowed, in essence, not to contribute to that public good?

If parents want to their kids to attend a private school, then they should pay for it themselves. Any private school that accepts public tax dollars MUST abide by the same rules as public schools, including employment non-discrimination for teachers and staff, the absence of religious indoctrination, and accepting children with cognitive and physical disabilities, LGBTQ kids, and others who have regularly been barred from charter, religious, and other private schools.

Charter schools fundamentally conflict with the basic tenets of open, equal, accessible, and quality public education for all children; most of them demonstrate none of these qualities.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Cleburger on November 24, 2016, 11:53:19 AM
No Education Degree, No Teaching Experience, No Experience Working in a School Environment?  How about those?  Do you think people should have to know anything about the things they are about to have huge impacts upon?

You left out that her money comes from her marriage into Amway.....the ultimate white-trash ponzi scheme!
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: audidave on November 24, 2016, 12:08:54 PM
Her family business was big in Grand Rapids and eventually sold for almost $1.5 billion in the 1990s. Her brother i think used part of the proceeds to start his company, Blackwater.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: westerninterloper on November 24, 2016, 12:10:08 PM
No Education Degree, No Teaching Experience, No Experience Working in a School Environment?  How about those?  Do you think people should have to know anything about the things they are about to have huge impacts upon?

You left out that her money comes from her marriage into Amway.....the ultimate white-trash ponzi scheme!

To be fair, Obama's Ed Secretary Arne Duncan promoted many of the same ideas as the DeVos clan. Here's his education experience according to Wikipedia:

In 1992, childhood friend and investment banker John W. Rogers, Jr., appointed Duncan director of the Ariel Education Initiative, a program mentoring children at one of the city's worst-performing elementary schools and then assisting them as they proceeded further in the education system. After the school closed in 1996, Duncan and Rogers were instrumental in re-opening it as a charter school, Ariel Community Academy In 1999, Duncan was appointed Deputy Chief of Staff for former Chicago Public Schools CEO Paul Vallas.

Notice the similarities of wealthy sponsors and charters, and the lack of any public school attendance or background, though his sociology degree (undergrad only?) and year of study might have included public education
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: X on November 24, 2016, 12:33:39 PM
I didn't say anything about "public" schools.  That is a background in education (mostly administration).  I'm not completely against charters, though I think they deserve a high level of scrutiny.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Clevelander17 on November 24, 2016, 12:58:25 PM
If parents want to their kids to attend a private school, then they should pay for it themselves. Any private school that accepts public tax dollars MUST abide by the same rules as public schools, including employment non-discrimination for teachers and staff, the absence of religious indoctrination, and accepting children with cognitive and physical disabilities, LGBTQ kids, and others who have regularly been barred from charter, religious, and other private schools.

Charter schools fundamentally conflict with the basic tenets of open, equal, accessible, and quality public education for all children; most of them demonstrate none of these qualities.

Great post and this is the problem with the competition model that people like DeVos support. They want competition to dictate the flow of public money, but they want traditional public schools to play by a stricter set of rules. If we ever go that route, which I think would be a shame, then taxpayers must demand the same level of accountability and equity of charter and private schools that is required of public schools.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: audidave on November 24, 2016, 01:16:33 PM
^the problem is that it would be outrageously expensive. This is the reason monopolies in utilities are allowed.  To allow competing gas, electric, water, sewer services is expensive and not very cost effective.
  In the end, they won't find enough qualified teachers that want to be underpaid. Its a race to the bottom. So they will have built all these charter school buildings that will go broke and leave the public on the hook for fixing the public schools again.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: westerninterloper on November 24, 2016, 01:51:47 PM
^the problem is that it would be outrageously expensive. This is the reason monopolies in utilities are allowed.  To allow competing gas, electric, water, sewer services is expensive and not very cost effective.
  In the end, they won't find enough qualified teachers that want to be underpaid. Its a race to the bottom. So they will have built all these charter school buildings that will go broke and leave the public on the hook for fixing the public schools again.

Until now, it has only "worked" in large cities where a considerable percentage of the urban population that can afford it send their children to private school, and where the public school parents don't have the clout -- knowledge and networks -- to impact the system before its too late. It's a way to disinvest and skim resources that should both be going to and generated for urban children. I'm not saying that urban public schools are great - but the charters have neither demonstrated that they are any better, nor have they contributed back to the community. But then again, they really havent been deployed to help urban children; they are cynically deployed by grifters like the DeVoses to divert public revenue streams into their private lakes of money.

There are a few exceptions to this rule - outstanding charter schools that do come close to meeting the expectations placed on a public school - but they are rare and there isn't much evidence to suggest that outstanding school models are replicable like a some kind of franchise.

To me, it points to a much larger problem in the US and capitalist economy more generally - it cannot grow only by replicating, it must expand and extract. Until the 1980s, health and education were generally considered to be (public) services -  not industries or profit centers.

As manufacturing demanded higher and higher initial investment because of technological and regulatory demands, as the country's physical resources became more limited, and at a time when expanding our territories through treaties or imperialism has been replaced by "global trade" - public goods and services become targets for private profit. This is the agenda of the GOP these days, and has been since the turn to a "service" economy in the 1980s - interrupt streams of public funds for private gain. Schools, prisons, mental health care, health care - most all sectors have endured some degree of privatization, capitalization, and radically increased costs as a result.

Few people bat an eye anymore when they hear the phrases "education industry" or "health care industry" - but consider two of the election's top issues - rapidly rising costs with the ACA and college tuition. It is a direct result of the disinvestment of public funds and the rapid capitalization of the health care sector. It is mirrored in Republicans' approaches to these issues, which are to "trickle down" the competitive and extractive privatization of public K-12 education. In three election cycles, we'll be talking about how difficult it is for parents to afford to send their kids to high school.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on November 24, 2016, 02:52:05 PM
^
  In the end, they won't find enough qualified teachers that want to be underpaid. Its a race to the bottom. So they will have built all these charter school buildings rented dead strip mall and abandoned steakhouse space that will go broke and leave the public on the hook for fixing the public schools again.

FTFY
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 8Titles on November 24, 2016, 04:50:56 PM
Admittedly, I don't know anything about DeVos but judging by the reaction from the usual suspects here, she must be an excellent selection.  I just hope she doesn't screw around with the city of Cleveland school district, the D's have built quite the system there over the decades.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Clevelander17 on November 24, 2016, 07:42:51 PM
Admittedly, I don't know anything about DeVos but judging by the reaction from the usual suspects here, she must be an excellent selection.

So in other words, no actual fact-based retort, just a silly ad hominem response. About par for the course from die-hard Trump supporters. Like I said earlier, thank goodness there was a bipartisan bill passed less than a year ago that hammered into place far-reaching policies that will outlast Trump's stay in the White House.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Clevelander17 on November 24, 2016, 07:47:53 PM
There are a few exceptions to this rule - outstanding charter schools that do come close to meeting the expectations placed on a public school - but they are rare and there isn't much evidence to suggest that outstanding school models are replicable like a some kind of franchise.

Not only that, significant evidence suggests that the most "successful" charter schools are not educating all students, but cream-skimming the most well-behaved and capable, creating an environment that is very different from the typical urban public school. There's nothing wrong with that concept in theory--selective magnet schools have been around for decades--but charter school proponents hold up these rare examples as proof that charter schools are better and we need more.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: moonloop on November 25, 2016, 09:43:31 AM
Catholic schools have doing that since their inception(or is that conception).
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 25, 2016, 10:14:00 AM
Admittedly, I don't know anything about DeVos but judging by the reaction from the usual suspects here, she must be an excellent selection.  I just hope she doesn't screw around with the city of Cleveland school district, the D's have built quite the system there over the decades.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442452/betsy-devos-trump-education-secretary-conservative-reformer-school-choice (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442452/betsy-devos-trump-education-secretary-conservative-reformer-school-choice)

I'm going to go out on a short, sturdy limb and say that so far, with the exception of Bannon the Never Trump Republicans are happier with his choices than his True Believers are.   

Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: westerninterloper on November 25, 2016, 11:10:16 AM
Admittedly, I don't know anything about DeVos but judging by the reaction from the usual suspects here, she must be an excellent selection.  I just hope she doesn't screw around with the city of Cleveland school district, the D's have built quite the system there over the decades.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442452/betsy-devos-trump-education-secretary-conservative-reformer-school-choice (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442452/betsy-devos-trump-education-secretary-conservative-reformer-school-choice)

I'm going to go out on a short, sturdy limb and say that so far, with the exception of Bannon the Never Trump Republicans are happier with his choices than his True Believers are.   



Quite a contradiction, that article. "the gubmint will get outta the way of education" and mandate that local communities send their education dollars anywhere a parent wants; that they not regulate these new rivers of school money, which will surely be diverted to schools that have 'investors'. Meanwhile, civil rights problems, resegregation, and other states-rights ploys to trim opportunities for poor and urban kids will proliferate. I see Mike Pence behind this choice, and ask any Hoosier how popular his education reforms were there. He and the GOP-dominated Legislature essentially duplicated the elected position of State Superintendent of Schools, the only Democrat elected to state office and a fierce critic of the ongoing gutting of education in Indiana. All of her responsibilities, committee seats, and so on, were stripped from her, and she was essentially left without any authority. How's that for "state control"?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on November 25, 2016, 11:50:35 AM
Admittedly, I don't know anything about DeVos but judging by the reaction from the usual suspects here, she must be an excellent selection.  I just hope she doesn't screw around with the city of Cleveland school district, the D's have built quite the system there over the decades.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442452/betsy-devos-trump-education-secretary-conservative-reformer-school-choice (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442452/betsy-devos-trump-education-secretary-conservative-reformer-school-choice)

I'm going to go out on a short, sturdy limb and say that so far, with the exception of Bannon the Never Trump Republicans are happier with his choices than his True Believers are.   


Yes, he took a heel turn against the True Believers and has joined the Never Trump stable.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 25, 2016, 12:36:35 PM
Admittedly, I don't know anything about DeVos but judging by the reaction from the usual suspects here, she must be an excellent selection.  I just hope she doesn't screw around with the city of Cleveland school district, the D's have built quite the system there over the decades.
Don't know much about DeVos either, but a local NYC charter school advocate, Eva Moskowitz, who started the highly successful Success Academy schools, was under consideration for that post. Moskowitz has locked horns many times with Mayor deBlasio and the entrenched Democratic regime that runs the teachers' union. One of the Success Academy schools in Harlem out performed all other schools in the city, including many elite private schools recently, so obviously they work. I loved this picture yesterday when Moskowitz photobombed a protest against her (deliberately misspelling "threate(a)ned" on the sign! lol at least I think it was deliberate)--

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/eva-moskowitz-photo-angers-protesters-home-article-1.2885685

(https://c8.staticflickr.com/6/5488/31236854775_3426cc3a16_z.jpg)
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 25, 2016, 01:56:23 PM
Donald Trump's national security chief 'took money from Putin and Erdogan', says former NSA employee
The former general will not require Senate approval to take up the senior security position
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-michael-flynn-money-putin-erdogan-nsa-worker-claims-a7437041.html
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Clevelander17 on November 25, 2016, 03:16:23 PM
One of the Success Academy schools in Harlem out performed all other schools in the city, including many elite private schools recently, so obviously they work.

Do you have any evidence to support that last claim about outperforming elite private schools?

In regards to having a better performance than other schools in the city, that should not come as a shock, considering Success Academy serves an atypical population of cream-skimmed students who are more able and more docile than the average urban student. Their relative "success" in no way proves that charter schools, as a model, work better than traditional public schools. They're essentially magnet schools and by nature can't be scaled to improve overall educational outcomes. Additionally, the Success Academy chain is an outlier when it comes to charter schools. I won't even get into their borderline abusive methods, which would never, ever fly with parents in suburban school districts.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 25, 2016, 03:31:48 PM
Please delete if this has already been posted.......

Infrastructure Build or Privatization Scam?
Paul Krugman | NOVEMBER 19, 2016 9:26 AM

Trumpists are touting the idea of a big infrastructure build, and some Democrats are making conciliatory noises about working with the new regime on that front. But remember who you’re dealing with: if you invest anything with this guy, be it money or reputation, you are at great risk of being scammed. So, what do we know about the Trump infrastructure plan, such as it is?

Crucially, it’s not a plan to borrow $1 trillion and spend it on much-needed projects — which would be the straightforward, obvious thing to do. It is, instead, supposed to involve having private investors do the work both of raising money and building the projects — with the aid of a huge tax credit that gives them back 82 percent of the equity they put in. To compensate for the small sliver of additional equity and the interest on their borrowing, the private investors then have to somehow make profits on the assets they end up owning.

You should immediately ask three questions about all of this.

MORE:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/infrastructure-build-or-privatization-scam/?smid=tw-share
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Cleburger on November 25, 2016, 03:50:03 PM
^^Yeah good stuff their Donald.   Not only do we get to pay our taxes, we can pay for roads a second time through tax breaks to private road contractors.   
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 25, 2016, 07:29:33 PM
One of the Success Academy schools in Harlem out performed all other schools in the city, including many elite private schools recently, so obviously they work.

Do you have any evidence to support that last claim about outperforming elite private schools?

In regards to having a better performance than other schools in the city, that should not come as a shock, considering Success Academy serves an atypical population of cream-skimmed students who are more able and more docile than the average urban student. Their relative "success" in no way proves that charter schools, as a model, work better than traditional public schools. They're essentially magnet schools and by nature can't be scaled to improve overall educational outcomes. Additionally, the Success Academy chain is an outlier when it comes to charter schools. I won't even get into their borderline abusive methods, which would never, ever fly with parents in suburban school districts.
Success Academy Charter School Harlem--virtually the highest ratings possible. In other words, hundreds of black and Latino kids who would otherwise be stuck in abysmal public schools are now getting a superior education on par with the top (probably 99% white) students in not just NYC, but in the entire state--

https://www.schooldigger.com/go/NY/schools/0016905862/school.aspx
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on November 25, 2016, 07:55:07 PM
One teacher or school can be very strong in the 'hood. Making them all strong is the tough part.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 25, 2016, 09:05:03 PM
Shocker....

Like in Argentina, long stalled Trump tower in former Soviet republic of Georgia is now reported to be back on track https://t.co/EQV2R0wKvQ
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on November 25, 2016, 10:36:12 PM
Catholic schools have doing that since their inception(or is that conception).

Hardly.  Ironically, it has actually been the decline of the Church that has left them more elitist.  My father went to Monsignor Bonner High School in the Philadelphia burbs in the 1960s.  The Catholic community in Philadelphia was so strong in those days that the school didn't charge tuition; it had all the money it needed directly from the diocese.  You can say that it was elite nevertheless because most of the students were Catholic, which generally indicates an IQ 50 points higher than others (/s :-P), but I think it was actually technically open enrollment.  It had 2600 boys and its sister school (on basically the same campus) had around 3200 girls.  It was a pretty blue-collar population; my father's parents were a tool-and-die maker and a hairdresser, and they were pretty representative of the school parent body.  Hardly what you'd expect at a Catholic school these days; the neighborhood Catholic school in Akron where we're looking at sending my son (St. Sebastian's) clearly has a more white collar parent group.

Admittedly, I don't know anything about DeVos but judging by the reaction from the usual suspects here, she must be an excellent selection.  I just hope she doesn't screw around with the city of Cleveland school district, the D's have built quite the system there over the decades.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442452/betsy-devos-trump-education-secretary-conservative-reformer-school-choice (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442452/betsy-devos-trump-education-secretary-conservative-reformer-school-choice)

I'm going to go out on a short, sturdy limb and say that so far, with the exception of Bannon the Never Trump Republicans are happier with his choices than his True Believers are.   



Quite a contradiction, that article. "the gubmint will get outta the way of education" and mandate that local communities send their education dollars anywhere a parent wants; that they not regulate these new rivers of school money, which will surely be diverted to schools that have 'investors'. Meanwhile, civil rights problems, resegregation, and other states-rights ploys to trim opportunities for poor and urban kids will proliferate. I see Mike Pence behind this choice, and ask any Hoosier how popular his education reforms were there. He and the GOP-dominated Legislature essentially duplicated the elected position of State Superintendent of Schools, the only Democrat elected to state office and a fierce critic of the ongoing gutting of education in Indiana. All of her responsibilities, committee seats, and so on, were stripped from her, and she was essentially left without any authority. How's that for "state control"?

With this article, I've now seen conflicting information on DeVos, the Republican Party generally, and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA); at least one liberal publication (might have been at DailyKos) was actually celebrating the fact that Obama signed ESSA into law before DeVos could take over at Ed, suggesting that there were provisions in there that would keep her from taking certain actions they feared.  But I honestly have no idea what's actually in ESSA.  I have no doubt that DeVos is a committed pro-school choice reformer, but I'm still doubtful that there's going to be much she can do from her federal perch to really uplift education outcomes nationwide.

The main benefit I've seen with school choice is that the competition from school choice was very likely behind the creation of some of Akron's better public magnet schools (Early College High School opened in 2007, and the National Inventors Hall of Fame School opened as a middle school in 2009, though the push for it goes back all the way to 2003).  At the end of the day, though, the public options do seem to have surpassed the charters that they were formed to compete with; those two schools are the only public schools in Akron that I would send my son to (and my wife is still pushing to just do what the past generation of urban professionals has usually done with children and move to the burbs).  If we stay in the city, it will be either Catholic or magnet.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: taestell on November 25, 2016, 11:23:41 PM
So, has Trump ever released his long-form birth certificate? He's "Not My President™" until I feel confident he was born in this country.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 26, 2016, 06:48:33 AM
One teacher or school can be very strong in the 'hood. Making them all strong is the tough part.

This sounds like a case of matching the strongest school with the strongest kids.

Also, I would defer to the NYers here on this, but my understanding is the ungentrified parts of  Harlem are becoming heavily West Indian and African immigrant, groups where the parents often have the view of education typically seen with Asian immigrants.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 8Titles on November 26, 2016, 07:01:50 AM
Admittedly, I don't know anything about DeVos but judging by the reaction from the usual suspects here, she must be an excellent selection.

So in other words, no actual fact-based retort, just a silly ad hominem response. About par for the course from die-hard Trump supporters. Like I said earlier, thank goodness there was a bipartisan bill passed less than a year ago that hammered into place far-reaching policies that will outlast Trump's stay in the White House.
Have never been a Trump supporter, don't like the man but hope he can actually do "some" of the things he's promised.  I am however anti-Clinton, not a big fan of criminal families, hypocrites, bloated and corrupt government, and otherwise pond scum. 

Regarding education, like anything competition and options are far better than the iron grip of big government and unions that limit families who truly want a good education for their children, especially in school systems like Cleveland.  Hopefully some policy changes can save these families from the monstrosity that the D's have built over the decades.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on November 26, 2016, 07:01:58 AM
So, has Trump ever released his long-form birth certificate? He's "Not My President™" until I feel confident he was born in this country.

Russia is highly experienced in forging American birth certificates.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 26, 2016, 07:45:21 AM
Because Trump supporters' preoccupation with Hillary Clinton has caused them to ignore the real threat of Trump’s ties...

Americans keep looking away from the election’s most alarming story
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/americans-keep-looking-away-from-the-elections-most-alarming-story/2016/11/25/83533d3e-b0e2-11e6-8616-52b15787add0_story.html
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 26, 2016, 10:38:28 AM
One teacher or school can be very strong in the 'hood. Making them all strong is the tough part.

This sounds like a case of matching the strongest school with the strongest kids.

Also, I would defer to the NYers here on this, but my understanding is the ungentrified parts of  Harlem are becoming heavily West Indian and African immigrant, groups where the parents often have the view of education typically seen with Asian immigrants.
Yes, Africans are a fast-growing group in New York, especially in the Bronx, but probably Harlem too; and West Indians have been mainly in Brooklyn for decades. But students are selected for charter schools by lottery in NYC, as far as I know. There is no entrance exam or any other academic prerequisite, so they're available to anyone.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 26, 2016, 10:44:41 AM
One teacher or school can be very strong in the 'hood. Making them all strong is the tough part.

This sounds like a case of matching the strongest school with the strongest kids.

Also, I would defer to the NYers here on this, but my understanding is the ungentrified parts of  Harlem are becoming heavily West Indian and African immigrant, groups where the parents often have the view of education typically seen with Asian immigrants.
Yes, Africans are a fast-growing group in New York, especially in the Bronx, but probably Harlem too; and West Indians have been mainly in Brooklyn for decades. But students are selected for charter schools by lottery in NYC, as far as I know. There is no entrance exam or any other academic prerequisite, so they're available to anyone.

Are there requirements to stay enrolled?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 26, 2016, 10:55:07 AM
One teacher or school can be very strong in the 'hood. Making them all strong is the tough part.


This sounds like a case of matching the strongest school with the strongest kids.

Also, I would defer to the NYers here on this, but my understanding is the ungentrified parts of  Harlem are becoming heavily West Indian and African immigrant, groups where the parents often have the view of education typically seen with Asian immigrants.
Yes, Africans are a fast-growing group in New York, especially in the Bronx, but probably Harlem too; and West Indians have been mainly in Brooklyn for decades. But students are selected for charter schools by lottery in NYC, as far as I know. There is no entrance exam or any other academic prerequisite, so they're available to anyone.

Are there requirements to stay enrolled?
not sure, but there must be disciplinary, if not academic requirements in order to stay there. It's not possible to have a positive learning environment if kids are acting up.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on November 26, 2016, 10:58:44 AM
One teacher or school can be very strong in the 'hood. Making them all strong is the tough part.


This sounds like a case of matching the strongest school with the strongest kids.

Also, I would defer to the NYers here on this, but my understanding is the ungentrified parts of  Harlem are becoming heavily West Indian and African immigrant, groups where the parents often have the view of education typically seen with Asian immigrants.
Yes, Africans are a fast-growing group in New York, especially in the Bronx, but probably Harlem too; and West Indians have been mainly in Brooklyn for decades. But students are selected for charter schools by lottery in NYC, as far as I know. There is no entrance exam or any other academic prerequisite, so they're available to anyone.

Are there requirements to stay enrolled?
not sure, but there must be disciplinary, if not academic requirements in order to stay there. It's not possible to have a positive learning environment if kids are acting up.

So even if it's a lottery, the kids who are serious about education, or respect their parents being so, will be concentrated there.

It would make more sense to have an initial selection system that reflects that, IMO.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: surfohio on November 26, 2016, 10:59:19 AM
Bannon’s “closing argument” ad for Trump, redolent of Russian propaganda, described the United States as a corrupt and failing state because of nefarious “global special interests.” It all points to grave danger for democracy and a world order that has kept the peace for 70 years. Is this what America voted for?
--------------------------------------------------

This author should have spent his time trying to prove the USA isn't controlled by nefarious special interests.

Also I liked the way he snuck in "world order" at the end lol. Maybe tossing a bone to conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones.

Who really wrote this article? Dick Cheney?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Clevelander17 on November 26, 2016, 07:24:05 PM
Success Academy Charter School Harlem--virtually the highest ratings possible. In other words, hundreds of black and Latino kids who would otherwise be stuck in abysmal public schools are now getting a superior education on par with the top (probably 99% white) students in not just NYC, but in the entire state--

I'm well-aware of their test scores, which as I mentioned earlier, are based in large part on who walks in the doors and is allowed to stay. They're educating kids in poverty, but they're not really educating the hardest-to-teach students in the city. However you did not show that they outperform private schools.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Clevelander17 on November 26, 2016, 07:28:38 PM
Regarding education, like anything competition and options are far better than the iron grip of big government and unions that limit families who truly want a good education for their children, especially in school systems like Cleveland.  Hopefully some policy changes can save these families from the monstrosity that the D's have built over the decades.

Interesting. The "iron grip of big government and unions" is strong in places like Solon and Rocky River, yet these districts seem to do just fine. Maybe, just maybe, there is something else going on here, that has a far larger impact on district-wide educational outcomes.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Clevelander17 on November 26, 2016, 07:32:52 PM
Yes, Africans are a fast-growing group in New York, especially in the Bronx, but probably Harlem too; and West Indians have been mainly in Brooklyn for decades. But students are selected for charter schools by lottery in NYC, as far as I know. There is no entrance exam or any other academic prerequisite, so they're available to anyone.

It's a case of self-selection on the front end and purging of non-conforming and non-performing students on the back end. It isnt' exactly a secret at this point that they're serving a vastly different (behavioral and likely cognitive) demographic than most of the schools they supposedly "compete" with.

School "performance"--good or bad--is a reflection of the students walking the hallways.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: David on November 26, 2016, 09:21:15 PM
So, has Trump ever released his long-form birth certificate? He's "Not My President™" until I feel confident he was born in this country.

Russia is highly experienced in forging American birth certificates.

I'm more concerned about him being half Orangutan.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 26, 2016, 09:51:45 PM
Success Academy Charter School Harlem--virtually the highest ratings possible. In other words, hundreds of black and Latino kids who would otherwise be stuck in abysmal public schools are now getting a superior education on par with the top (probably 99% white) students in not just NYC, but in the entire state--

I'm well-aware of their test scores, which as I mentioned earlier, are based in large part on who walks in the doors and is allowed to stay. They're educating kids in poverty, but they're not really educating the hardest-to-teach students in the city. However you did not show that they outperform private schools.
why are you torturing me like this? lol I can't find it now, but I had read that Success Academy does outperform some elite private schools, but look at this way: The schooldigger results reflect all public schools statewide, including the most exclusive districts (see below) in the fanciest suburbs. Those schools are on par with the best elite private schools (without as many bells & whistles, but still far superior than the typical NYC public school), and still Success Academy outdoes them! I really don't get it, what is your complaint? These kids, coming from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, are achieving at the highest levels!!

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/03/20/success-academy-parents-vs-new-york-charter-school-bullies.html

"Overcoming disadvantages, these middle schoolers have soared to the top 1% city wide in overall student achievement. The fifth graders rank first in New York State in math – surpassing students in Bronxville, Scarsdale, and other wealthy New York suburban school districts where resources are available at school and at home."
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 27, 2016, 07:44:08 AM
It's not a complaint at all, but more just looking for an apples to apples comparison. Any school which can be selective in who they retain is generally going to outperform public schools, even the wealthy ones.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Floods7 on November 27, 2016, 08:43:49 AM
^^Yeah good stuff their Donald.   Not only do we get to pay our taxes, we can pay for roads a second time through tax breaks to private road contractors.   

Exactly, well while we are at it let's pay for deadbeats welfare and health insurance.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 27, 2016, 10:08:50 AM
We could also pay for a dead beat billionaire's services too.    I love subsidizing a billionaire's lifestyle.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Clevelander17 on November 27, 2016, 04:29:51 PM
It's not a complaint at all, but more just looking for an apples to apples comparison. Any school which can be selective in who they retain is generally going to outperform public schools, even the wealthy ones.

Which is why it is incredibly misleading to hold them up as an example of how to reform public education as many, such as the new Secretary of Education (and at least one former one--Arne Duncan), like to do.

Trump's K-12 education plan could be summed up as "choice for the sake of choice." This plan does nothing to address the inherent reasons why many students, and the schools in which they are concentrated, "perform" poorly.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on November 27, 2016, 04:32:04 PM
Yes, Africans are a fast-growing group in New York, especially in the Bronx, but probably Harlem too; and West Indians have been mainly in Brooklyn for decades. But students are selected for charter schools by lottery in NYC, as far as I know. There is no entrance exam or any other academic prerequisite, so they're available to anyone.

It's a case of self-selection on the front end and purging of non-conforming and non-performing students on the back end. It isnt' exactly a secret at this point that they're serving a vastly different (behavioral and likely cognitive) demographic than most of the schools they supposedly "compete" with.

School "performance"--good or bad--is a reflection of the students walking the hallways.

I completely agree.  But I don't see how that becomes an argument against school choice.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 27, 2016, 09:32:39 PM
Mosques receive letters warning 'Trump will do to Muslims ‘what Hitler did to the Jews’
http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/307620-mosques-receive-letters-warning-trump-will-do-to-muslims-what
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 27, 2016, 10:50:31 PM
‘A recipe for scandal’: Trump conflicts of interest point to constitutional crisis
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/27/donald-trump-conflicts-interest-constitutional-crisis
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 28, 2016, 02:18:56 PM
this is a good article (In all places, the New York Times!) The reporter went to the sprawling Laguardia Community College in Queens, with possibly the most diverse student body anywhere in America, probably hoping to get negative reactions to Trump's win, and instead got a big "meh." Many of the immigrant students are too busy working and trying to get ahead and with limited resources (unlike the spoiled brats at elite institutions crying in their beer and needing reassurance and consolation over the election) to worry about the phony baloney fear mongering in the media over a Trump presidency--

Trump’s Election? Some Students Are Too Busy to Worry
Big City
By GINIA BELLAFANTE NOV. 23, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/nyregion/trumps-election-college-students.html?_r=0

Dara Karac, 26, a student from Montenegro, transferred this year to Cornell from LaGuardia, to study engineering. She came back to visit before the Thanksgiving holiday. Ms. Karac was not a Trump supporter, but she was struck, she told me, by the paralysis that overtook the Cornell campus in the days following the election. Half of the students in her classes didn’t show up, she said, and to those who did, professors spoke, for long chunks of time, of the political environment. Ms. Karac was also besieged by emails from administrators making sure students who were upset could get the help they needed, and she found it all a bit too much.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: audidave on November 28, 2016, 02:54:51 PM
Not sure why it would be fearmongering. A typical engineering program is filled with foreigners.  With a new president that doesn't want most of them to be allowed in the country, i would not doubt there is a lot of fear and concern for their future.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 28, 2016, 04:02:22 PM
Donald Trump is meeting w/David Petraeus, who emailed CIA secrets to his mistress on an insecure server, presumably to Lock Him Up...

US investigating leak related to Petraeus case
By TED BRIDIS
 Nov. 28, 2016 2:57 PM EST

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Defense Department is conducting a leaks investigation related to the sex scandal that led to the resignation of former CIA Director David Petraeus, The Associated Press confirmed Monday, the same day Petraeus was meeting with President-elect Donald Trump in New York.

Petraeus, who could be in line for a Cabinet nomination, arrived at Trump Tower in early afternoon. He walked in without taking any questions from reporters.

MORE:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b3211dd82f3b4504ac087cc5fbf4b174/us-investigating-leak-related-petraeus-case
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Clevelander17 on November 28, 2016, 04:24:22 PM
I completely agree.  But I don't see how that becomes an argument against school choice.

No, but it's a case against blowing up what we have for a market-based system that does work. Particularly when it's being made with ulterior motives in mind.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 28, 2016, 07:35:20 PM
Saw these tweets forwarded by another....

Bryan Patrick Grady ‏@bpgrady  49m49 minutes ago
If you don't think President Trump would declare martial law and march the army into Somali neighborhoods, you don't get what we're in for.

Bryan Patrick Grady ‏@bpgrady  45m45 minutes ago
I am repulsed at much of what has been said in the wake of today's events. I fear for our people, particularly those who don't look like me.

Bryan Patrick Grady ‏@bpgrady  31m31 minutes ago
I'm not going to make it to 2021. There's no way. I am sick.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 28, 2016, 07:43:51 PM
The Cheeto in Chief hard at work...

(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15181687_10209193986179812_2632093004529995959_n.jpg?oh=82c3e8f2f015364b4a1633b80731fab9&oe=58B2A78B)
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 28, 2016, 09:00:01 PM
Kellyanne Conway on Cuba: "Trump wants Cuba to know religious freedom."

Trump on US: "There will be a total shutdown on Muslims"

Um...
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 8Titles on November 29, 2016, 05:07:13 AM
The Cheeto in Chief hard at work...

(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15181687_10209193986179812_2632093004529995959_n.jpg?oh=82c3e8f2f015364b4a1633b80731fab9&oe=58B2A78B)
Most publications have the US outside of the top 20 in primary education, something needs to be done.  Especially for those families who truly want a quality education for their children but are trapped under the Democrats thumbs in inner city school systems like Cleveland.  They need options..
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 8Titles on November 29, 2016, 05:08:43 AM
Kellyanne Conway on Cuba: "Trump wants Cuba to know religious freedom."

Trump on US: "There will be a total shutdown on Islamic terrorism"

Um...
Fixed it for you
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hootenany on November 29, 2016, 09:32:38 AM
^Another case of somebody hearing what they want to hear and ignoring the words that come out of Trump's mouth.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 29, 2016, 09:34:44 AM
Most publications have the US outside of the top 20 in primary education, something needs to be done.  Especially for those families who truly want a quality education for their children but are trapped under the Democrats thumbs in inner city school systems like Cleveland.  They need options..

They need to stop saddling educators with regulations and unfunded mandates intended to kill public education so that alternatives seem artificially attractive.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 29, 2016, 10:21:54 AM
^Another case of somebody hearing what they want to hear and ignoring the words that come out of Trump's mouth.

Another case of somebody selectively quoting Trump to try and make a point that does not align with the context of the full statement.

Here's the context that KJP chose to exclude:

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.[i/]


Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 29, 2016, 10:31:58 AM
Any other UrbanOhioans want to join me in celebration?

Trump’s ‘Thank You Tour’ Said to Start in Ohio on Thursday

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-11-29/trump-s-thank-you-tour-said-to-start-in-ohio-on-thursday

President-elect Donald Trump will begin a "Thank You Tour" on Thursday in Cincinnati, replicating the arena events that powered his surprise campaign, three of his transition officials said...

The Cincinnati event will be at 7 p.m. on Thursday at US Bank Arena, a previous venue for a Trump rally.

Stops after Cincinnati will be announced once venues are booked, the officials said. His second event tentatively is scheduled for Des Moines, Iowa.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Cleburger on November 29, 2016, 10:32:05 AM
^Another case of somebody hearing what they want to hear and ignoring the words that come out of Trump's mouth.

Another case of somebody selectively quoting Trump to try and make a point that does not align with the context of the full statement.

Here's the context that KJP chose to exclude:

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.[i/]


And here's what Ram23 left out--the "Center for Security Policy" is a not well respected, biased think tank known for it's conspiracy theories about Muslims....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Security_Policy
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hootenany on November 29, 2016, 10:33:49 AM
^Another case of somebody hearing what they want to hear and ignoring the words that come out of Trump's mouth.

Another case of somebody selectively quoting Trump to try and make a point that does not align with the context of the full statement.

Here's the context that KJP chose to exclude:

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.[i/]

Whether the ban is temporary or permanent (which is the only thing changed by the full quote) doesn't make it any less disgusting.  To think that this gullible, hyperbolic man will be at the top of our government for at least 4 years has me very concerned.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Cleburger on November 29, 2016, 10:34:43 AM
Any other UrbanOhioans want to join me in celebration?

Trump’s ‘Thank You Tour’ Said to Start in Ohio on Thursday

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-11-29/trump-s-thank-you-tour-said-to-start-in-ohio-on-thursday

President-elect Donald Trump will begin a "Thank You Tour" on Thursday in Cincinnati, replicating the arena events that powered his surprise campaign, three of his transition officials said...

The Cincinnati event will be at 7 p.m. on Thursday at US Bank Arena, a previous venue for a Trump rally.

Stops after Cincinnati will be announced once venues are booked, the officials said. His second event tentatively is scheduled for Des Moines, Iowa.


RSVPing my regrets.

I'm sure he's just gathering footage for his updated version of Triumph of the Will.

Maybe take along your wife/girlfriend to get their pu$$y grabbed?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 29, 2016, 10:35:13 AM
And here's what Ram23 left out--the "Center for Security Policy" is a not well respected, biased think tank known for it's conspiracy theories about Muslims....

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

Not well respected by the likes of Salon and the Southern Poverty Law Center... who are not well respected and incredibly biased themselves. So take that with a grain of salt.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Cleburger on November 29, 2016, 10:36:04 AM
And here's what Ram23 left out--the "Center for Security Policy" is a not well respected, biased think tank known for it's conspiracy theories about Muslims....

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

Not well respected by the likes of Salon and the Southern Poverty Law Center... who are not well respected and incredibly biased themselves. So take that with a grain of salt.

Also note that the only politicians that have cited their studies are Donald Trump and Michelle Bachmann.   Take that with a giant grain of road-grade salt.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 29, 2016, 10:39:48 AM
The Southern Poverty Law Center isn't well respected?? By whom, pap smears like John Birch and his flesh-eating zombies?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hootenany on November 29, 2016, 10:40:48 AM
And here's what Ram23 left out--the "Center for Security Policy" is a not well respected, biased think tank known for it's conspiracy theories about Muslims....

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

Not well respected by the likes of Salon and the Southern Poverty Law Center... who are not well respected and incredibly biased themselves. So take that with a grain of salt.

Correct, they are not well respected by all of those you mentioned as well as Grover Norquist, John McCain, John Boehner, Scott Brown, and Marco Rubio.  The Center for Security Policy is an anti-Muslim "think tank" that is funded mostly by defense contractors to spread fear of an entire religion.  They truly can't be defended, but you're welcome to try.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on November 29, 2016, 01:05:15 PM
I completely agree.  But I don't see how that becomes an argument against school choice.

No, but it's a case against blowing up what we have for a market-based system that does work. Particularly when it's being made with ulterior motives in mind.

So by your argument, there's a difference between school choice and "blowing up what we have for a market-based system that does [sic] work."  A lot of people say that the whole point of school choice is to blow up "what we have" for a market-based system that works.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hootenany on November 29, 2016, 01:42:11 PM
^A more market based approach to schooling will only separate the economic classes more than they already are.  The end result of a voucher program is tiers of schooling based on your ability to pay.  In my opinion this will drive up cost as schools race to provide parents with the features they think their children need because what parent wouldn't pay a little bit more for a better education for their child if they can afford it?  Who knows, maybe the government will also start providing low interest loans to parents to cover the cost of these schools.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Jskinner on November 29, 2016, 01:48:03 PM
Trump's pick for Transportation Secretary should be great for those wanting more money to the asphalt lobby:

Mitch McConnell calls Elaine Chao, to whom he is married, an "outstanding choice" for transportation secretary. Says he won't recuse himself.

Trump's draining of the swamp includes appointing Elaine Chao, who sits on the Wells Fargo board. What did she know abt its fake accounts?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on November 29, 2016, 02:00:08 PM
^A more market based approach to schooling will only separate the economic classes more than they already are.  The end result of a voucher program is tiers of schooling based on your ability to pay.  In my opinion this will drive up cost as schools race to provide parents with the features they think their children need because what parent wouldn't pay a little bit more for a better education for their child if they can afford it?  Who knows, maybe the government will also start providing low interest loans to parents to cover the cost of these schools.

That should certainly keep costs from spiraling out of control
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: audidave on November 29, 2016, 02:03:26 PM
That is exactly what they want.
  I feel the majority of people feel public schools can be improved. Many communities have outstanding public schools. Those are typically suburban schools. Do those need blown up too?  I think those can be vastly improved on as well with using technology appropriately. 
   The problem is that Ohio has not been investing in schools in poor rural areas or poor urban areas to make it a more level playing field. To many the charter schools exacerbate the situation by forcing public school systems to bus their students to the charter schools.
  As we all should know it is the preparedness of the students that determines their success. So maybe it is having better pre-school in urban and rural areas that will resolve the inequity there along with some updates in buildings. But it is going to be difficult to do that with a public and private school system competing for dollars.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on November 29, 2016, 02:07:56 PM
^A more market based approach to schooling will only separate the economic classes more than they already are.  The end result of a voucher program is tiers of schooling based on your ability to pay.  In my opinion this will drive up cost as schools race to provide parents with the features they think their children need because what parent wouldn't pay a little bit more for a better education for their child if they can afford it?  Who knows, maybe the government will also start providing low interest loans to parents to cover the cost of these schools.

We already have tiers of schooling based on ability to pay--or, of course, on the ability to get merit and need-based scholarships.  And from the part of the thread Clevelander17 snipped, we both agree (though we probably disagree on how pernicious this fact is) that the real distinction between successful schools and unsuccessful ones is exactly that, the ability to select their student body, whether for wealth or ability.  I have the resources to pay both property taxes for local public schools, plus private school tuition for my son (and more children should those be in the cards, too) if he loses the lottery for Akron's magnet schools.  Many people don't.  So they will either move into the suburbs, where they can pay once (property taxes) for acceptable public schools, continuing the cycle of capital flight from the cities--or if they can't afford that, then they'll be forced to take their chances at the urban public schools that cannot shed the students that are liabilities to the learning process and complete wastes of taxpayer cash to even try to educate.  That last part is the harsh reality that we will ultimately need to deal with, once enough people have shed enough denial--there are some students that need to be let go for the good of the system and for the other students within it.  At that point, public schools can become genuinely competitive with private schools, because they can get rid of the students that ruin the learning environment.  But the Overton window won't shift far enough to make such measures acceptable without competition from choice programs as an intermediate step.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 29, 2016, 04:33:54 PM
Have to get rid of Cheeto - somehow - before he takes oath. So many will die if he reaches the Oval Office...

"The fact that Trump has no idea what he’s doing is alarming. The fact that Trump doesn’t seem eager to learn is almost certainly worse."

Offered daily intelligence briefings, Trump takes a pass
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/offered-daily-intelligence-briefings-trump-takes-pass?cid=sm_fb_maddow
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 29, 2016, 08:00:42 PM
Another two months and this lunatic will have more than an a twitter app to command. Scary.
https://t.co/0C7B0bfK4x
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 29, 2016, 08:02:46 PM
Amazing how much Putin and Trump have in common...
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 29, 2016, 08:13:52 PM
@davidfrum If Trump wants to imprison flag-burners, imagine what he’ll try to do to journalists who report on his corruption
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 29, 2016, 08:36:05 PM
Trump could make history as the quickest-impeached President in history if he doesn't sell his global business before he takes office https://t.co/DSPjVBWgAs
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 29, 2016, 09:00:02 PM
To all those laborers (namely, coal miners) who voted for Trump...

Trump To Name Billionaire Who Owned Deadly Coal Mine As Commerce Secretary
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/trump-wilbur-ross_us_582b4c04e4b01d8a014abacb?section=politics
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hootenany on November 30, 2016, 07:28:08 AM
A good start from the President elect, but the devil is always in the details and I'm not sure simply putting his children in charge of his companies is going to satisfy many people.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/30/news/companies/donald-trump-conflicts-press-conference/index.html

Trump vows to 'remove' himself from business

Donald Trump promised Wednesday to 'remove' himself from his businesses and said he will announce details in two weeks about how he'll avoid conflicts of interest when he is president.

Trump used his favorite method of communicating with the public -- Twitter -- to announce plans for a "major news conference" on Dec. 15 to discuss plans to leave the Trump Organization.

His adult children, whom he has said he will put in charge of the company, will be a part of the news conference.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 30, 2016, 08:16:56 AM
To all those laborers (namely, coal miners) who voted for Trump...

Trump To Name Billionaire Who Owned Deadly Coal Mine As Commerce Secretary
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/trump-wilbur-ross_us_582b4c04e4b01d8a014abacb?section=politics

People voted for Trump well aware of the fact that he, himself, was a wealthy billionaire who took advantage of our government to maximize his own profit. His entire campaign was based around the concept that he, as someone who has used every loophole in the book, would know how to close those loopholes. Ross falls into that same category.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 30, 2016, 08:20:27 AM
The ultimate in echo chamber "debate":


Reddit Is Tearing Itself Apart
Bryan Menegus
Yesterday 10:20amFiled to: REDDIT

For the past 11 years, an eternity in internet time, Reddit has touted itself—repeatedly, and loudly—as the place to have “authentic conversations” online. For a variety of reasons, that sentiment has always rang hollow. Now, Reddit, in its goal to be a laissez-faire haven of (relatively) free expression, has been overrun by nationalist trolls. Its staff of volunteer moderators is losing hope in the site’s future.

Gizmodo spoke with five high-ranking volunteer moderators of some of Reddit’s biggest communities, as well as a Reddit spokesperson. We discovered the site’s unusual working relationship with its most problematic community—r/The_Donald—a community which, by exploiting poor enforcement of Reddit’s already limp user protections, has effectively been holding the rest of the site hostage.

The site’s subreddits serve as fiefdoms organized around a specific interest. Reddit’s The_Donald subreddit was founded a year ago as the premier online meeting place for Trump supporters. It has since sought to—in CEO and co-founder Steve Huffman’s words—“dominate the conversation” on the site. Its members spread coded hate speech, openly antagonize other Redditors, and break the site’s most basic rules with impunity while moderators feel the brunt of the abuse, and Reddit leadership fail to adequately address the problem.

MORE:
http://gizmodo.com/reddit-is-tearing-itself-apart-1789406294?utm_medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=Gizmodo_twitter

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyhDbrFXUAEvTdR.jpg:large)
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 30, 2016, 08:37:55 AM
^ I've bee a moderator on a handful of subreddits for years. Reddit has always been an echo chamber, by design. Users can downvote posts, so unpopular speech is literally hidden away out of sight. It is probably one of the websites most responsible for the entire concept of the "internet echo chamber." It's users are just mad that it has now attracted a more diverse user base, and they have to actually see pro-Trump sentiments on occasion.

I think the management over there assumed Trump would lose so his subreddit would just sort of work itself out and they wouldn't have to deal with it. The fact that he won, and that subreddit continues to grow, is obviously making them upset because their liberal propaganda tool has been overrun with actual political discourse and new and challenging ideas. At some point they'll probably pull the plug on it, and the website will fall into obscurity like Digg - only it will become some sort of odd Digg/DailyKos hybrid.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 30, 2016, 08:39:10 AM
Mitt Romney ‏@MittRomney  Mar 3
Here's what I know. Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: ryanlammi on November 30, 2016, 08:45:43 AM
^^ You think the_Donald is bringing "actual political discourse"? Also, Reddit's user base is so much lower than Facebook and Twitter. Reddit isn't the echo chamber most at fault for polarizing people politically, though it does create an echo chamber. Also, I don't, and many others don't follow political subreddits. Most of my time on reddit is to get a quick laugh, so I'm not sure it's as dangerous as Facebook where your friends are sharing stories and you have a low chance of avoiding political stories.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on November 30, 2016, 08:47:36 AM
To all those laborers (namely, coal miners) who voted for Trump...

Trump To Name Billionaire Who Owned Deadly Coal Mine As Commerce Secretary
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/trump-wilbur-ross_us_582b4c04e4b01d8a014abacb?section=politics

People voted for Trump well aware of the fact that he, himself, was a wealthy billionaire who took advantage of our government to maximize his own profit. His entire campaign was based around the concept that he, as someone who has used every loophole in the book, would know how to close those loopholes. Ross falls into that same category.

Nevertheless, the conflict of interest discussion is real now.  It was only hypothetical before he won, but it is real now.  I do understand why he doesn't want to put his assets into a blind trust, though, both because the neutral trustee might well sell the Trump Organization while Trump is in office (conflict schmonflict, a neutral trustee would fully appreciate the cachet and possible other benefits of having the namesake be the president) and because he might not keep his children on board, and Trump clearly wants to provide good jobs for them as much as any parent with a family business would.  Of course, a sale like that would also be hard to hide, but it's actually possible.  Secret financial arrangements are a Wall Street specialty.

One thing I've wondered about is a leveraged buyout by his children, non-seller financed, cash up front.  I'm not 100% sure that would get rid of all the conflicts, but with him no longer as owner or manager (or chairman) and not dependent on the performance of the leveraged financing, I think it would have a good chance to hold up.  The real issue for Trump personally is that that would then actually put a dollar figure on the brand name that Trump trumpets as the dominant part of his net worth (he calls himself a billionaire, but in terms of hard assets, that's debatable, it's the brand that he usually boasts as putting him into the ten-figure club).  But that's a psychological issue for him.  If he sold the entire organization for $1B, I think his children would be able to get the financing.  He's 70.  If he serves two full terms, he'll be 78 at the end of his presidency.  It's not like he'd be likely to step back into the business at that point anyway.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: TBideon on November 30, 2016, 09:24:47 AM
Carrier is staying in Indiana. Gotta give the Don some credit for this one. And of course they're getting a number of tax subsidies, breaks, probably Tiff money -- but as long as it keeps good paying jobs in town, then no complaints.

Between that and Ford not building small cars in Mexico (I don't care if Trump was wrong about the details, because the end result is that industry is being kept in the States).

If we criticize the doofus for his rhetoric and behavior, then we also should give him credit for when things go well -- and I doubt these successes would have occurred without his blasting the companies repeatedly.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Cleburger on November 30, 2016, 09:56:42 AM
Carrier is staying in Indiana. Gotta give the Don some credit for this one. And of course they're getting a number of tax subsidies, breaks, probably Tiff money -- but as long as it keeps good paying jobs in town, then no complaints.

Between that and Ford not building small cars in Mexico (I don't care if Trump was wrong about the details, because the end result is that industry is being kept in the States).

If we criticize the doofus for his rhetoric and behavior, then we also should give him credit for when things go well -- and I doubt these successes would have occurred without his blasting the companies repeatedly.

I'm sure Pence had more to do with this than the Donald.

And what precedent does it set?   Any old company can now claim they are looking to move to Mexico and get their taxes reduced.  And why wouldn't they?  Companies like GE, Apple and the Trump Organization don't pay taxes either.....
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 30, 2016, 10:07:17 AM
^^That was good news for Indiana, even if a little more than half of the 2100 jobs are still leaving for Mexico.  But whether it was a good deal for the COUNTRY.... the devil will be in the details.  What exactly was the deal?  I assume there was some massive tax break.  Who approved it?  How much was it?  This can't be judged if we don't know, and we have a right to know exactly what Carrier received from the presumptive President elect and his transition team.  On paper, I suspect that nothing was offered officially from Trump, but rather the incentives which will be revealed to te public will be mostly coming from the State of Indiana (Pence is still Gov.) and the City of Indianapolis and maybe its county.  This is nothing out of the norm, as states and cities routinely offer incentives to companies who have announced plans to leave (and the precedent for that keeps getting stronger an stronger).  It is part of the game, if you will.  I doubt this is like the auto bailout which saved exponentially more jobs at GM and Chrysler - approx. 250,000 plus even more in the supply chain.  Trump can't do anything like that without Congress.  So what was offered from the areas over which the POTUS and his cabinet actually have authority?  I would be surprised if those details are made public, but it is worth noting that Carrier's parent company (United Technologies) is a massive defense contractor.  How many fighter jets did we just buy?  In the end, I predict this deal is highly gilded for both Indiana and the country as a whole.  But good nonetheless for the 1,000 workers who will keep their jobs.  That is not small potatoes, even if the rest of us will pay a little for it.  And it's a YUGE win for Trump from a PR perspective because 75% of the country and 99% of his supporters won't care about the details.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on November 30, 2016, 10:10:19 AM
Carrier is staying in Indiana. Gotta give the Don some credit for this one. And of course they're getting a number of tax subsidies, breaks, probably Tiff money -- but as long as it keeps good paying jobs in town, then no complaints.

Between that and Ford not building small cars in Mexico (I don't care if Trump was wrong about the details, because the end result is that industry is being kept in the States).

If we criticize the doofus for his rhetoric and behavior, then we also should give him credit for when things go well -- and I doubt these successes would have occurred without his blasting the companies repeatedly.

I'm sure Pence had more to do with this than the Donald.

And what precedent does it set?   Any old company can now claim they are looking to move to Mexico and get their taxes reduced.  And why wouldn't they?  Companies like GE, Apple and the Trump Organization don't pay taxes either.....

^that's the fallacy that always gets touted in the news...  "company xyz doesn't pay taxes...."    That's pretty much NEVER true. 

“GE did not get a tax refund in 2010, and in fact paid U.S. federal income tax and more than $1 billion in other federal, state and local taxes in the U.S. for 2010,” Martin wrote in an email to HuffPost. “GE’s overall tax rate for 2010 was low because we lost $32 billion in our financial business during the global financial crisis.”

But GE has come under fire for its light tax burden. Though it has been earning billions in profits, it paid an average tax rate of just 1.8 percent between 2002 and 2011, according to Citizens for Tax Justice. GE CEO Jeff Immelt has said that the U.S. tax system is “old, complex and uncompetitive” and has had a “hugely negative impact” on the economy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/general-electric-taxes_n_2852094.html

It's funny though that you brought up GE.  It's common knowledge they are one of the largest firms responsible for moving money overseas to avoid taxes, and yet the CEO Jeff Immelt is buddies with President Obama.  What sort of conversations do you think these two have on this topic?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/04/08/the-unholy-marriage-of-ge-and-president-obama-at-the-altar-of-industrial-policy/#4a4e32a11895
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on November 30, 2016, 10:14:18 AM
If your company loses money one year the losses can be carried back 3 years and carried forward 15. There's nothing especially insidious about it. The IRS wants companies to stay in business if they can survive a crappy year or two.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 30, 2016, 10:16:26 AM
^Isn't that exactly what Trump did?  He had such massive losses due to bad business decisions that it allowed him to carry forward for 15 years?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 30, 2016, 10:23:15 AM
U.S. manufactures 2x as much today as in 1984 - The Washington Post https://t.co/57uCncGO8H

If you lost your manufacturing job, blame a robot or computer, not a Mexican or Chinaman.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 30, 2016, 10:23:29 AM
I'm sure Pence had more to do with this than the Donald.

I don't know about that. I think the bad press they were getting was a bigger factor than any tax incentives (which may or may not exist, the details aren't known yet) and Trump was the main reason they were getting that bad press. Carrier went from being the most frequently specified brand here in the Midwest to something no one wanted virtually overnight. Look at the stock prices for a company like AAON - it jumped up big league because people were abandoning ship and looking for American made products to buy instead of Carrier. They probably forecast the loss of business to be so great that the cheap Mexican labor savings weren't worth it.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on November 30, 2016, 10:40:49 AM
^Isn't that exactly what Trump did?  He had such massive losses due to bad business decisions that it allowed him to carry forward for 15 years?

It's exactly what Trump did.  It's perfectly legal and not even particularly complicated; it's no harder or easier to do that with a $900,000 or $9M loss on a midsize Midwestern business (many companies in the automotive supply chain right here in Ohio had years like that in the financial crisis when GM and Chrysler declared bankruptcy and demand and financing shrank overall) than a $900M loss on a real estate and entertainment empire.  Trump's real conceit here was acting like he even did anything clever, rather than just being brilliant enough to lose $900M in the space of one year.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: TBideon on November 30, 2016, 10:47:59 AM
"Have you ever wondered why I have never had anything to do with Mike and have never let my daughters see him although we live only 15 minutes away from each other?" she wrote to her parents. "He has been a lifelong homosexual, most of his relationships brief, fleeting one-night stands."

That's our Deputy National Security Advisor, ladies and gentlemen.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 30, 2016, 10:57:40 AM
"Have you ever wondered why I have never had anything to do with Mike and have never let my daughters see him although we live only 15 minutes away from each other?" she wrote to her parents. "He has been a lifelong homosexual, most of his relationships brief, fleeting one-night stands."

That's our Deputy National Security Advisor, ladies and gentlemen.

It seems her beef with him was about his lifestyle choices, not his sexual orientation:

“I was really living a life of going to Central Park with my kids, and he was increasingly living—there was no secret about it—he was openly gay,” McFarland explained.

“I had no problem with that, I loved him. But I was increasingly concerned because he talked about a very promiscuous lifestyle. And it saddened me a great deal.”
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on November 30, 2016, 11:00:23 AM
  Trump's real conceit here was acting like he even did anything clever, rather than just being brilliant enough to lose $900M in the space of one year.

I'd say it's the Dems who made him look clever and conceited in this case by complaining about something that most business people know is SOP.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on November 30, 2016, 11:23:52 AM
  Trump's real conceit here was acting like he even did anything clever, rather than just being brilliant enough to lose $900M in the space of one year.

I'd say it's the Dems who made him look clever and conceited in this case by complaining about something that most business people know is SOP.

The framing of the attack was the problem.  They phrased as "he hasn't paid taxes in 20 years!" when the frame should have been "you lost $900M in the early 1990s and you still haven't made it all back!"  (After all, the carryforward isn't an unlimited get-out-of-tax card; it's a deduction against future income, so if he'd gotten $900M in profits over the ensuing two decades, the NOL carryforward would have been used up.)  Granted, of course, that means he could have been netting $40M/year for 20 years and still have room to spare, not a bad life, but still not enough to get him back to where he was prior to 1994 or whenever the big bankruptcy was.  (I know he's been through four, but one was a big one with his own personal guaranties on the line, the other three were much more localized to specific entities within the larger Trump Organization.)
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 30, 2016, 11:32:41 AM
D.C. punks lit up the façade of the Trump International Hotel with a basically legal, homegrown, historic protest http://trib.al/WMb6xS4
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cyhu5UYXAAUlinW.jpg:large)
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: surfohio on November 30, 2016, 12:52:06 PM
^^ You think the_Donald is bringing "actual political discourse"? Also, Reddit's user base is so much lower than Facebook and Twitter. Reddit isn't the echo chamber most at fault for polarizing people politically, though it does create an echo chamber. Also, I don't, and many others don't follow political subreddits. Most of my time on reddit is to get a quick laugh, so I'm not sure it's as dangerous as Facebook where your friends are sharing stories and you have a low chance of avoiding political stories.

Right, I don't get the criticism. Why can't people who are attacked on a site like /r/the_donald, or whatever it is, just create another forum like /r/donald_haters or /r/friendly_political_discourse. 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 30, 2016, 01:11:10 PM
^^ According to any and every zoning code I've ever come across such a sign is not legal without a permit (and even then, probably not, because it's too big). Political signs that sometimes have first amendment protections still can't be displayed on someone else's property without their consent according to typical state and local laws.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: jam40jeff on November 30, 2016, 01:24:18 PM
^Isn't that exactly what Trump did?  He had such massive losses due to bad business decisions that it allowed him to carry forward for 15 years?

It's exactly what Trump did.  It's perfectly legal and not even particularly complicated; it's no harder or easier to do that with a $900,000 or $9M loss on a midsize Midwestern business (many companies in the automotive supply chain right here in Ohio had years like that in the financial crisis when GM and Chrysler declared bankruptcy and demand and financing shrank overall) than a $900M loss on a real estate and entertainment empire.  Trump's real conceit here was acting like he even did anything clever, rather than just being brilliant enough to lose $900M in the space of one year.

It is completely different than what many business or individuals are allowed to do with losses because of the "real estate professional" loophole where real estate losses may be used to offset tax liability on other sources of income.

Quote
You and I get very little in the way of such breaks. Let’s say, for example, that you made an investing error a few years ago and purchased some shares in Groupon. At one time the stock traded above $25, but more recently, it’s been hanging out around $5 a share. If you decided you didn’t want that stock any longer, you would sell at a loss. In turn, the tax code permits you to use that loss against a stock market gain—like, say, if you bought Facebook shares when they traded for a little more than $18 in 2012 and sold them last week for $128 a pop. A great deal, right? But what you can’t do is use that stock loss to avoid paying taxes on your salary and other work-related earnings. Capital gains taxes don’t work the way net operating losses do.

And what about real estate? If you sell your house at a loss or are foreclosed upon, the IRS counts debt forgiveness as income. You only get a tax break if the sum was used for your main residence (vacation homes don’t qualify!), and it’s limited to $1 million, or $2 million for married couples filing jointly. The money, moreover, must have been used on the home itself. You aren’t a professional real estate investor. Trump is—so he gets to write off his real estate losses against his personal income.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_bills/2016/10/the_real_scandal_of_donald_trump_s_massive_potential_tax_deductions.html

If Trump was honest (or if his base was smart enough to realize what is going on), he would have reacted to the leak of his taxes with something along the lines of "Here is the loophole that allowed me to not pay taxes.  I did it because I am very good with money, but I acknowledge that it is a ridiculous law that is being taken advantage of and I will do everything in my power to close this loophole if I am elected."  But that doesn't sound like something Trump would ever say, does it?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on November 30, 2016, 03:02:16 PM
Paul Krugman ‏@paulkrugman  4h4 hours ago
Another metric: Trump would have to do one Carrier-sized deal a week for 30 years to save as many jobs as Obama's auto bailout
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 30, 2016, 03:37:29 PM
Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803567993036754944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Even Scalia was of the firm opinion that flag burning was a form of free expression protected by the First Amendment.  I hope this is jus an example of Trump stretching his arms after being taken out of Twitter timeout by his handlers.  But it makes me nervous about what views on the First Amendment his Supreme Court nominations will have.  We already know that he is looking to place restriction on the press which would be unconstitutional under current precedent.  And he wants to target religions... I don't care if he is doing so directly or indirectly,  Very disconcerting is the apparent disdain Trump has for First Amendment freedoms.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on November 30, 2016, 03:45:00 PM
^ That was actually a very clever post. It drew attention to the fact that Clinton sponsored a bill in 2005 to make burning the flag illegal (he already beat badly her but he just can't seem to stop):

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-sponsored-a-bill-to-punish-flag-burning/

And it led to leftists taking to the streets and burning American flags out of anger - which, while perfectly legal (as it should be), is the equivalent of publicly announcing that you're a giant douche:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3984798/Far-left-activists-NYC-Revolution-Club-set-American-flag-ablaze-outside-Trump-Tower-President-Elect-tweets-flag-burners-lose-citizenship-face-jail.html
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Clevelander17 on November 30, 2016, 03:56:10 PM
And it led to leftists taking to the streets and burning American flags out of anger - which, while perfectly legal (as it should be), is the equivalent of publicly announcing that you're a giant douche:

No, being a Donald Trump supporter (note: not voter, but actual supporter) is a much better way to announce to the world that you're a d-bag.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Clevelander17 on November 30, 2016, 04:08:48 PM
So by your argument, there's a difference between school choice and "blowing up what we have for a market-based system that does [sic] work."  A lot of people say that the whole point of school choice is to blow up "what we have" for a market-based system that works.

Yes there is a difference and I am aware of what "a lot of people" (Heritage Foundation folks, for example) say, but more importantly, why they say it and why they're wrong. We can expand educational options within the current public school system (magnet schools) without blowing it up.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on November 30, 2016, 04:20:22 PM
So by your argument, there's a difference between school choice and "blowing up what we have for a market-based system that does [sic] work."  A lot of people say that the whole point of school choice is to blow up "what we have" for a market-based system that works.

Yes there is a difference and I am aware of what "a lot of people" (Heritage Foundation folks, for example) say, but more importantly, why they say it and why they're wrong. We can expand educational options within the current public school system (magnet schools) without blowing it up.

We can, but we seldom did before publicly funded private competition entered the scene.  In practice, at least as things currently stand, I tend to agree with you that the public magnet options have generally surpassed the charters that prompted their formation.  I already said that upthread.  But I think it strains plausible deniability to argue that voucher and charter competition wasn't a huge part of pushing hidebound school districts to form new options.  It might be a cosmic coincidence that Akron Public went from zero to two magnet schools in a small-to-moderate span of years after school choice went statewide (and was upheld by the Supreme Court).  But it might also not be.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: matteusleus on November 30, 2016, 06:35:52 PM
Paul Krugman ‏@paulkrugman  4h4 hours ago
Another metric: Trump would have to do one Carrier-sized deal a week for 30 years to save as many jobs as Obama's auto bailout

The auto bailout was funded by the government and illegally restructured creditor priorities essentially giving lots of $$$ to the UAW opposed to the rightful creditors.  The government essentially purchased GM & Chrysler on the backs of those creditors and taxpayers.  Carrier elected to retain jobs within US borders, and although we still need more details, it will be nothing close to the same methodology as the auto bailout.  The auto bailout did not save any more jobs than a normal bankruptcy proceeding w/o the government would have.  It is very unfair to minimize the saving of 1,000 jobs by comparing it to the auto bailout.   
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on November 30, 2016, 07:13:25 PM
Tell that to the people whose jobs were saved, not only at GM and Chrysler but also down the supply chains, not to mention the totally unrelated private businesses which depended on those people working nearby and having disposable income to spend.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on November 30, 2016, 07:33:29 PM
Paul Krugman ‏@paulkrugman  4h4 hours ago
Another metric: Trump would have to do one Carrier-sized deal a week for 30 years to save as many jobs as Obama's auto bailout

WTF is this relevant to at all?  Are we hoping for another economic catastrophe just so the Obama supporters can say he did it better than Trump did? 

This might be the dumbest post I've seen here, which is saying a lot
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 30, 2016, 07:45:51 PM
Politico has a good write-up on the Carrier deal.  It looks like they are afraid of losing government contracts.  Also, it appears to be mostly a deal from the Indiana Economic Development Corporation.  It is generally bad policy to pay companies to stay, especially if they are only keeping some jobs in state.  Most importantly, these individual deals do nothing to stem the tide of manufacturing jobs leaving the country.  This may be a good deal for those keeping their jobs this is not a good economic development strategy.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/indiana-carrier-deal-federal-contracts-trump-232021
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on November 30, 2016, 08:17:06 PM
Politico has a good write-up on the Carrier deal.  It looks like they are afraid of losing government contracts.  Also, it appears to be mostly a deal from the Indiana Economic Development Corporation.  It is generally bad policy to pay companies to stay, especially if they are only keeping some jobs in state.  Most importantly, these individual deals do nothing to stem the tide of manufacturing jobs leaving the country.  This may be a good deal for those keeping their jobs this is not a good economic development strategy.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/indiana-carrier-deal-federal-contracts-trump-232021

In terms of economic development, there are pretty standard formulas for evaluating various incentive packages and determining the overall value.  shouldn't be hard to measure the tax revenue of the jobs kept vs the cost of the incentives, etc
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 30, 2016, 08:25:42 PM
^ That is true in attraction deals and retention deals where the company is expanding.  It is bad policy to use public funds to merely retain a portion of jobs.  It is a poor use of E.D. funds and bad public policy.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 30, 2016, 09:21:57 PM
"I've been watching these politicians go through this for years. I've been watching them give low-interest loans. I've been watching them give zero-interest loans. These companies don't even need the money, most of them; they take the money. There were a couple of instances where geniuses with great lawyers gave them money and then they moved anyway...I mean, the whole thing is crazy."  - Donald J. Trump October 2016.


Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on November 30, 2016, 09:30:02 PM
 "Over the years, I've watched, for years, for 10 years, for 12 years, for 15 years, beyond Obama, and I've watched as politicians talked about stopping companies from leaving our states. Remember, they'd give the low-interest loans. Here's a low-interest loan if you stay in Pennsylvania. Here's a zero-interest loan. You don't have to pay. Here's a this. Here's a tax abatement of any kind you want. We'll help your employees. It doesn't work, folks. That's not what they need. They have money. They want to go out, they want to move to another country, and because our politicians are so dumb, they want to sell their product to us and not have any retribution, not have any consequence. So all of that's over." Donald J. Trump - August 2016

Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: matteusleus on November 30, 2016, 10:23:54 PM
I highly doubt Carrier stayed in the US because Indiana offered them $700k - maybe that would be enough to stay in Indiana instead of moving to Texas or another state (cough, cough Ohio!)... but you're right, long term it would not make sense for Indiana to offer this package if everything else stayed equal.  But that is the point and that Politico article missed the mark... everything else is not equal.  Trump ran his entire economic campaign on common sense business tax rates & potentially punishing imported goods through tariffs (I have not heard a lot on that part but I'm guessing its next). 

My assumption and we'll know in a year (hopefully sooner) if I am correct, Carrier is not moving to Mexico based on Trump's tax plan and perhaps import tariffs.  But don't get this confused... its all about competitive business tax rates.  Carrier is staying in Indiana based on the state tax incentives.     
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: matteusleus on November 30, 2016, 10:40:16 PM
Tell that to the people whose jobs were saved, not only at GM and Chrysler but also down the supply chains, not to mention the totally unrelated private businesses which depended on those people working nearby and having disposable income to spend.

Normal bankruptcy laws would have saved the valuable aspects & jobs of GM & Chrysler and all the jobs throughout the supply chains you mentioned.  Bankruptcy laws were created save what is valuable, which in the case of GM & Chrysler there was plenty of value left, and to shed the liabilities that would make saving the valuable items impossible if they would remain.  GM & Chrysler would actually have been stronger today if normal bankruptcy proceedings were followed compared to the bailout. 
   
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: audidave on November 30, 2016, 11:12:02 PM
I would agree. The Indiana deal is nice but the parent company is looking long term and how it affects the majority of its companies which are defense oriented. This puts a feather in the oversized cap of the prez elect. That is worth yuge amounts of deals all that stroking.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hootenany on December 01, 2016, 09:16:05 AM
My assumption and we'll know in a year (hopefully sooner) if I am correct, Carrier is not moving to Mexico based on Trump's tax plan and perhaps import tariffs.  But don't get this confused... its all about competitive business tax rates.  Carrier is staying in Indiana based on the state tax incentives.     

Companies don't move production facilities to Mexico because of a tax benefit.  The primary reason is labor rates.  It's really that simple.  Our corporate tax rate structure does need updating, but it's not the reason that production facilities are moving.  My guess is that Carrier's parent company changed their mind to avoid an adversarial relationship with the incoming administration.  The cost savings by moving this one facility is peanuts to UTC's bottom line so why would they risk their relationship with a potential spend-heavy administration to save a couple million bucks over 10 years or so?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on December 01, 2016, 09:31:03 AM
^ This is the type of nationalism Trump brings to the table. It's a strongarm tactic - he's making it widely known that if companies try to move jobs out of the US to improve their bottom line, he will drag their name through the mud. He's asking them to care a bit more about jobs and fellow Americans, not just their shareholders. The obvious threat is not only losing government contracts (of which Carrier has plenty, it's not just their parent company) but private sales as well as Trump can generate days media coverage at will with a single over the top Tweet - and no one wants to buy a product from a company the president says hates America and moves jobs to Mexico.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: SixthCity on December 01, 2016, 09:42:10 AM
Can anyone identify any potentially adverse long-term consequences of strong arming companies with international consumer bases into less efficient and higher cost production arrangements that they wouldn't choose otherwise?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: TBideon on December 01, 2016, 10:02:10 AM
"https://www.yahoo.com/news/mexico-disappointed-carrier-agreement-keep-232858468.html"

Mexico disappointed at Carrier agreement to keep jobs in US

Oh f-uck them. The US has lost 5 million manufacturing jobs in the last 16 years. Almost 60,000 factories from 2000-2010 alone. And guess where a very healthy chunk of those once good paying jobs went? God forbid we retain a few.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on December 01, 2016, 10:09:11 AM
Can anyone identify any potentially adverse long-term consequences of strong arming companies with international consumer bases into less efficient and higher cost production arrangements that they wouldn't choose otherwise?

Of course there are adverse effects – just like there are adverse effects to not acting. Part of the decision making process is weighing those against each other.

One of the biggest issues concerning the future of manufacturing is that automation is coming at one point or another, that is what the US needs to stay out in front of. If we end up having no manufacturing and distribution infrastructure left, it will be much easier for places like China and Mexico to implement automation, leaving us at a distinct disadvantage.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on December 01, 2016, 10:57:33 AM
Trump talks a tough game.   He campaigned on punishing business that move to Mexico.   Carrier is being rewarded for moving more than half of their workforce to Mexico.  Trump got played by Carrier.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on December 01, 2016, 11:30:23 AM
Automation is already implemented and is the cause of probably more job losses than companies moving elsewhere for lower labor costs, less stringent regulations, and tax benefits.  The danger in this type of strong arm tactic, which I don't know that it was in fact a strong arm tactic, is the precedent it sets. Companies routinely make cities, states, and countries compete for their business operations. If companies know they can get sweetheart deals directly from the POTUS, that will only enhance their incentive to announce a move, clean up on incentives to stay, and end up with tons of positive PR.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: matteusleus on December 01, 2016, 11:36:13 AM
Can anyone identify any potentially adverse long-term consequences of strong arming companies with international consumer bases into less efficient and higher cost production arrangements that they wouldn't choose otherwise?

Of course there are adverse effects – just like there are adverse effects to not acting. Part of the decision making process is weighing those against each other.

One of the biggest issues concerning the future of manufacturing is that automation is coming at one point or another, that is what the US needs to stay out in front of. If we end up having no manufacturing and distribution infrastructure left, it will be much easier for places like China and Mexico to implement automation, leaving us at a distinct disadvantage.

Exactly.  Yes, the reasons to move to Mexico right now is low wages.  As wages rise in Mexico or automation costs decrease, which one or the other will happen, these workers will be replaced by automation in Mexico if we don't do anything now.  Trump is pushing for common sense tax reform which will create a business friendly environment to bring manufacturing back to US & that will only happen through automation.  Unskilled workers being replaced by automation creates a whole new manufacturing industry and set of jobs.  As an example for a plant using automation, it creates jobs for engineers designing robots, companies to manufacture robots, people selling the robots, and other engineers to implement the robots, just as an example.  And of course there are lots of examples of automation other than just robots.       

This is the only way American manufacturing will see a resurgence & Trump seems to understand the need for American manufacturing.  I haven't even mentioned anything about China and all the intellectual property risks associated with manufacturing there - seems to me a company like Apple would protect itself by relocating certain plants to the US.  Again, this will only happen with tax reform and they could absolutely move to the US. 

I just hope he looks at it in the context described above instead of giving huge tax breaks to stave off the inevitable.  Companies are certainly smart enough to understand this & Trump  should be too.  He may be the only person that could actually pull off tax reform.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hootenany on December 01, 2016, 12:07:18 PM
So, with the massive tax breaks (both corporate and personal income) that seem inevitable in the next Congress how exactly are we going to balance the budget?  Are we no longer concerned about the deficit? 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: jam40jeff on December 01, 2016, 12:15:38 PM
So, with the massive tax breaks (both corporate and personal income) that seem inevitable in the next Congress how exactly are we going to balance the budget?  Are we no longer concerned about the deficit? 

Democrats have been the only ones working toward a balanced budget for at least 30 years now.  Trump's plan is supposed to add $10 trillion in debt over the next 4 years.  This is just one example of why.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on December 01, 2016, 12:18:27 PM
^^Priorities, my man.  This is par for the course.  Same thing happened under Reagan and Bush II. 

What I'm hoping for is that the Dems in Congress make the GOP garner the necessary support for any debt imploding measures..... and, for certain, MAKE those Tea Party loyalists vote in favor of raising the debt ceiling.  At least hold out until the last minute just to watch Ryan scramble around trying to find the necessary support within his own caucus.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on December 01, 2016, 12:23:15 PM
So, with the massive tax breaks (both corporate and personal income) that seem inevitable in the next Congress how exactly are we going to balance the budget?  Are we no longer concerned about the deficit? 

"We" in the sense of elected officials haven't been for a long time now, sad to say.  I support a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, along with limits on the power to print money.  I'll still support it in the wilderness with Trump in power.  But I don't have any illusions about getting majority support (let alone Article V support) on Capitol Hill anytime soon.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 01, 2016, 03:26:10 PM
Kevin Necessary ‏@knecessary  1h1 hour ago
ICYMI: My latest editorial cartoon: #Trump visits #Cincinnati.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyneDOvXAAA0Oqt.jpg:large)
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 01, 2016, 04:11:44 PM
January 21, 2016: "I will protect you from Goldman Sachs, I will protect you from CitiBank… and I’m going to protect you from these banks." Donald Trump.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 01, 2016, 04:14:10 PM
Bush White House ethics lawyer: Trump must sell his business empire or face impeachment. http://nyti.ms/2gR0kxV
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cyn7d9WXgAA1CBa.jpg:large)
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 01, 2016, 04:30:55 PM
Trump could face the ‘biggest trial of the century’ — over climate change
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/01/trump-could-face-the-biggest-trial-of-the-century-over-climate-change/?postshare=8871480632368751&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.8dca5e20f710
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Clevelander17 on December 01, 2016, 07:49:51 PM
We can, but we seldom did before publicly funded private competition entered the scene.  In practice, at least as things currently stand, I tend to agree with you that the public magnet options have generally surpassed the charters that prompted their formation.  I already said that upthread.  But I think it strains plausible deniability to argue that voucher and charter competition wasn't a huge part of pushing hidebound school districts to form new options.  It might be a cosmic coincidence that Akron Public went from zero to two magnet schools in a small-to-moderate span of years after school choice went statewide (and was upheld by the Supreme Court).  But it might also not be.

Akron Firestone has been an IB school since 1995 and for at least some portion of the past two decades has served as a selective magnet school (though perhaps not currently?). Based on what I have read, I don't think there's been significant growth in selective magnet schools in urban districts. New York City and Chicago have had a number of them for decades, and in other urban areas they have been around since the 1960s and 1970s when many were established to try to combat white flight and promote "natural" desegregation. I would agree that either way, there's certainly not enough of them nationwide, and districts would be wise to respond to any infiltration of charter schools and voucher programs by expanding magnet options.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 01, 2016, 08:44:27 PM
Another brilliant American heard from...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/01/politics/donald-trump-supporters-check-in-camerota-new-day-cnntv/index.html?sr=fbCNN120116donald-trump-supporters-check-in-camerota-new-day-cnntv0116PMStory
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 01, 2016, 08:55:31 PM
The view from Toronto....

This headline is a blatant insult to decent seven year old boys, everywhere.  https://t.co/ETkpdAFfVV
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on December 01, 2016, 08:56:14 PM
Mike Pence must've been too busy passing laws allowing discrimination against LGBT individuals to care about Carrier's jobs back in 2014.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/308421-pence-denied-request-to-help-carrier-in-2014

Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 01, 2016, 09:02:14 PM
Trump’s Self-Congratulatory Tour Kicks Off With Half-Empty Rally In Cincinnati
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/12/01/trumps-self-congratulatory-half-empty-arena.html
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 01, 2016, 09:13:34 PM
Trumpgrets....

https://trumpgrets.tumblr.com/?og=1
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 8Titles on December 02, 2016, 05:35:23 AM
Trump thanking the people (individual voters) that put him in office is a good sign and nice gesture. 

If Hillary had won, she would've held a "dinner" at $100K/plate with proceeds going to the Clinton foundation (I mean Chelsea's living expenses) thanking those that put her in office; special interest groups, lobbyists, and Wall St execs.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on December 02, 2016, 05:52:58 AM
The view from Toronto....

This headline is a blatant insult to decent seven year old boys, everywhere.  https://t.co/ETkpdAFfVV

I dunno, sounds a lot like my six year old nephew especially when he's just gotten back from his dad's house.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on December 02, 2016, 05:57:16 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/01/politics/james-mattis-trump-secretary-of-defense/

Okay, when his defense secretary designate is enthusiastically pro-Ukraine (vs. Russia) and emphasizes close ties with moderate Islamic nations, it becomes clear that most of Candidate Trump's foreign policy was either un-thought out or complete bovine excrement.   (Or both).

We'll see who SecState is. 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on December 02, 2016, 05:58:37 AM
Kevin Necessary ‏@knecessary  1h1 hour ago
ICYMI: My latest editorial cartoon: #Trump visits #Cincinnati.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyneDOvXAAA0Oqt.jpg:large)

LOL!  His hands are going to become like Obama's ears.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: bfwissel on December 02, 2016, 06:55:28 AM
Trump thanking the people (individual voters) that put him in office is a good sign and nice gesture. 

If Hillary had won, she would've held a "dinner" at $100K/plate with proceeds going to the Clinton foundation (I mean Chelsea's living expenses) thanking those that put her in office; special interest groups, lobbyists, and Wall St execs.

Trump did have a fundraiser last night doing the same thing you're saying Clinton would have done.  What say you now?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: bfwissel on December 02, 2016, 06:56:53 AM
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/blogs/2016/12/01/trump-did-lot-more-thank-voters-cincy-stop/94731218/

"An hour before the rally, Trump stopped off at the Queen City Club to hobnob with the high-rolling Fourth Street crowd and top Ohio politicos for a private Republican National Committee fundraiser. It was at least $20,000 to get in the door, Politics Extra learned, and the event showed Republicans are willing to forgive Trump – and vice versa."
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 8Titles on December 02, 2016, 07:20:59 AM
Trump thanking the people (individual voters) that put him in office is a good sign and nice gesture. 

If Hillary had won, she would've held a "dinner" at $100K/plate with proceeds going to the Clinton foundation (I mean Chelsea's living expenses) thanking those that put her in office; special interest groups, lobbyists, and Wall St execs.

Trump did have a fundraiser last night doing the same thing you're saying Clinton would have done.  What say you now?
Really, are the proceeds going to the Clinton Foundation?  Who was in attendance, lobbyists and Wall St Execs?  What was the cost?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: bfwissel on December 02, 2016, 07:24:31 AM
Trump thanking the people (individual voters) that put him in office is a good sign and nice gesture. 

If Hillary had won, she would've held a "dinner" at $100K/plate with proceeds going to the Clinton foundation (I mean Chelsea's living expenses) thanking those that put her in office; special interest groups, lobbyists, and Wall St execs.

Trump did have a fundraiser last night doing the same thing you're saying Clinton would have done.  What say you now?
Really, are the proceeds going to the Clinton Foundation?  Who was in attendance, lobbyists and Wall St Execs?  What was the cost?

I'm not Google, but see below.  This is my problem with Trump's low information supporters, the high level of ignorance and intellectual laziness.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/blogs/2016/12/01/trump-did-lot-more-thank-voters-cincy-stop/94731218/

"An hour before the rally, Trump stopped off at the Queen City Club to hobnob with the high-rolling Fourth Street crowd and top Ohio politicos for a private Republican National Committee fundraiser. It was at least $20,000 to get in the door, Politics Extra learned, and the event showed Republicans are willing to forgive Trump – and vice versa."
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on December 02, 2016, 07:31:25 AM
Trump thanking the people (individual voters) that put him in office is a good sign and nice gesture. 

If Hillary had won, she would've held a "dinner" at $100K/plate with proceeds going to the Clinton foundation (I mean Chelsea's living expenses) thanking those that put her in office; special interest groups, lobbyists, and Wall St execs.

Trump did have a fundraiser last night doing the same thing you're saying Clinton would have done.  What say you now?
Really, are the proceeds going to the Clinton Foundation?  Who was in attendance, lobbyists and Wall St Execs?  What was the cost?

I'm not Google, but see below.  This is my problem with Trump's low information supporters, the high level of ignorance and intellectual laziness.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/blogs/2016/12/01/trump-did-lot-more-thank-voters-cincy-stop/94731218/

"An hour before the rally, Trump stopped off at the Queen City Club to hobnob with the high-rolling Fourth Street crowd and top Ohio politicos for a private Republican National Committee fundraiser. It was at least $20,000 to get in the door, Politics Extra learned, and the event showed Republicans are willing to forgive Trump – and vice versa."

So it was an RNC fundraiser. 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Cleburger on December 02, 2016, 07:40:12 AM
Trump thanking the people (individual voters) that put him in office is a good sign and nice gesture. 

If Hillary had won, she would've held a "dinner" at $100K/plate with proceeds going to the Clinton foundation (I mean Chelsea's living expenses) thanking those that put her in office; special interest groups, lobbyists, and Wall St execs.

Don't forget, this is a thank you "TOUR," so their will be events in every city he goes to.  Hillary may have (hypothetically) hosted a $100,000/plate dinner, but Trump will have five $20,000/plate dinners.   

So in the end, Hillary (hypothetically) is more efficient, and there will be no draining of your metaphorical swamp.   

Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on December 02, 2016, 07:40:55 AM
I guess we can argue semantics or just agree that both candidates are Wall Street cronies that do fund raisers.  If you still want to live in your drain the swamp fantasy,  then that's your prerogative.   
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on December 02, 2016, 07:58:36 AM
Trump thanking the people (individual voters) that put him in office is a good sign and nice gesture. 

If Hillary had won, she would've held a "dinner" at $100K/plate with proceeds going to the Clinton foundation (I mean Chelsea's living expenses) thanking those that put her in office; special interest groups, lobbyists, and Wall St execs.

Don't forget, this is a thank you "TOUR," so their will be events in every city he goes to.  Hillary may have (hypothetically) hosted a $100,000/plate dinner, but Trump will have five $20,000/plate dinners.   

So in the end, Hillary (hypothetically) is more efficient, and there will be no draining of your metaphorical swamp.   



I think you can talk about $20k per plate, but nobody really knows how many attended or how much was raised.   It might not be much at all.  Trump is still an outsider in the political world and the business sector is reaching out only because they have to at this point. 

Hillary and the Clinton machine's fundraising was more prolific than what America has ever seen and may never be topped especially if any campaign finance reform is passed.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: jam40jeff on December 02, 2016, 08:06:17 AM
I think you can talk about $20k per plate, but nobody really knows how many attended or how much was raised.

Wait...so Trump throws a fundraiser and we know exactly how much it cost to get in, and we're not allowed to draw any conclusions...but Hillary didn't even win the election and we can speculate on a hypothetical fundraiser with a hypothetical $100k/plate charge?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Cleburger on December 02, 2016, 08:09:55 AM
Trump thanking the people (individual voters) that put him in office is a good sign and nice gesture. 

If Hillary had won, she would've held a "dinner" at $100K/plate with proceeds going to the Clinton foundation (I mean Chelsea's living expenses) thanking those that put her in office; special interest groups, lobbyists, and Wall St execs.

Don't forget, this is a thank you "TOUR," so their will be events in every city he goes to.  Hillary may have (hypothetically) hosted a $100,000/plate dinner, but Trump will have five $20,000/plate dinners.   

So in the end, Hillary (hypothetically) is more efficient, and there will be no draining of your metaphorical swamp.   



I think you can talk about $20k per plate, but nobody really knows how many attended or how much was raised.   It might not be much at all.  Trump is still an outsider in the political world and the business sector is reaching out only because they have to at this point. 

Hillary and the Clinton machine's fundraising was more prolific than what America has ever seen and may never be topped especially if any campaign finance reform is passed.

Correct, and since Hillary never even proposed, let alone hosted the $100,000/plate dinner hypothesized above, we won't know what that would have raised either.  It might not be much at all.   In fact, she probably won't be hosting many more in the future, at least not on that scale.   

My point here is Trump, despite touting himself as a self-financing outsider, is diving straight into the swamp.   Headfirst!    I didn't see campaign finance on the agenda for the first 100 days, and I doubt you'll see it in the remaining 1,360 days either.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on December 02, 2016, 08:14:32 AM
I think you can talk about $20k per plate, but nobody really knows how many attended or how much was raised.

Wait...so Trump throws a fundraiser and we know exactly how much it cost to get in, and we're not allowed to draw any conclusions...but Hillary didn't even win the election and we can speculate on a hypothetical fundraiser with a hypothetical $100k/plate charge?

I never suggested anything about a hypothetical $100k per plate.  I'm just saying that Clinton's fundraising during the campaign was more than 2:1 over Trump's.  Their fundraising network is massive.  In Ohio, Trump can't even get a call back from the Governor.  So draw your own conclusions.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Cleburger on December 02, 2016, 08:19:18 AM
I think you can talk about $20k per plate, but nobody really knows how many attended or how much was raised.

Wait...so Trump throws a fundraiser and we know exactly how much it cost to get in, and we're not allowed to draw any conclusions...but Hillary didn't even win the election and we can speculate on a hypothetical fundraiser with a hypothetical $100k/plate charge?

I never suggested anything about a hypothetical $100k per plate.  I'm just saying that Clinton's fundraising during the campaign was more than 2:1 over Trump's.  Their fundraising network is massive.  In Ohio, Trump can't even get a call back from the Governor.  So draw your own conclusions.

You're not following the quoting.....it was 8titles who hypothesized that Hillary would be hosting such an event.   

Agree with you on Trump and Kasich.  While not a Trump supporter, I worry that we will all be punished over the next four years, further pushing Ohio into the capital of Flyover Country....
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: bfwissel on December 02, 2016, 08:48:16 AM
10 Invent an example of bad behavior by someone you don't like
20 Ignore your candidate involved in the actual behavior raised
30 Invent a distinction with no difference
40 Become silent on the issue
50 GOTO 10
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Pablo on December 02, 2016, 08:55:40 AM
For those of you planning a trip to the inauguration, here's a breakdown of what access to the president and cabinet will cost:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/29/us/politics/document-Trump-Inaugural-Benefit-Packages.html
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on December 02, 2016, 09:19:33 AM
Trump thanking the people (individual voters) that put him in office is a good sign and nice gesture. 

If Hillary had won, she would've held a "dinner" at $100K/plate with proceeds going to the Clinton foundation (I mean Chelsea's living expenses) thanking those that put her in office; special interest groups, lobbyists, and Wall St execs.

Trump did have a fundraiser last night doing the same thing you're saying Clinton would have done.  What say you now?
Really, are the proceeds going to the Clinton Foundation?  Who was in attendance, lobbyists and Wall St Execs?  What was the cost?

Well that response is indicative of a 'low information' voter
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on December 02, 2016, 09:23:56 AM
Instead of 'draining the swamp' it looks like Trump is planning to merely replace the creatures which inhabit it.  I don't see how his cabinet picks differ from any previous administration.  I don't take issue with about half of them, but they all are part of this supposed swamp and have been for some time.

Does anyone think that Palin is under serious consideration to head an agency?  I've heard her name is on the list for VA Secretary, Dept. of Interior, and Dept. of Energy.  Oh boy....

Also, while I don't really dislike Mattis, there should and will be a debate about him not meeting the 'civilian' requirement for Secretary of Defense.  He has only been retired 3 years.  I think the regs call for at least 7 years.  This is a real concern, even though I'm sure it can and has been waived.  Putting career military people in charge of the military is a risky proposition.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: jam40jeff on December 02, 2016, 09:29:02 AM
Instead of 'draining the swamp' it looks like Trump is planning to merely replace the creatures which inhabit it.

He's dumping toxic waste into the swamp.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on December 02, 2016, 09:50:14 AM
Also, while I don't really dislike Mattis, there should and will be a debate about him not meeting the 'civilian' requirement for Secretary of Defense.  He has only been retired 3 years.  I think the regs call for at least 7 years.  This is a real concern, even though I'm sure it can and has been waived.  Putting career military people in charge of the military is a risky proposition.
It would take a waiver that I think needs to be granted by both Houses of Congress (not just confirmation by the Senate), but given Republican control of both chambers, I can't imagine he won't get that waiver.  I'm more curious as to how long he'll last.  The borderline-hagiographic pieces I've read about him in the conservative media make him seem like anything but the kind of loyalist that Trump generally favors.  The fact that they both have combative personalities alone isn't enough for an enduring working relationship (far from it).

Instead of 'draining the swamp' it looks like Trump is planning to merely replace the creatures which inhabit it.  I don't see how his cabinet picks differ from any previous administration.  I don't take issue with about half of them, but they all are part of this supposed swamp and have been for some time.

Trump is pushing Wilbur Ross at Commerce and Steven Mnuchin at Treasury in something resembling the same vein he pushed himself as a candidate (yes, I was part of the system, but I hate it and can rip it apart).  But nothing I've seen about those guys gives them anywhere near Trump's ability to be convincing on that front.  Trump's outward affect has always been as a conspicuous outsider in the billionaires' club--his speech, even his hair.  Ross and Mnuchin were definitely both beneficiaries of the bank bailout and also beneficiaries of the high-flying times before it.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Cleburger on December 02, 2016, 03:34:56 PM
Does this mean she's not getting the gig over in Veterans Affairs?

Sarah Palin: Trump's Carrier deal is 'crony capitalism'

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/sarah-palin-donald-trump-carrier-deal-crony-capitalism-232139
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on December 02, 2016, 03:36:58 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if this was part of an effort of hers to strong-arm her way into a cabinet post.  No quicker way to shut her up than to put her on your payroll.  Trump understands that about as well as anyone.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: taestell on December 02, 2016, 06:08:01 PM
I was thinking, the Carrier deal earned Trump a lot of good PR because it saved 800 blue collar jobs. You know, the type of jobs that held by real, hard-working, meat-and-potatoes-eating Americans. Almost all of the positive reaction I saw to the deal wasn't about the actual economics, it was about "how important it was to those 800 families to save those jobs." Which made me wonder, would the U.S. government would ever make a similar deal to save 800 white collar jobs if some company threatened to move those jobs overseas? Even though those while collar jobs probably pay 50% more, so "saving" those jobs would make more economic sense, they are held by granola-eating liberals, so it doesn't evoke the same kind of visceral response as 800 factory workers or steel mill workers or whatever.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: TBideon on December 02, 2016, 06:19:42 PM
Lawyers, accountants, attorneys and medical professionals are granola-eating liberals??
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 02, 2016, 06:26:48 PM
Agree with you on Trump and Kasich.  While not a Trump supporter, I worry that we will all be punished over the next four years, further pushing Ohio into the capital of Flyover Country....

If that's true, Trump wouldn't have held his first post-election thank-you event in Ohio. I'm told the Ohio General Assembly, gubernatorial frontrunner Mike Dewine and other GOPers in Ohio are trying to distance themselves from Kasich.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: taestell on December 02, 2016, 06:29:12 PM
Lawyers, accountants, attorneys and medical professionals are granola-eating liberals??

You tell me.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 02, 2016, 06:38:33 PM
Trump has some 'splaining to do with the Chinese. This is the kind of thing someone does if they don't know any better or don't have anything better to do than mend fences with the soon-to-be largest economy in the world...

Trump speaks with Taiwanese president, a major break with decades of U.S. policy on China
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-spoke-with-taiwanese-president-a-major-break-with-decades-of-us-policy-on-china/2016/12/02/b98d3a22-b8ca-11e6-959c-172c82123976_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumpdiplomacy-6pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.43e6951b8d60
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 02, 2016, 06:52:07 PM
Learn from Europe's mistakes...

A Yale history professor’s powerful, 20-point guide to defending democracy under a Trump presidency
http://qz.com/846940/a-yale-history-professors-20-point-guide-to-defending-democracy-under-a-trump-presidency/
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: matteusleus on December 02, 2016, 08:33:27 PM
Lawyers, accountants, attorneys and medical professionals are granola-eating liberals??

You tell me.

haha who doesn't like granola??  But I would say only the bad lawyers & accountants are liberals and medical professionals are too busy to pay attention to ridiculous politics.  So to answer your question, yes they exist. 

"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart.  If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on December 02, 2016, 09:07:29 PM
Speaking of having no brain:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/804863098138005504

This guy better start getting his security briefings instead of taking victory laps.   I cant believe people voted for this idiot.




Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: TBideon on December 02, 2016, 09:39:25 PM
So we can sell weapons to Taiwan, but Trump accepting a phone call is what's going to piss off China?

He has a point.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on December 02, 2016, 09:49:42 PM
So you think that was a good point to air over Twitter..... 

He called Taiwan; they did not call him.   I wonder if his potential development in Taiwan has anything to do with his call.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: TBideon on December 02, 2016, 09:59:52 PM
This one doesn't bother me too much. Taiwan has its own military, currency, government, language dialects, culture, etc, all of which we support, but it's a faux pax to talk to the government leaders? It's an overwhelmingly stupid policy.

With all the crimes that China commits that we seem to permit (human rights violations, government authorized hacking), they can keep their mouths shut here. And if Trump wants to give China a little wink here with the tweet, then so be it.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: taestell on December 03, 2016, 01:39:15 AM
Russian TV network NTV broadcasts wall-to-wall anti-propaganda — “non-stop horror stories about how dangerous the country is” to remind the population why they need the strong hand of the Kremlin.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/putin-russia-tv-113960#.VK-PKGQ-xLZ


Hmmm, sounds familiar...
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on December 03, 2016, 06:48:21 AM
I read that a study has concluded that for each job we save from going elsewhere, we pay on average $450,000. Would it maybe be better to give each laid off worker a check in that amount? 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Clevelander17 on December 03, 2016, 08:40:21 AM
I read that a study has concluded that for each job we save from going elsewhere, we pay on average $450,000. Would it maybe be better to give each laid off worker a check in that amount? 

No, because then we're picking winners and losers. Globalization and technological innovation is part of a runaway train that cannot be stopped. How is it to be decided with American workers that lose their jobs to these forces get six figure checks and which ones do not?

Regardless, I'm not sure that there is a net economic benefit to ever pursuing this type policy, even if it saves a few hundred jobs. The idea here was to ensure a PR win for Trump, but taxpayers and consumers will get the short end of the stick if this becomes the norm.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 03, 2016, 08:59:49 AM
Cities that become sanctuaries against an oppressive Trump regime will be punished by Trump? WTF happened to my America??

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/nyregion/fearing-loss-of-us-money-under-trump-new-york-begins-urgent-review.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share

If the cities are denied federal funds, then the cities need to block the collecting of federal taxes from their residents and businesses. I had long envisioned a urban-rural political divide worsening in the coming years. This appears to be the political weaponization of it.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Boreas on December 03, 2016, 09:14:11 AM
Engineers and business types I worked with were tight-headed Republicans who kept starting political discussions. Even my white-guy boss started talking about elections and expected me to chime in with Obama hatred.
I hated that place.
deal to save 800 white collar jobs if some company threatened to move those jobs overseas? Even though those while collar jobs probably pay 50% more, so "saving" those jobs would make more economic sense, they are held by granola-eating liberals
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on December 03, 2016, 09:28:15 AM
A lot of times it depends on the product or service that determines the politics of a private sector establishment.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 03, 2016, 09:43:56 AM
Chinese controlled @globaltimesnews STRONG op-ed warning Trump on Taiwan.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1021730.shtml#.WELjpF5B56A.twitter

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cywvc-jXEAgRFOX.jpg:large)
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Clevelander17 on December 03, 2016, 09:51:58 AM
Cities that become sanctuaries against an oppressive Trump regime will be punished by Trump? WTF happened to my America??

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/nyregion/fearing-loss-of-us-money-under-trump-new-york-begins-urgent-review.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share

If the cities are denied federal funds, then the cities need to block the collecting of federal taxes from their residents and businesses. I had long envisioned a urban-rural political divide worsening in the coming years. This appears to be the political weaponization of it.

The crazy thing here is that these metropolitan areas are generally net donors of Federal tax revenue. So in essence, they send a lot of money to the government and have to beg for some of it back, often with policy strings attached that run counter to local public preference. It happens at the state level, too. Since Trump and many righties seem like such big supporters of local sovereignty (i.e. Tawain, Brexit, etc.), perhaps the same type of freedom should be extended on the homefront. Maybe large American metropolitan areas should be allowed to have city-state status and be able to more independently determine their own fates?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on December 03, 2016, 09:54:23 AM
They like all those tiny government entities since they are easier to corrupt.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 03, 2016, 10:02:40 AM
Trump voter lost home, blames incoming Treasury secretary
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-voter-lost-her-home-112850181.html
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on December 03, 2016, 10:22:01 AM
People who voted for "Trump June 2015-Nov. 8th. 2016" then got "Trump 1983-May 2015/Nov. 9th 2016-on) should have spent more time paying attention to "Trump 1983-May 2015" to see what they were really getting.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 03, 2016, 11:54:11 AM
TheSearchForTruth: #Trump tells Cincinnati rally that violent crime is at a 45-year high. It's actually at a 51-year low, according to latest FBI data.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyomjOdWEAAL3vS.jpg)
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on December 03, 2016, 12:15:06 PM
None of the people at the rally actually live in the city so they don't know. He can say all kinds of outdated stuff like that since people think its still 1988.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 03, 2016, 12:16:50 PM
Trump is freakin' unbelievable. Duterte is indiscriminately allowing the killing of thousands without due process, including 5 year olds...

Philippines' deadly drug war praised by Donald Trump, says Rodrigo Duterte
Philippines leader says US president-elect felt drug war which has killed thousands was being fought ‘the right way’
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/03/philippines-rodrigo-duterte-donald-trump-white-house-invite

Meanwhile Brietbart has criticized the Obama administration for not supporting Duterte. I'm ashamed to be an American.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Boreas on December 03, 2016, 01:07:54 PM
Sarah Palin: Trump's Carrier deal is 'crony capitalism'
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/sarah-palin-donald-trump-carrier-deal-crony-capitalism-232139

She has LaTourette's syndrome: a Republican who starts blurting out reality.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on December 03, 2016, 01:33:34 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/01/politics/james-mattis-trump-secretary-of-defense/

Okay, when his defense secretary designate is enthusiastically pro-Ukraine (vs. Russia) and emphasizes close ties with moderate Islamic nations, it becomes clear that most of Candidate Trump's foreign policy was either un-thought out or complete bovine excrement.   (Or both).

We'll see who SecState is. 

I think what we're seeing here is that Trump does not want to surround himself with "yes men," as many critics implied he would do during the election. He seems to want the best person for the job. Mad Dog Mattis is exactly that, IMO.

So you think that was a good point to air over Twitter..... 

He called Taiwan; they did not call him.   I wonder if his potential development in Taiwan has anything to do with his call.

Wrong. Tsai called Trump, and the very vague rumors of a potential hotel were outright denied by Trump Hotels. There's no evidence of any plans, aside from one person claiming a "Ms. Chen" inquired about something Trump related. It sounds completely fabricated in the absence of any corroborating evidence. It's pretty clear the intent of taking the call and publicly making a point of doing so was to set the tone with China. That should be enough to rustle your jimmies, there's no need to look for made up ulterior motives. Though the whole left wing support of China in general requires a bit of cognitive dissonance given the plethora of human rights issues like Tibet, North Korea, etc.

Cities that become sanctuaries against an oppressive Trump regime will be punished by Trump? WTF happened to my America??

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/nyregion/fearing-loss-of-us-money-under-trump-new-york-begins-urgent-review.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share

If the cities are denied federal funds, then the cities need to block the collecting of federal taxes from their residents and businesses. I had long envisioned a urban-rural political divide worsening in the coming years. This appears to be the political weaponization of it.

No business owner in their right mind would listen to goofy city officials telling them to not collect federal taxes. The president has every right to deny federal funding if local jurisdictions refuse to enforce the laws as written, and there are plentiful precedents - everything from the Drinking Age Act to the Civil Rights movement provide examples. In fact, the former might actually be a good model to follow - all federal funding across the board could be slashed by a certain percentage to cities that refuse to enforce immigration laws. Cities could be given transition time, as a gesture of good will, before the percentage gradually increased to 100%.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on December 03, 2016, 02:58:17 PM
Try to understand this Ram.  It is not the job of a president elect to set the tone with anybody.  Trump screwed up.    If he us considering changing US policy in reference to Asia, then he needs to announce this plan.   He screwed up.  Everyone knows he screwed up.  Obama has to clean up his mess.  Stop admiring the emperor's new clothes.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on December 03, 2016, 03:42:08 PM
^ Taking phone calls like that one is exactly what the job of a president elect is. I'm sure there were all sorts of advisors and suits telling him he couldn't take the call. It wasn't a "screw up" at all. If Trump wants to change America's tone he doesn't need to announce anything to you in advance, he can just do it with a Tweet, like he did here.

You need to get used to him doing this type of thing for he next 8 years. It's part of the reason many people, like myself, voted him into office.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on December 03, 2016, 03:46:27 PM
When did the president-elect announce a change to the one China Policy? 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Boreas on December 03, 2016, 03:54:26 PM
Wrong. Tsai called Trump, and the very vague rumors of a potential hotel were outright denied by Trump Hotels. There's no evidence of any plans,

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,30962.665.html#ixzz4Rod5ZYiR
If you are going to claim that Trump didn't make the call, please back it up with some documentation. Thank you
edit: on second thought, Trump was fool to have that conversation no matter who initiated it. This idiot is going to cause a war with somebody if he doesn't keel over from the stress in the next eight months.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on December 03, 2016, 04:07:17 PM
I guess we should just take Trump Hotels for their word too.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/03/trumps-taiwan-phone-call-preceded-by-hotel-development-inquiry


http://shanghaiist.com/2016/11/18/trump_taiwan_expand.php
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: mrnyc on December 03, 2016, 05:26:44 PM
r/jokes strikes again...!



A man is helping his daughter with a history paper, when suddenly she asks: "Hey dad, can you tell me about 2016?"

Father: "Oh honey, are you sure you want to write about that?"

Daughter: "Yes! Nobody seems to want to write about it for some reason."

Father: "Well, if you insist..."

The father moves into the kitchen with his daughter in toe, opens the liqueur cabinets, and chugs vodka for 5 seconds straight.

He then sits down with his daughter and begins, tears streaming down his face:

"Alright so it started with this f**king Gorilla down in Cincinnati..."
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: TBideon on December 03, 2016, 06:44:59 PM
This whole issue is partisan nonsense: I don't remember you guys flipping out when Obama actually met with the Daili Lama in June; I don't remember anyone on these boards complaining when the US sent a destroyer by the artificial islands near Beijing. Both times China whined - and that was the end of that.

Trump can take a phone call from whomever he damn well pleases, and frankly he can call anyone he wants (though I concede if the call was related to his hotels, that's a grave concern for other reasons). China doesn't get to dictate US policy, and if this particular incident is so damaging to our alliance with our "ally" that there are real consequences, well, then hostilities were probably inevitable anyway.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on December 03, 2016, 06:59:36 PM
China is making noise about this.  It is not just liberal nonsense. 

Obama's meeting with the Dalai Lama also angered China and was widely reported.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: TBideon on December 03, 2016, 08:23:54 PM
Reported but not criticized by people on this forum, and in general. I don't recall CNN criticizing it or frankly anyone caring all that much.

I'm seeing a lot of partisan and shameful reactions to Trump's regaining 800 jobs on urbanohio and most media outlets. Sure he gave subsidies, but those newly regained jobs affects 3000 people or so including families. An entire community that would have been utterly devastated has a second chance, and the lack of empathy for those people is in poor taste. Sanders, Krugman, the Times, and many on the left seem focused on the $7 million (over 7 years) in subsidies and some abstract precedent this sets (as though corporate welfare is a new phenomenon). I'd rather those workers stay employed with subsidies than become another destroyed town thanks to free trade's bastardization. Better a job than the welfare, unemployment, Medicaid, and any number of other subsidies those 800 people and their families would have likely received anyway.

When Carrier announced it was leaving, I saw no compassion for those who would have lost their livelihoods and the community shattered. It was a blip of a story. And now people are in arms because Trump stepped in and actually won this round. It's partisan ignorance at its finest.

And if Obama had done the same thing, a lot of these reactions would have been very different. Probably on both sides.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on December 03, 2016, 08:34:31 PM
Actually, when Carrier leaving was announced (youtybe video of union workers being told) I remember reading comments on many blogs making fun of dumb union liberals.  So it swings both ways.  When GM was going under and Obama bailed them out many people (maybe rightly) stated that he was interfering with the market.  Now Trump thinks he is going to jaw bone every single company.  Losing 60% of the workforce while rewarding the company is not a victory.  Trump got played by Carrier.

The Dalai Lama stuff is very different from the Taiwan situation.  Trump has only received 2 of his briefing sand is nowhere near up to speed to be handling diplomatic phone calls.  The call with Taiwan is only the latest in a string of gaffes (Pakistan and Duterte.)  Defend him all you want but the emperor wears no clothes.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on December 04, 2016, 09:37:16 AM
Cities that become sanctuaries against an oppressive Trump regime will be punished by Trump? WTF happened to my America??

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/nyregion/fearing-loss-of-us-money-under-trump-new-york-begins-urgent-review.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share

If the cities are denied federal funds, then the cities need to block the collecting of federal taxes from their residents and businesses. I had long envisioned a urban-rural political divide worsening in the coming years. This appears to be the political weaponization of it.

Or, they could, you know, follow the law of the country that they're part of.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on December 04, 2016, 10:22:54 AM
They are following the law.  The law states that federal government cannot commandeer local and state law enforcement.   
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 04, 2016, 03:01:50 PM
Or, they could, you know, follow the law of the country that they're part of.

I'm sure you could name many laws in this country and other developed countries in the past 100 years that were immoral and were soon reversed, amended or no longer enforced. Just because a government says I should do/not do something, doesn’t make it right. Nor should I blindly follow my leaders. When the policies of my national government go in a direction I don't agree with, and when my local/regional policies go in a direction I do agree with, then I'm going to follow the cities. There is nothing written that says the United States in its current form will or should outlast it's cities. Indeed history shows that cities typically outlive their national governments, country names and boundaries.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on December 04, 2016, 04:25:29 PM
Wrong. Tsai called Trump, and the very vague rumors of a potential hotel were outright denied by Trump Hotels. There's no evidence of any plans,

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,30962.665.html#ixzz4Rod5ZYiR
If you are going to claim that Trump didn't make the call, please back it up with some documentation. Thank you
edit: on second thought, Trump was fool to have that conversation no matter who initiated it. This idiot is going to cause a war with somebody if he doesn't keel over from the stress in the next eight months.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/804848711599882240

So far as I know, no one has ever stated otherwise. If Trump says Taiwan made the call, and no one in Taiwan is saying otherwise, it seems like a pretty open and shut case.

This wasn't a foolish call at all by Trump. My fiancee is Taiwanese and her family has been rather "meh" about the whole ordeal. The US has been dealing with Taiwan, selling them military equipment, etc. for decades. They are essentially a US ally - the fact that there was an unwritten rule that our leaders couldn't talk to each other is absurd, when you think about it. Anyone who has ever worked in the corporate or bureaucratic world comes across rules like that one all the time. No one can ever really explain why it's a 'rule' other than the fact that "we've always done it this way." Talking on the phone to their president doesn't change any official policy - it just makes it apparent that we aren't going to beat around the bush anymore.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on December 04, 2016, 05:03:38 PM
So you have nothing.   
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on December 04, 2016, 05:19:39 PM
^ I could link any of 10,000+ sources, all of which say the same thing - Trump accepted the call from Tsai. I wasn't even aware anyone was questioning it, given that Taiwan is saying the same thing as Trump, and literally no one aside from you is saying otherwise. Here's a source from Taipei (in English - and owned by George Soros of all people) saying the call was made from Taiwan to Trump:

That Trump singled out the congratulatory call from Tsai Ing-wen among many similar calls from other world leaders and mentioned it on Twitter and Facebook indicated Trump’s and his team’s emphasis on Taiwan, Tsai Ming-yen said.

He said that while China would certainly object to and pressure Washington over the call, the important thing is whether Trump’s team can withstand the pressure. “If the answer is positive, Taiwan-US ties would no longer be subjected to Beijing’s reactions and be solely about Taipei and Washington,” he said.


http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2016/12/05/2003660611

And the NY Times:

"Mr. Trump expressed no misgivings about taking the call from President Tsai Ing-wen, which was arranged beforehand at the initiative of the Taiwanese government, not Mr. Trump’s camp."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/us/politics/donald-trump-taiwan-china.html?_r=0

Here's a pretty straightforward analysis of the issue courtesy Mike Pence:

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/12/04/pence-mystifying-obama-a-hero-for-talking-to-dictators-but-its-a-controversy-trump-talks-to-taiwan/
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on December 04, 2016, 05:23:15 PM
Is your contention that Taiwan called out of the blue without any advanced planning?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: sir2gees on December 04, 2016, 05:30:25 PM
Trump supporters please explain to me why you think he's a tough guy who takes no crap. He's constantly on Twitter whinning about everything. He's mad at Alec Baldwin. He's mad at SNL. He's mad at the media. He's so thin-skinned. He isn't in office yet. The real criticism hasn't started. Also, why is he still on Twitter?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on December 04, 2016, 05:33:34 PM
^billionaire president-elect born to  a wealthy family - life is rigged against me.  LOL
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: sir2gees on December 04, 2016, 05:48:40 PM
Seriously...he constantly whinning. He's letting Alec Baldwin get under his skin. Think about that. He's about to be the leader of the free world and SNL has him rattled. He can dish it, but he can't take it...
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on December 04, 2016, 05:57:35 PM
perhaps we misunderstood him when he said we'd be tired of all the "winning."
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Clevelander17 on December 04, 2016, 06:11:59 PM
^billionaire president-elect born to  a wealthy family - life is rigged against me.  LOL

He needs his safe space.

Hopefully SNL keeps this up for the next 49 months.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on December 04, 2016, 07:12:02 PM
He is a special snowflake.  Alec Baldwin needs to be more PC (AKA less biased)
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Cleburger on December 04, 2016, 08:21:22 PM
Apparently Baldwin has offered to stop doing the Trump impersonations when Trump releases his taxes...so there's that.....
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on December 04, 2016, 09:05:13 PM
Or, they could, you know, follow the law of the country that they're part of.

I'm sure you could name many laws in this country and other developed countries in the past 100 years that were immoral and were soon reversed, amended or no longer enforced. Just because a government says I should do/not do something, doesn’t make it right. Nor should I blindly follow my leaders. When the policies of my national government go in a direction I don't agree with, and when my local/regional policies go in a direction I do agree with, then I'm going to follow the cities. There is nothing written that says the United States in its current form will or should outlast it's cities. Indeed history shows that cities typically outlive their national governments, country names and boundaries.

So the real issue with the 12 million people here illegally is that it's illegal for them to be here?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on December 05, 2016, 06:07:23 AM
Or, they could, you know, follow the law of the country that they're part of.

I'm sure you could name many laws in this country and other developed countries in the past 100 years that were immoral and were soon reversed, amended or no longer enforced. Just because a government says I should do/not do something, doesn’t make it right. Nor should I blindly follow my leaders. When the policies of my national government go in a direction I don't agree with, and when my local/regional policies go in a direction I do agree with, then I'm going to follow the cities. There is nothing written that says the United States in its current form will or should outlast it's cities. Indeed history shows that cities typically outlive their national governments, country names and boundaries.

Then we could make the case that illegal aliens are a threat to our national sovereignty over the places they settle.   That would justify a much more assertive approach than the idea that they are taking advantage of benefits to which they are not entitled.

It would be the flip side of the Geneva Convention's ban on settling civilians in conquered lands, that Israel routinely violates.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 05, 2016, 07:15:44 AM
You could, and we could also say that letting them in and stay is the most human thing to do, in accordance with the teachings of major religions. It's also the most productive thing to do for our nation's economy. So if you truly believe in America and its goodness and economic prowess, you would not only let them stay but invite more in. For the betterment of America....
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 05, 2016, 07:16:07 AM
Half-Empty Arenas at Victory Lap Rallies May Be the Work of Clever Trump Critics
https://civitasonline.net/2016/12/03/half-empty-arenas-victory-lap-rallies-may-be-work-of-clever-trump-critics/
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: ryanlammi on December 05, 2016, 07:31:37 AM
KJP:

1) That looks like a garbage site. I've never heard of it, but immediately don't trust it. It looks like fake news to me.

2) You don't need tickets to enter a Trump event. They allow you to RSVP, but they never check for a ticket. So they can't sell out.

3) Those photos of an empty US Bank Arena were all taken well before anyone took the stage. Stop believing fake news. It might not have been as crowded as the pre-election rally in Cincinnati (which wasn't at capacity, but was still a good turnout), but it was still quite a lot of people.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on December 05, 2016, 07:54:01 AM
Is your contention that Taiwan called out of the blue without any advanced planning?

No - in the post you're replying to, I quoted the New York Times article that says the call "was arranged beforehand at the initiative of the Taiwanese government." So Trump knew it was coming and took it on purpose, and then made a point of drawing attention to it. It was a fairly innocent way to let China know they won't have much leeway over Trump's positions. He will work with Taiwan in a way that benefits both parties, and China won't have much say in the matter.

Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on December 05, 2016, 09:06:01 AM
You could, and we could also say that letting them in and stay is the most human thing to do, in accordance with the teachings of major religions.  It's also the most productive thing to do for our nation's economy.

Then the cities are welcome to surrender their federal funding in exchange for all those wonderful economic benefits and fidelity to their rather specious interpretation of what major religions teach.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 05, 2016, 11:04:27 AM
Your next national security advisor....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/05/did-michael-flynn-really-tweet-something-about-pizzagate-not-exactly/?utm_term=.c6c565264b3d
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 05, 2016, 11:14:16 AM
Then the cities are welcome to surrender their federal funding in exchange for all those wonderful economic benefits and fidelity to their rather specious interpretation of what major religions teach.

By not expelling immigrants, cities and other secular governments not beholden to religious dogma are actually doing a better job of following the benevolent teachings of a religion that the religious right claims to follow. Cities are showing love to people while the religious right is only showing their hate.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on December 05, 2016, 11:53:02 AM
Then the cities are welcome to surrender their federal funding in exchange for all those wonderful economic benefits and fidelity to their rather specious interpretation of what major religions teach.

By not expelling immigrants, cities and other secular governments not beholden to religious dogma are actually doing a better job of following the benevolent teachings of a religion that the religious right claims to follow. Cities are showing love to people while the religious right is only showing their hate.

 :roll: And when they internalize that pedantic sophistry, and refuse to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants when reading their fortune-cookie talking points, they lose the right to complain about their loss of funding from a government whose laws they actively reject and resist.  (They should count themselves lucky if the loss of funding is the worst that happens to them.)
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Jskinner on December 05, 2016, 11:59:44 AM
You could, and we could also say that letting them in and stay is the most human thing to do, in accordance with the teachings of major religions.  It's also the most productive thing to do for our nation's economy.
Then the cities are welcome to surrender their federal funding in exchange for all those wonderful economic benefits and fidelity to their rather specious interpretation of what major religions teach.
The cities pay 100% and have to beg for 61% "federal funding" back.  http://nyti.ms/2gZDQel (http://nyti.ms/2gZDQel)

For complicated reasons — some of which have to do with rural poverty, some of which have to do with the basic physics of supporting infrastructure in low-density regions — a disproportionate amount of per capita federal spending and benefits now flow down to the low-density states. According to a study by the Tax Foundation conducted several years ago, for every dollar New Jersey pays in federal taxes, it receives 61 cents in benefits and other federal spending. For the same dollar of taxes Wyoming spends, it gets $1.11 back.

Why should the taxpayers in blue cities be bullied by redstates who don't pay their share?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on December 05, 2016, 12:09:52 PM
You could, and we could also say that letting them in and stay is the most human thing to do, in accordance with the teachings of major religions.  It's also the most productive thing to do for our nation's economy.
Then the cities are welcome to surrender their federal funding in exchange for all those wonderful economic benefits and fidelity to their rather specious interpretation of what major religions teach.
The cities pay 100% and have to beg for 61% "federal funding" back.  http://nyti.ms/2gZDQel (http://nyti.ms/2gZDQel)

For complicated reasons — some of which have to do with rural poverty, some of which have to do with the basic physics of supporting infrastructure in low-density regions — a disproportionate amount of per capita federal spending and benefits now flow down to the low-density states. According to a study by the Tax Foundation conducted several years ago, for every dollar New Jersey pays in federal taxes, it receives 61 cents in benefits and other federal spending. For the same dollar of taxes Wyoming spends, it gets $1.11 back.

Why should the taxpayers in blue cities be bullied by redstates who don't pay their share?

I take it from this that you concede the general evil of redistribution of wealth and income and would support policies at all levels of government to end it?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: SixthCity on December 05, 2016, 12:12:45 PM
^ hahaha
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 327 on December 05, 2016, 12:19:30 PM
Failure to redistribute is a crime against capitalism, in addition to being a crime against humanity.  People need to possess money before they can spend or invest it.  In many ways, the ongoing issue with donor states is just a necessary continuation of post-civil-war reconstruction.  But now that the northern cities have been wrecked, it may be time to reverse that flow.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hootenany on December 05, 2016, 02:41:34 PM
All this talk of not following federal law or refusing to collect federal income tax is stupid, for lack of a better word.  Cities have methods to challenge federal law.  Using some vague definition of morality to justify the refusal to follow federal law is a dangerous precedent to set.  I didn't think that would need to be explained to liberals.  How quickly do you think bible study would be introduced to public schools in the South if New York is allowed to ignore immigration law penalty free?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on December 05, 2016, 03:06:49 PM
Local police cannot be commandeered by the Federal Government.   
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on December 05, 2016, 03:48:15 PM
^ That's not the debate, at all. No one is suggestion the federal government take over police departments. They are suggesting that Trump suspend all DOJ funding to sanctuary cities law enforcement agencies. He can do so very easily thanks to the "Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996." In fact, he could probably do it on day 1 if he wants to. If these cities fail to comply, Congress could take it even further and suspend all sorts of funding with new legislation... that would all likely be held up in Trump's Supreme Court.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 05, 2016, 03:51:45 PM
:roll: And when they internalize that pedantic sophistry, and refuse to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants when reading their fortune-cookie talking points, they lose the right to complain about their loss of funding from a government whose laws they actively reject and resist.  (They should count themselves lucky if the loss of funding is the worst that happens to them.)

Sounds like you have a pre-occupation with the law, rather than why laws exist (or get amended or eliminated). The cities are the economic engines of the United States of America, and indeed of every country. Without the cities, the rest of the country fades because it is no longer subsidized by them. For too long, the cities have done whatever is in their own individual best interest. But when the cities are united by a common cause, they become even more powerful. Those who take them for granted or otherwise think less of them would be well to remember that in the coming months and years.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on December 05, 2016, 03:54:20 PM
^^I understand the debate.  The federal government cannot do that.   

US constitution,  10th amendment
Prigg v Pennsylvania
New York v. United States
Prinz v united States
Independent Business v sebelius - court held that federal government cannot force states to act against their will by witholding funds in a coercive manner.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 05, 2016, 03:55:24 PM
All this talk of not following federal law or refusing to collect federal income tax is stupid, for lack of a better word.  Cities have methods to challenge federal law.  Using some vague definition of morality to justify the refusal to follow federal law is a dangerous precedent to set.  I didn't think that would need to be explained to liberals.  How quickly do you think bible study would be introduced to public schools in the South if New York is allowed to ignore immigration law penalty free?

The ability of this nation to be held together anymore as it has been is rapidly slipping away. If you think that is stupid, that is only an opinion. It doesn't mean it will or won't happen. There are many who think that it should happen. It's just a country. They come and go with time.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on December 05, 2016, 04:52:02 PM
^^I understand the debate.  The federal government cannot do that.   

I linked a law, that has been existence since 1996, that says they can do exactly that.

Whatever argument you're trying to loosely piece together might be one that could be tried in court some day by one of these sanctuary cities, but as of right now what Trump is threatening to do is not only legal it's literally prescribed by law.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on December 05, 2016, 05:52:42 PM
Take a look at the supreme Court cases.  The end
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 327 on December 05, 2016, 06:13:30 PM
All this talk of not following federal law or refusing to collect federal income tax is stupid, for lack of a better word.  Cities have methods to challenge federal law.  Using some vague definition of morality to justify the refusal to follow federal law is a dangerous precedent to set.  I didn't think that would need to be explained to liberals.  How quickly do you think bible study would be introduced to public schools in the South if New York is allowed to ignore immigration law penalty free?

The ability of this nation to be held together anymore as it has been is rapidly slipping away. If you think that is stupid, that is only an opinion. It doesn't mean it will or won't happen. There are many who think that it should happen. It's just a country. They come and go with time.

We survived 8 years of Reagan, although this does seem worse, and the economy was stronger back then.  So... maybe.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 8Titles on December 05, 2016, 06:30:29 PM
All this talk of not following federal law or refusing to collect federal income tax is stupid, for lack of a better word.  Cities have methods to challenge federal law.  Using some vague definition of morality to justify the refusal to follow federal law is a dangerous precedent to set.  I didn't think that would need to be explained to liberals.  How quickly do you think bible study would be introduced to public schools in the South if New York is allowed to ignore immigration law penalty free?

The ability of this nation to be held together anymore as it has been is rapidly slipping away. If you think that is stupid, that is only an opinion. It doesn't mean it will or won't happen. There are many who think that it should happen. It's just a country. They come and go with time.

We survived 8 years of Reagan, although this does seem worse, and the economy was stronger back then.  So... maybe.
Yes the economy was stronger after 8 years of Reagan than it is now after 8 years of Obama's "slow growth & record debt" policy.  Which is amazing since Reagan followed probably the worst president since the Great Depression.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: sir2gees on December 05, 2016, 06:40:10 PM
^It's amazing we are where we are at now considereding the ecomomy almost collapsed in 2008 and we experienced the worst recession since the Great Depression.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on December 05, 2016, 06:43:06 PM
Take a look at the supreme Court cases.  The end

Take a look at the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and then try to explain how whatever it is you think you're seeing in those cases applies here. Feel free to use more than 10 words.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on December 05, 2016, 07:11:40 PM
The federal government cannot compel states/ local authorities to enforce federal laws.  There is no need to look at anything other than the Supreme Court Cases that I listed above.  Independent Business v. Sebelius,  is rather clear but i will list the finding of the Supreme Court once again:


federal government cannot force states to act against their will by withholding funds in a coercive manner.  Please explain to me how states or local governments will be compelled to enforce federal law while not violating the constitution as interpreted in the 4 cases previously mentioned.  I'll wait.





Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 8Titles on December 05, 2016, 07:24:17 PM
^It's amazing we are where we are at now considereding the ecomomy almost collapsed in 2008 and we experienced the worst recession since the Great Depression.
It's amazing that we have had the weakest post-recession growth in history while Obama has increased the debt by more than all previous presidents combined.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on December 05, 2016, 07:28:09 PM
Ram23 - Have you actually read the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996?  Do you think it compels the state to enforce federal law? 

Besides the Supreme Court Cases I listed please find the following from said act:

"(9) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require any State or political subdivision of a State to enter into an agreement with the Attorney General under this subsection.

The end.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on December 05, 2016, 07:36:52 PM
^ You're still completely missing the point - these laws are already on the books and came after the cases you're talking about. The issue isn't about forcing State/Local authorities to enforce laws, it's that they can't violate federal laws. "Sanctuary City" policies do exactly that (they violate the law I've referenced twice now, which you haven't even looked at). Even Obama's DOJ agrees that "state and local governments may not prohibit or restrict workers from sharing information about a person’s immigration status with federal immigration officials." If the INS asks, and they certainly will under Trump, local authorities have to respond. If they ask NYPD, for example, to report the immigration status of everyone they book, they have no choice but to comply. If not, the DOJ can take action. Lynch obviously hasn't despite having issued a warning that she could. Jeff Sessions will have a field day, though.

But it's pointless to argue here further. Trump was elected and in a little over a month we will start to see these policies become real. I'm sure they'll be challenged in court by people who share your opinions, but with Trump getting to pick the new Supreme Court Justice - good luck getting anything overturned in the long run. And in the mean time, we will see grants revoked and/or cities complying and assisting INS.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on December 05, 2016, 07:39:27 PM
Ram Please show me the law the came after the Sebelius case which compels states to enforce federal law.  I will continue to wait for your proof.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: SixthCity on December 05, 2016, 07:52:14 PM
Ram Please show me the law the came after the Sebelius case which compels states to enforce federal law.  I will continue to wait for your proof.

But would witholding whatever federal funds the sanctuary cities stand to lose be considered "coercive?"  That's the threshold question here.  I'm pulling from pure memory but I think the language in Sebelius and the principle from the cases you listed barred the federal government from "holding a gun to the head" of local jurisdictions (re pulling funding if they don't adhere to federal policy).  What constitutes the crossing of that threshold is unclear to me but I think they would have to stand to lose a lot of funding.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on December 05, 2016, 08:02:05 PM
The feds would not be compelling local authorities to enforce federal law, they would be punishing local authorities for violating federal law. That's a very big difference and it's why these cases aren't all that relevant. If the INS issues something along the lines of a standing order to sanctuary cities that they need to report the immigration status of everyone they book, it's illegal for them to not comply. They wouldn't have to round up illegal immigrants, but they would have to report and detain them if they are pulled over or brought in for other crimes. If they refuse, the DOJ can take action - including revoking grants and funding.

Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on December 05, 2016, 08:03:42 PM
further reading:

Though the federal government cannot legally compel states to comply with federal law, it is permitted to use financial rewards or incentives to encourage states to comply.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442578/sanctuary-cities-federal-law-congress-power-purse-incentivizes-cooperation

This is a conservative source.  There is a distinct difference between providing incentives for complying and withholding funds for non-compliance.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on December 05, 2016, 08:05:21 PM
Revoking grants is withholding funds.  It is no different than Sebelius.  You are out of your league here.  You should focus on pizzagate and spirit cooking.

Finally, the Court ruled that the federal government cannot force the states to act against their will by withholding funds in a coercive manner. In Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), the Court held that the federal government can not compel states to expand Medicaid by threatening to withhold funding for Medicaid programs already in place. Justice Roberts argued that allowing Congress to essentially punish states that refused to go along violates constitutional separation of powers.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: audidave on December 05, 2016, 08:41:06 PM
Oh don't worry.  He does.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 05, 2016, 09:09:48 PM
People of America: If you didn't already know, you are now starting to understand the fact that our president-elect Donald Trump is absolutely unfit for office.

He is a psychopath. He doesn't take advice, he doesn't admit mistakes and he thinks he knows everything. He has zero experience.

He has no plan, or any understanding of how the world works. Only thing he cares about is himself. He is delusional.

He believes in conspiracy theories, and he's constantly being fed more of them. He doesn't believe in our own intelligence agencies.

His promises won't happen. There will be no wall. He won't "drain the swamp" or deport millions. You will get nepotism and cronyism instead.

He doesn't care about you, or your civil rights. He is not interested in your well-being. See his tax plan, he's going to help the 1% and that's all.

Have you looked at his closest advisors? See anyone even remotely sane? There's convicted criminals, racists and conspiracy theorists.

This is some third-world dictator stuff in the making. Expect him to suppress press freedom, silence critique and attack your liberties by portraying the victims as villains.

But hey, maybe you will get Alex Jones on the TV. He will talk how CIA's secret mind control chemicals make frogs gay or similar goofiness. We must understand that he's not a normal president who is following a plan. Don't pretend he has one.

Keep a close eye on what he and his minions are doing as things might go downhill really fast. He will piss off a lot of powerful people. And they will soon attempt to take him down, hopefully with as little collateral damage as possible. We will all play a role to some degree, including innocent victim. What role you play is up to you.

###
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: ColDayMan on December 06, 2016, 12:12:27 AM
You tell people "I hear things on the internet, thus it's true"...ya get this...

Alleged gunman tells police he wanted to rescue children at D.C. pizza shop after hearing fictional Internet accounts

(https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/12/05/Local/Images/Comet_056.JPG)

For 45 minutes, police said, Edgar Maddison Welch, cradling an AR-15 assault-style rifle, roamed the Comet Ping Pong pizza restaurant looking to prove an Internet conspiracy theory that the popular D.C. restaurant harbored juvenile sex slaves.

The few patrons had fled before Welch shot off the lock to an inside door, sending a bullet into a computer tower. The North Carolina man then turned the gun on an employee who emerged from the back holding pizza dough. The worker ran out, unharmed.

With D.C. police amassing outside on Sunday afternoon, Welch finally walked out with his hands up — but not before he finished his search.

He had come to rescue the children, court papers say he later told police, and now was convinced that none was being harmed there.

D.C. Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri on Monday ordered Welch — known to his friends by his middle name, Maddison — jailed until his next hearing on Thursday. He faces several gun-related charges, including assault with a dangerous weapon.
---
A new Internet conspiracy theory emerged Monday. Citing Welch’s minor background as an actor, some claimed the gun incident was either staged or even a hoax altogether. And on Sunday night, Michael Flynn Jr., the son and top aide of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for national security adviser, tweeted that the Comet Ping Pong conspiracy theory might still be true.

More below:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/alleged-gunman-tells-police-he-wanted-to-rescue-children-at-dc-pizza-shop-after-hearing-fictional-internet-accounts/2016/12/05/cb5ebabc-bae8-11e6-ac85-094a21c44abc_story.html?utm_term=.0e5b95d00c69

:wtf:
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on December 06, 2016, 07:27:58 AM
further reading:

Though the federal government cannot legally compel states to comply with federal law, it is permitted to use financial rewards or incentives to encourage states to comply.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442578/sanctuary-cities-federal-law-congress-power-purse-incentivizes-cooperation

This is a conservative source.  There is a distinct difference between providing incentives for complying and withholding funds for non-compliance.

From your own link:

So far, both Chicago and New York City have refused to alter their sanctuary-city policies to accord with federal law, which means they’re forced to walk away from future federal grants. In the case of Chicago, the city is declining over $2 million in grants for the upcoming fiscal year, while New York City is passing up close to $15 million. It remains unclear how the other jurisdictions will respond to the department’s guidance.

Furthermore, Culberson says any jurisdictions that refuse to comply might be denied other annual federal discretionary grants if additional departments require jurisdictions to comply with all federal law in order to be eligible for funding. It is even possible that the cities in question could be required to refund the Justice Department the money that they received in past years while defying federal law. For Chicago that would mean paying the federal government at least $66 million, and for New York City over $200 million at minimum. If California persists in its sanctuary policy, it could owe the federal government over a billion dollars.


The government can do this, and likely will. The court cases you are referencing might be relevant should one of these cities sue the feds, but as of now it's perfectly legal for the government to withhold this funding. Many other laws - from civil rights issues to the driving age - set precedent for the government to connect funding to federal law.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on December 06, 2016, 07:55:13 AM
The future grants are grants related to enforcement of immigration.    the feds will give out money to help local governments enforce federal laws.  Sanctuary cities will not receive this money but will not be required to enforce federal law.  The fed cannot withhold any funding unrelated to enforcement of immigration because it will am out to coercion as defined by the Sebelius case. 

I'm glad conservatives set the precedent in Sebelius.   Law of unintended consequences prevails.

Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 06, 2016, 07:58:20 AM
"It seemed like since Thursday, it was 1,100 then it was maybe 900 and then now we're at 700."
http://www.wthr.com/article/usw-730-union-jobs-saved-in-carrier-deal-not-1100
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 06, 2016, 08:10:18 AM
Trump advisors aim to privatize Native American reservations to sell oil & gas reserves #Reuters https://t.co/XL7nOJMLOD
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 06, 2016, 08:15:57 AM
Under Trump, red states are finally going to be able to turn themselves into poor, unhealthy paradises
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/04/democrats-can-look-forward-to-the-coming-republican-era-being-a-disaster-for-republican-voters/?tid=sm_fb
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on December 06, 2016, 08:18:27 AM
:roll: And when they internalize that pedantic sophistry, and refuse to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants when reading their fortune-cookie talking points, they lose the right to complain about their loss of funding from a government whose laws they actively reject and resist.  (They should count themselves lucky if the loss of funding is the worst that happens to them.)

Sounds like you have a pre-occupation with the law, rather than why laws exist (or get amended or eliminated). The cities are the economic engines of the United States of America, and indeed of every country. Without the cities, the rest of the country fades because it is no longer subsidized by them. For too long, the cities have done whatever is in their own individual best interest. But when the cities are united by a common cause, they become even more powerful. Those who take them for granted or otherwise think less of them would be well to remember that in the coming months and years.

Quite honestly, this all makes either no sense or is obviously true but equally obviously irrelevant.  The fact that cities are the economic engines of the country does not give them a right to act as sanctuaries to illegal aliens, any more than it gives them the right to ignore the federal EPA or HUD.  I have no more a "preoccupation with the law" than you; it's just that I see the law as moral and am glad to have a commander-in-chief who at least has paid lip service (for whatever it's worth) to the notion that it should be followed, and you apparently see open borders (or at least amnesty for those who have acted as if the border were open) as a higher priority than either federal law itself or the people or country it was written to protect.

Take a look at the supreme Court cases.  The end

Except that you cited a bunch of Supreme Court cases that aren't on point.  The one you're looking for is South Dakota v. Dole (1987), in which the Court held 7-2 that it was permissible for the federal government to withhold 5% of highway funding for any state that did not raise the legal drinking age to 21.  The most vague, and thus the most controversial, holding within the opinion was that the withholding of funds can be an "inducement" but cannot be "coercive," with both of those terms undefined (which, in practice, means they will be decided by lower court judges later).  But I strongly suspect that the courts will find that the federal government is on significantly firmer ground when it withholds funds to enforce compliance with federal law rather than inducing changes in state law.

I don't know Prigg, but the bulk of the other cases you cited are anti-commandeering cases, which basically hold that you can't conscript state or local law enforcement to enforce federal laws (among other things, that would allow Congress to effectively play backseat driver to state budgets, where state officials take the heat at the ballot box for the taxes necessary to fund the police and then the federal government gets to decide what they actually do, which is a federalism violation that the Supreme Court was entirely right to nix).  But I doubt that that principle is going to be extended to say that the federal government commandeers local law enforcement when it requires that the federal government be allowed to take custody (on the federal government's dime) of persons wanted for violations of federal law, and the state and local police can't just turn him loose back into the general population because they oppose the federal law.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: TBideon on December 06, 2016, 09:53:57 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/pentagon-buries-evidence-of-125-billion-in-bureaucratic-waste/2016/12/05/e0668c76-9af6-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.4eb339216b99

Pentagon buries evidence of $125 billion in bureaucratic waste


My this article boils my blood. Another reason of many why Trump is president-elect. The status quo and acceptance of colossal waste have got to change.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Cleburger on December 06, 2016, 10:19:58 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/pentagon-buries-evidence-of-125-billion-in-bureaucratic-waste/2016/12/05/e0668c76-9af6-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.4eb339216b99

Pentagon buries evidence of $125 billion in bureaucratic waste


My this article boils my blood. Another reason of many why Trump is president-elect. The status quo and acceptance of colossal waste have got to change.

Agreed--this is why I can't stand either big political party when it tells voters "we are going to build the military."   We already have a huge military!   Let's make it more efficient and better for the people actually serving or have served, not the bloat of civilian contractors!
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on December 06, 2016, 10:22:51 AM
^I smell Bush leftovers.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: TBideon on December 06, 2016, 10:24:59 AM
Over $4 billion for the Air Force program? Jesus, is the plane that President Obama uses obsolete already? Is he currently a sitting duck when he travels? Have the terrorists advanced, or are expected to advance, their technology that rapidly?

Or is it just more unchecked waste, waste, waste.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 06, 2016, 10:45:43 AM
One thing that I can be certain of, Gramarye, if Trump proposes something, it isn't moral. He is one of the most evil men to win the presidency. He must be disobeyed just on principle.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 06, 2016, 10:47:46 AM
New poll: 56% of Trump voters say that if a news outlet reports he lied, they'd believe him over media https://t.co/2csvu3wX56
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 06, 2016, 10:50:54 AM
Billionaire Betsy DeVos blocked efforts to hold Michigan's numerous abysmal charter schools accountable. https://t.co/N2VjzUxHQJ
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on December 06, 2016, 12:46:02 PM
Billionaire Betsy DeVos blocked efforts to hold Michigan's numerous abysmal charter schools accountable. https://t.co/N2VjzUxHQJ

It's a shame, because DeVos is going to see far too much opportunity for special interest pandering in being the head of the Department of Education to advocate eliminating it entirely, which ought to be on the table.

I gather that isn't where you were going with that.  But surprisingly, I actually agree with you on the bare fact of the conclusion that DeVos probably isn't the best choice to lead the department.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 06, 2016, 01:41:44 PM
Kurt Eichenwald ‏@kurteichenwald  2h2 hours ago
Air Force One tweet tantrum -- a lie pushed just after Boeing says concerned about Trump trade policies -- is a frightening abuse of power.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on December 06, 2016, 02:09:01 PM
at what point is the world going to end under trump?  Judging by KJP, we only have a few months to get our affairs in order.  Start working on that bucket list folks....
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on December 06, 2016, 03:32:44 PM
Kurt Eichenwald ‏@kurteichenwald  2h2 hours ago
Air Force One tweet tantrum -- a lie pushed just after Boeing says concerned about Trump trade policies -- is a frightening abuse of power.

What's frightening is Boeing trying to charge $4 billion for a new plane.  That's the same as some state's annual budgets.

“The plane is totally out of control,” Mr. Trump said. “It’s going to be over $4 billion for Air Force One program, and I think it’s ridiculous. I think Boeing is doing a little bit of a number. We want Boeing to make a lot of money, but not that much money.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/us/politics/trump-air-force-one-boeing.html?mtrref=undefined
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on December 06, 2016, 03:42:54 PM
The guy isn't even in office yet but he's already doing more for us than Obama!

Trump: SoftBank to invest $50B in U.S., create 50,000 jobs

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/12/06/trump-softbank-invest-50b-us-create-50000-jobs/95050926/

SAN FRANCISCO — Telecommunications giant SoftBank Group plans to invest $50 billion into the U.S. economy, and add 50,000 jobs, president-elect Donald Trump announced in New York Tuesday.

Trump made the announcement over Twitter after meeting with SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son for 45 minutes at Trump Tower.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: taestell on December 06, 2016, 03:46:05 PM
I don't know if $4 billion is too expensive, but "$4 billion for a new plane" is not the same thing as $4 billion for the "Air Force One program".

From the article: "Beyond convenience, Air Force One carries an array of top-secret communications gear for conducting everyday business — and for managing a global crisis, if required, while aloft. It is also equipped with a number of never discussed security features."

I think Mr. Trump is struggling with the concept that he's going to need to use specialized secure communications systems. Which is ironic, given the whole thing about Hillary Clinton not using secure communications systems for classified information.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: jam40jeff on December 06, 2016, 03:49:42 PM
What's the over/under on number of days until Trump tweets classified information?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on December 06, 2016, 04:06:42 PM
Is Trump really just going to take credit for every announcement of new jobs?  Or in the case if carrier, the loss of 60% of the jobs.  People are such rubes.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on December 06, 2016, 04:19:53 PM
Is Trump really just going to take credit for every announcement of new jobs?  Or in the case if carrier, the loss of 60% of the jobs.  People are such rubes.

Perhaps.  And perhaps you should just admit falling into the basket of people who would really not be satisfied with anything that Trump does, at all. 

Like seriously, if the headline were "Carrier moves all 2,000 jobs to Mexico despite Trump negotiations", you'd still be hating.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on December 06, 2016, 04:24:44 PM
Paying money to move most jobs to Mexico is not a win.  It is also not what he promised.    Carrier is closing their plant in Huntington, in  .  Where is the 35% tariff? 

The guy shows up to take credit.  He's gonna do this for 4 years.  Rubes will eat it up.  Also, Carrier announced maybe accidentally that their 16 million investment includes automation.   I wonder how many of the 730 saved jobs will be there in 5 years.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: matteusleus on December 06, 2016, 05:51:29 PM
Paying money to move most jobs to Mexico is not a win.  It is also not what he promised.    Carrier is closing their plant in Huntington, in  .  Where is the 35% tariff? 

The guy shows up to take credit.  He's gonna do this for 4 years.  Rubes will eat it up.  Also, Carrier announced maybe accidentally that their 16 million investment includes automation.   I wonder how many of the 730 saved jobs will be there in 5 years.

Good.  The $16mm investment should include automation because that's the only way that plant will still be open 5-10 years from now.  What about the jobs created by automation... industrial salesmen selling the products, engineers implementing it, other engineers to keep it operational, blue collar jobs working repair & maintenance, jobs in the offices buying parts needed to keep plant operational, the jobs selling the AC unit or whatever they produce.  And this is all in the UNITED STATES!!! 

If it wasn't for technology, we'd still all be farmers.  Stop hating on domestic manufacturing - you cannot build an economy through the professional service industries and government growth.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 327 on December 06, 2016, 06:06:34 PM
Do you envision a future where servicing robots replaces even half the jobs the robots took?  If not, still a problem.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on December 06, 2016, 06:12:47 PM
at what point is the world going to end under trump?  Judging by KJP, we only have a few months to get our affairs in order.  Start working on that bucket list folks....

For so many people it seems the world has already come to and end...

Gained weight? No sex? Cut your hair? It’s all Trump’s fault

http://nypost.com/2016/12/06/gained-weight-no-sex-cut-your-hair-its-all-trumps-fault/

The disastrous effects of the Trump Era are all too real. Americans are reeling in all sorts of insidious if subtle ways. Exhibit A comes to us from Daniel’s Salon in DC’s posh Dupont Circle. “When you see that much blonde hair on the floor, you know something is going on,” says colorist Nicole Butler. Those straw-colored locks lay there like the shattered hearts of America’s children after the election caused a tsunami of women demanding drastic changes to their hair color, according to a breathless report in New York magazine.

...

Experiencing weight gain? Call it November 8 gain! “Post-Election Blues Are Causing Some People to Gain the ‘Trump 10,’ Say Weight Loss Doctors,” according to a report in People. Ten pounds in less than a month? It’s vital to eat quickly so as to store up fat against the coming wave of food shortages.

...

But the Trump Effect could mean a lot more than a lost diploma. It could cost you your very existence. “Trump’s election stole my desire to look for a partner,” wrote Stephanie Land of Missoula, Montana in The Washington Post. “There is no room for dating in this place of grief,” she added, having dumped her boyfriend even though he was equally terrified about Trump: “Dating means hope. I’ve lost that hope.”

...

“I Haven’t Had Sex in Weeks. I Blame Donald Trump,” read an October story in Cosmopolitan...
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: matteusleus on December 06, 2016, 06:21:21 PM
Do you envision a future where servicing robots replaces even half the jobs the robots took?  If not, still a problem.

Perhaps.  But I cannot control societal progress.  I am not sure I understand your point - why you would invest millions and millions in old technology and processes?  I don't think you realize how many GOOD jobs are created when technology is implemented.  Sometimes I think farming would be fun but only because I am not forced to work the lands with a sickle.   
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Cleburger on December 06, 2016, 06:27:29 PM
Do you envision a future where servicing robots replaces even half the jobs the robots took?  If not, still a problem.

Perhaps.  But I cannot control societal progress.  I am not sure I understand your point - why you would invest millions and millions in old technology and processes?  I don't think you realize how many GOOD jobs are created when technology is implemented.  Sometimes I think farming would be fun but only because I am not forced to work the lands with a sickle.   

The problem is the people those robots replace are low-skill.  They aren't up to fixing robots, but they do vote for Trump....
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 327 on December 06, 2016, 06:30:18 PM
And yet the automation (and its attendant scale requirements) have caused widespread rural poverty.  Progress for some can cause regress for many others.  Wasn't so big a deal when the only ones affected were horses and oxen.  That particular rising tide included all boats.  Different story when the tide is rising due to the number of sunken boats in the water.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: matteusleus on December 06, 2016, 06:37:47 PM
Do you envision a future where servicing robots replaces even half the jobs the robots took?  If not, still a problem.

Perhaps.  But I cannot control societal progress.  I am not sure I understand your point - why you would invest millions and millions in old technology and processes?  I don't think you realize how many GOOD jobs are created when technology is implemented.  Sometimes I think farming would be fun but only because I am not forced to work the lands with a sickle.   

The problem is the people those robots replace are low-skill.  They aren't up to fixing robots, but they do vote for Trump....

How many times have we heard about our workforce being under-employed?  A high profit, efficient plant creates wealth & tons an ancillary jobs... not just fixing robots.  You're either way off base or I just have a very high, unrealistic belief in people compared to you.  I suppose that's what also separates liberals from conservatives.  And safe spaces.  I haven't found any yet - I thought this tread may be one but its not.  haha 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Cleburger on December 06, 2016, 07:07:53 PM
He ‘lied his a– off': Carrier union leader on Trump’s big deal

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/06/he-got-up-there-and-lied-his-a-off-carrier-union-leader-on-trumps-big-deal/?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.72f2c9e27727
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Mendo on December 06, 2016, 08:50:03 PM
From the Washington Post article:
Quote
But some Pentagon leaders said they fretted that by spotlighting so much waste, the study would undermine their repeated public assertions that years of budget austerity had left the armed forces starved of funds. Instead of providing more money, they said, they worried Congress and the White House might decide to cut deeper.

!!!
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on December 06, 2016, 08:50:04 PM
And yet the automation (and its attendant scale requirements) have caused widespread rural poverty.  Progress for some can cause regress for many others.  Wasn't so big a deal when the only ones affected were horses and oxen.  That particular rising tide included all boats.  Different story when the tide is rising due to the number of sunken boats in the water.

Slowly rural dwellers went from being the backbone of our country to being unimportant unless they are the few actually involved in farming, mining, the public sector or the bar. It's got a lot to do with farming changing from being profitable for those farming 40 acres to a minimum of 2500 acres.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 327 on December 06, 2016, 09:45:11 PM
How many times have we heard about our workforce being under-employed?  A high profit, efficient plant creates wealth & tons an ancillary jobs... not just fixing robots.  You're either way off base or I just have a very high, unrealistic belief in people compared to you.  I suppose that's what also separates liberals from conservatives.  And safe spaces.  I haven't found any yet - I thought this tread may be one but its not.  haha 

Belief doesn't enter into it.  Workers can't believe payrolls into existence.  If automation is our friend, where are these net-positive effects?  It's been going on for decades, the positives should have shown up by now.  Instead it's been a cascade of negative and the data set is substantial.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on December 06, 2016, 10:21:34 PM
Beliefs
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 07, 2016, 06:30:25 AM
Fresh off Trump talks, Carrier is increasing prices to stay competitive https://t.co/GFdbQLW9nn
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on December 07, 2016, 07:11:09 AM
maybe this should go into the Obama thread...   posting it here for those defending the $4 billion air force one project

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/pentagon-buries-evidence-of-125-billion-in-bureaucratic-waste/2016/12/05/e0668c76-9af6-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.0210baca258b

Pentagon buries report of $125 billion of government waste

This should make everyone sick to their stomach
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: unusualfire on December 07, 2016, 07:46:58 AM
^Oh You mean the tweet that cost Boeing stock to drop 1.5 billion in one day? Of course it belongs here.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hootenany on December 07, 2016, 07:57:33 AM
maybe this should go into the Obama thread...   posting it here for those defending the $4 billion air force one project

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/pentagon-buries-evidence-of-125-billion-in-bureaucratic-waste/2016/12/05/e0668c76-9af6-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.0210baca258b

Pentagon buries report of $125 billion of government waste

This should make everyone sick to their stomach

Let's just get the facts on this straight right now.  Trump isn't completely off base, but as usual he has needlessly exaggerated the claim for effect.

The 747's the President uses for transportation are due for replacement.  They have about a 30 year life and the current planes were delivered in 1990.  The President needs to fly in something and I don't think most would argue that the plane should be reasonably modern.

The original program price was $2.87 billion.  However, the program is going to experience a 5 year delay and will require an addition $858 million.  So the total program cost is now $3.73 billion for 2 planes.  Trump's tweet states that it was over $4 billion for 1 plane. 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/dec/06/donald-trump/fact-checking-donald-trumps-tweet-air-force-one-bo/

I don't see what could go wrong if Trump continues to tweet inaccurate information about defense contracts to US companies.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on December 07, 2016, 01:17:32 PM
I don't see what could go wrong if Trump continues to tweet inaccurate information about defense contracts to US companies.

Plenty could go wrong.  But on the flip side, the prices will probably go down also.  Boeing has already backpedaled on cost overages and vowed to cut costs more.

As for the stock price, what a ridiculous quote.  The stock ticked down 1% on Tuesday.  It's up that much and more today.  YAWN.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on December 07, 2016, 01:46:24 PM
^Your making a leap in logic as far as cause and effect goes.  These contract are ALWAYS negotiated.  It's not like government contractors say this is the price and the government accepts it.  The introduction of random tweeting into the office of POTUS has not changed this dynamic.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on December 07, 2016, 01:50:32 PM
How many times have we heard about our workforce being under-employed?  A high profit, efficient plant creates wealth & tons an ancillary jobs... not just fixing robots.  You're either way off base or I just have a very high, unrealistic belief in people compared to you.  I suppose that's what also separates liberals from conservatives.  And safe spaces.  I haven't found any yet - I thought this tread may be one but its not.  haha 

Belief doesn't enter into it.  Workers can't believe payrolls into existence.  If automation is our friend, where are these net-positive effects?  It's been going on for decades, the positives should have shown up by now.  Instead it's been a cascade of negative and the data set is substantial.

Whether or not automation is "our" friend, what do you propose to do about it?  Outlaw computers?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 327 on December 07, 2016, 01:53:17 PM
How many times have we heard about our workforce being under-employed?  A high profit, efficient plant creates wealth & tons an ancillary jobs... not just fixing robots.  You're either way off base or I just have a very high, unrealistic belief in people compared to you.  I suppose that's what also separates liberals from conservatives.  And safe spaces.  I haven't found any yet - I thought this tread may be one but its not.  haha 

Belief doesn't enter into it.  Workers can't believe payrolls into existence.  If automation is our friend, where are these net-positive effects?  It's been going on for decades, the positives should have shown up by now.  Instead it's been a cascade of negative and the data set is substantial.

Whether or not automation is "our" friend, what do you propose to do about it?  Outlaw computers?

No, just divert some of the profits they generate toward mitigating the destruction they cause. Tit for tat, if you will.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on December 07, 2016, 02:21:40 PM
^Your making a leap in logic as far as cause and effect goes.  These contract are ALWAYS negotiated.  It's not like government contractors say this is the price and the government accepts it.  The introduction of random tweeting into the office of POTUS has not changed this dynamic.

Perhaps in most cases, you would be correct.  But the "Air Force One" program is not exactly a typical government RFP with 3 qualified bidders either. 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: jam40jeff on December 07, 2016, 02:23:33 PM
How many times have we heard about our workforce being under-employed?  A high profit, efficient plant creates wealth & tons an ancillary jobs... not just fixing robots.  You're either way off base or I just have a very high, unrealistic belief in people compared to you.  I suppose that's what also separates liberals from conservatives.  And safe spaces.  I haven't found any yet - I thought this tread may be one but its not.  haha 

Belief doesn't enter into it.  Workers can't believe payrolls into existence.  If automation is our friend, where are these net-positive effects?  It's been going on for decades, the positives should have shown up by now.  Instead it's been a cascade of negative and the data set is substantial.

Whether or not automation is "our" friend, what do you propose to do about it?  Outlaw computers?

No, just divert some of the profits they generate toward mitigating the destruction they cause. Tit for tat, if you will.

Technology doesn't cause "destruction", but it does allow for the creation of value without the need for human labor.  As computers/robots do more and more and the need for labor becomes less and less, this means that owners have the ability to accumulate more of the capital and have less of a need to distribute it to laborers (higher profits).  I am not sure what the long term solution is for this problem, because the companies themselves will eventually suffer if they don't allow for some redistribution of wealth as there won't be enough people with enough money to buy their products.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on December 07, 2016, 02:29:16 PM
^Your making a leap in logic as far as cause and effect goes.  These contract are ALWAYS negotiated.  It's not like government contractors say this is the price and the government accepts it.  The introduction of random tweeting into the office of POTUS has not changed this dynamic.

Perhaps in most cases, you would be correct.  But the "Air Force One" program is not exactly a typical government RFP with 3 qualified bidders either. 

So then are you assuming that if Boeing said tomorrow they have reassessed and the cost will be $40 billion, the government is just going to bend over and take it?  You think Trump's twitter account gives the government bargaining power it otherwise does not?  Be real man...
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 327 on December 07, 2016, 02:32:11 PM
How many times have we heard about our workforce being under-employed?  A high profit, efficient plant creates wealth & tons an ancillary jobs... not just fixing robots.  You're either way off base or I just have a very high, unrealistic belief in people compared to you.  I suppose that's what also separates liberals from conservatives.  And safe spaces.  I haven't found any yet - I thought this tread may be one but its not.  haha 

Belief doesn't enter into it.  Workers can't believe payrolls into existence.  If automation is our friend, where are these net-positive effects?  It's been going on for decades, the positives should have shown up by now.  Instead it's been a cascade of negative and the data set is substantial.

Whether or not automation is "our" friend, what do you propose to do about it?  Outlaw computers?

No, just divert some of the profits they generate toward mitigating the destruction they cause. Tit for tat, if you will.

Technology doesn't cause "destruction", but it does allow for the creation of value without the need for human labor.  As computers/robots do more and more and the need for labor becomes less and less, this means that owners have the ability to accumulate more of the capital and have less of a need to distribute it to laborers (higher profits).  I am not sure what the long term solution is for this problem, because the companies themselves will eventually suffer if they don't allow for some redistribution of wealth as there won't be enough people with enough money to buy their products.

I feel like we're saying the same thing but I'm using stronger wording to describe the effects of failing to redistribute.  I look around nearby industrial cities and I see destruction.  And I know it wasn't Mexicans who did it.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: SixthCity on December 07, 2016, 02:34:56 PM
How many times have we heard about our workforce being under-employed?  A high profit, efficient plant creates wealth & tons an ancillary jobs... not just fixing robots.  You're either way off base or I just have a very high, unrealistic belief in people compared to you.  I suppose that's what also separates liberals from conservatives.  And safe spaces.  I haven't found any yet - I thought this tread may be one but its not.  haha 

Belief doesn't enter into it.  Workers can't believe payrolls into existence.  If automation is our friend, where are these net-positive effects?  It's been going on for decades, the positives should have shown up by now.  Instead it's been a cascade of negative and the data set is substantial.

Whether or not automation is "our" friend, what do you propose to do about it?  Outlaw computers?

No, just divert some of the profits they generate toward mitigating the destruction they cause. Tit for tat, if you will.

Technology doesn't cause "destruction", but it does allow for the creation of value without the need for human labor.  As computers/robots do more and more and the need for labor becomes less and less, this means that owners have the ability to accumulate more of the capital and have less of a need to distribute it to laborers (higher profits).  I am not sure what the long term solution is for this problem, because the companies themselves will eventually suffer if they don't allow for some redistribution of wealth as there won't be enough people with enough money to buy their products.

The alternative view is that it allows that human labor to do other productive things.  The modern telephone didn't doom switchboard operators to lives of destitution.  Instead, it allowed them to work in new emerging fields.  This does not necessarily lead to more consolidation but can create new industries that weren't imaginable before.  There has been some speculation that this will run into an inevitable limit however as technology improves further.  Some say that new jobs will necessarily require higher and higher cognitive ability that many in the population will be unable to satisfy.  That will lead to a permanent underclass that lacks the ability to do the only work needed in an economy more integrated with advanced technology.  I remain very skeptical of that claim but find it interesting to think about.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: ryanlammi on December 07, 2016, 02:39:51 PM
That will lead to a permanent underclass that lacks the ability to do the only work needed in an economy more integrated with advanced technology.  I remain very skeptical of that claim but find it interesting to think about.

The fear here is that people are going to remain skeptical until it's too late. I think it's already happening, and a few huge technological advancements (near-AI, driverless cars, etc) will push us off steep cliffs.

What happens if this happens and we don't prepare (and we could argue about what "prepare" means until we're blue in the face)?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: SixthCity on December 07, 2016, 02:45:56 PM
That will lead to a permanent underclass that lacks the ability to do the only work needed in an economy more integrated with advanced technology.  I remain very skeptical of that claim but find it interesting to think about.

The fear here is that people are going to remain skeptical until it's too late. I think it's already happening, and a few huge technological advancements (near-AI, driverless cars, etc) will push us off steep cliffs.

What happens if this happens and we don't prepare (and we could argue about what "prepare" means until we're blue in the face)?

This folds into the conversation of the universal basic income, which I don't think is a crazy idea.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on December 07, 2016, 02:47:11 PM
^We already have universal basic income.  It is called welfare.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: StrapHanger on December 07, 2016, 02:50:25 PM
^There is no universal cash support for impoverished households in the U.S. It literally doesn't exist. There's food stamps, disability, and short term aid to families with children available in some areas (with a general lifetime cap of a few years). So we really don't have anything close to UBI.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: jam40jeff on December 07, 2016, 02:50:53 PM
I feel like we're saying the same thing but I'm using stronger wording to describe the effects of failing to redistribute.

Correct, I wasn't disagreeing with you.  I was just using different terminology because I knew that certain people who disagree with our point of view would pick apart that word and not the larger point you were making.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 327 on December 07, 2016, 02:54:05 PM
^We already have universal basic income.  It is called welfare.

What you're describing was eliminated during the Clinton administration.  It is gone, it does not exist anymore.  We need it back in a major way.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: SixthCity on December 07, 2016, 02:58:25 PM
From noted conservative writer and intellectual, Charles Murray:

A Guaranteed Income for Every American
Replacing the welfare state with an annual grant is the best way to cope with a radically changing U.S. jobs market—and to revitalize America’s civic culture

When people learn that I want to replace the welfare state with a universal basic income, or UBI, the response I almost always get goes something like this: “But people will just use it to live off the rest of us!” “People will waste their lives!” Or, as they would have put it in a bygone age, a guaranteed income will foster idleness and vice. I see it differently. I think that a UBI is our only hope to deal with a coming labor market unlike any in human history and that it represents our best hope to revitalize American civil society.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-guaranteed-income-for-every-american-1464969586
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on December 07, 2016, 03:11:07 PM
^There is no universal cash support for impoverished households in the U.S. It literally doesn't exist. There's food stamps, disability, and short term aid to families with children available in some areas (with a general lifetime cap of a few years). So we really don't have anything close to UBI.

d'oh!  I've been watching too much Fox News.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: taestell on December 07, 2016, 03:12:32 PM
^We already have universal basic income.  It is called welfare.

What you're describing was eliminated during the Clinton administration.  It is gone, it does not exist anymore.  We need it back in a major way.

The "welfare" that we have now is temporary assistance for people while they are unemployed and looking for work.

The "universal basic income" that we need is permanent assistance that are unemployed because jobs are being permanently eliminated and aren't ever coming back.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on December 07, 2016, 03:19:29 PM
That will lead to a permanent underclass that lacks the ability to do the only work needed in an economy more integrated with advanced technology.  I remain very skeptical of that claim but find it interesting to think about.

The fear here is that people are going to remain skeptical until it's too late. I think it's already happening, and a few huge technological advancements (near-AI, driverless cars, etc) will push us off steep cliffs.

What happens if this happens and we don't prepare (and we could argue about what "prepare" means until we're blue in the face)?

This folds into the conversation of the universal basic income, which I don't think is a crazy idea.

The universal basic income is unaffordable even for the US given its current economic base.  (Just do the basic math with rounding: 300 million people times even $10,000 per year is $3 trillion, more than the entire current federal revenue, even if we completely defunded the military, courts, FBI, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.)  It is not, however, theoretically unaffordable forever depending on rates of economic growth and technological change.  But the theory hasn't become reality yet and many people currently dismiss the optimistic techno-utopian predictions of people like Ray Kurzweil (who I admit makes a certain amount of sense to me) as idealistic fantasies that are too optimistic by a span of generations if not permanently unrealistic.

Also, any discussion of economics needs to remember that currency is only a placeholder for real value.  This is why, for example, printing more money does little harm when the real economy is actually growing (more money chases more goods, value of currency stays reasonably constant), but not when real economic output is not keeping pace.  The artificial nature of money also shadows the UBI discussion because there are certain basic "real world" maintenance functions of an industrialized society that we expect and that would need to be taken care of in a world in which a UBI could potentially free millions from the need to work at all.  Start with the basics: Are fully automated farms capable of growing sufficient food for the population, and fully automated mills and factories capable of producing enough cloth and clothing?  What about shelter?  There are actually proof-of-concept demonstrations of things like 3D-printed houses that hint at where technology could be on this front in 30 or 50 years, if the costs really do come down, but not all technological trends follow Moore's Law (and in particular, those that require large quantities of physical materials as inputs tend to be less exponential in their growth rates than those that need only process information).

Move on to education and health care, the big-ticket middle class items.  How close are we to automated schools?  We have distributed "massive open online courses" (MOOCs), but those still don't automate learning, and we're still a long way from being able to download information directly into the brain, Matrix-style.  Health care?  This is a wild card, and it's an industry that I follow with intense interest.  There are techno-utopian biogerontologists like Aubrey de Grey who predict that the first person to live to 1000 has already been born.  He might be absolutely crazy or he might be onto something.  As with many technological trends, many people can't see it happening before it's already picked up quite a bit of steam, enough so that it appears to burst onto the scene from nowhere.  A decade ago, he was an outcast monk in the wilderness; within the last year, the Mayo Clinic got on board with the serious study of cellular senescence and, implicitly, the possibility of generalized "routine maintenance" of cellular decay as a prophylactic against aging itself.  (See, e.g., http://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/mayo-clinic-researchers-extend-lifespan-by-as-much-as-35-percent-in-mice-2/).  They don't come right out and say it, but the fact that they're funding that research (which was previously considered crackpot territory) suggests that they see at least some value in it now.  Of course, there are also people that observe that overall lifespans are stagnant or even declining, in part because of the opioid epidemic, and that an extension of overall lifespan doesn't do much good in terms of making a UBI affordable (and in fact makes it less affordable) unless it increases "healthspan" (and to be fair, the medical community is well aware of this concept generally, regardless of its relationship to UBI, and so "healthspan" is a thing hospitals talk about now).

If we get to a point where food, clothing, shelter, energy, transportation, education, and health care can all be provided with 100% automation, including machines that build the roads on which the driverless cars operate, machines that actually install the solar panels, etc., and not just the particular end-user devices of the given sector, then we might be in UBI territory.  Until then, we need a system that ensures that those things actually get provided to the population somehow, preferably by directing material rewards to those who actually do the work, since the only plausible alternative is coercive mandates from the state.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: SixthCity on December 07, 2016, 03:22:49 PM
The universal basic income is unaffordable even for the US given its current economic base.  (Just do the basic math with rounding: 300 million people times even $10,000 per year is $3 trillion, more than the entire current federal revenue, even if we completely defunded the military, courts, FBI, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.)  It is not, however, theoretically unaffordable forever depending on rates of economic growth and technological change.  But the theory hasn't become reality yet and many people currently dismiss the optimistic techno-utopian predictions of people like Ray Kurzweil (who I admit makes a certain amount of sense to me) as idealistic fantasies that are too optimistic by a span of generations if not permanently unrealistic.

Indeed, but Murray's proposal limits the UBI to those making below a certain amount (30k if my memory serves correctly).  Those making some money get cash benefits to bring them up to the 30k mark.  This is all from memory so sorry if not correct.  His proposal also eliminates all other social welfare programs and replaces them with the cash distribution.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on December 07, 2016, 03:43:33 PM
The universal basic income is unaffordable even for the US given its current economic base.  (Just do the basic math with rounding: 300 million people times even $10,000 per year is $3 trillion, more than the entire current federal revenue, even if we completely defunded the military, courts, FBI, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.)  It is not, however, theoretically unaffordable forever depending on rates of economic growth and technological change.  But the theory hasn't become reality yet and many people currently dismiss the optimistic techno-utopian predictions of people like Ray Kurzweil (who I admit makes a certain amount of sense to me) as idealistic fantasies that are too optimistic by a span of generations if not permanently unrealistic.

Indeed, but Murray's proposal limits the UBI to those making below a certain amount (30k if my memory serves correctly).  Those making some money get cash benefits to bring them up to the 30k mark.  This is all from memory so sorry if not correct.  His proposal also eliminates all other social welfare programs and replaces them with the cash distribution.

Maybe he heard us talking (and then traveled back in time to comment)?

https://futurism.com/elon-musk-theres-a-pretty-good-chance-well-end-up-with-universal-basic-income/
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Clevelander17 on December 07, 2016, 05:38:05 PM
I'm pleased with the direction this thread has taken. I've said this several times. In the long-term, the things that Trump promised and that his voters most desperately need are impossible for him to deliver. Over the course of the next four years, there will be no net gain of manufacturing jobs in this country. Longer term (more than the length of time Trump will be in office), fossil fuel production will be a loser as well. Globalization and technological innovation are a runaway train that are slowly but surely changing the face of the American middle class. We need leadership that has the foresight to figure out how to deal with these issues with the length of decades in mind, not the length of political terms, and not in trying to temporarily appease a minority for the sake of votes.


I believe that the game is changing and that our approach needs to be multifaceted:
1) Introducing a Universal Basic Income seems like one part of the solution.
2) Changing the goals of education is another.
3) And this is certainly controversial, but discussing overpopulation in some manner will also be necessary.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on December 07, 2016, 05:53:56 PM
I'm pleased with the direction this thread has taken. I've said this several times. In the long-term, the things that Trump promised and that his voters most desperately need are impossible for him to deliver. Over the course of the next four years, there will be no net gain of manufacturing jobs in this country. Longer term (more than the length of time Trump will be in office), fossil fuel production will be a loser as well. Globalization and technological innovation are a runaway train that are slowly but surely changing the face of the American middle class. We need leadership that has the foresight to figure out how to deal with these issues with the length of decades in mind, not the length of political terms, and not in trying to temporarily appease a minority for the sake of votes.


I believe that the game is changing and that our approach needs to be multifaceted:
1) Introducing a Universal Basic Income seems like one part of the solution.
2) Changing the goals of education is another.
3) And this is certainly controversial, but discussing overpopulation in some manner will also be necessary.

Could not disagree more strongly on 3.  I've said this controversial statement here before, the inverse of yours: There is no physical reason why the planet could not support a population of a trillion.  It simply can't be done with today's technology.

Agree on 2.

Agree on 1, but not within the next four or eight years.  We're talking generations, unfortunately.  Automation is good enough now to churn a lot of jobs, but not good enough to basically run an economy for 320 million with a workforce of zero (or, say, 10 million or less).  Remember, the gains of automation are expressed in terms of productivity, which is output per worker.  Suppose your target UBI is $30,000.  In a country of 400 million (which we will hit, barring a catastrophic war with another superpower), that's a $12 trillion annual ask.  How many workers does it take to produce $12 trillion?  That's your measure of how far automation has progressed to make it feasible.  The current labor force of 159M produces more than that, but not by much.  So even a 100-fold increase in productivity would still require a workforce of 2M to give a UBI of $30,000 in 2016 dollars to our entire projected population.  (And, of course, it's a natural psychological tendency to not just want what 2016 offers, but to expect that it will continue to get better, too.)  Our current productivity gain rate is basically flat.  Even if it were at an absurd level of 20%+, mathematically, it would still take a while for any baseline number to increase 100x at that rate of compounding.  And the real number even counting back through the 1990s to take in the tech boom has been nowhere near that.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: SixthCity on December 07, 2016, 05:58:07 PM
The neo-malthusian hysteria of the 70s, and the apocalypse which never came, should render everyone a skeptic of the need for some kind of centralized population control.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Clevelander17 on December 07, 2016, 07:15:27 PM
Could not disagree more strongly on 3.  I've said this controversial statement here before, the inverse of yours: There is no physical reason why the planet could not support a population of a trillion.  It simply can't be done with today's technology.

If nothing else, I'd be skeptical about that number. But I will also add that, we're a long ways away, even if developments played out perfectly, from us reaching that point. I think there's a cap on how much life this planet can sustain, and I think it's in the tens of billions and nowhere near 1 trillion. Either way, in the short-term (however long that may be), discussions of overpopulation are likely to be increasingly necessary.

I'm intrigued by your claim, though. Want to give bullet points or suggestions for further reading?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Clevelander17 on December 07, 2016, 07:18:01 PM
The neo-malthusian hysteria of the 70s, and the apocalypse which never came, should render everyone a skeptic of the need for some kind of centralized population control.

Hysteria? I wasn't around for that, so I'm not sure whether or not that description is accurate. However there are general issues and challenges, short of a hysteria, that come with an exponentially increasing population.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: surfohio on December 07, 2016, 07:34:32 PM
Paul Erlich!
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on December 07, 2016, 07:59:26 PM
I'm pleased with the direction this thread has taken. I've said this several times. In the long-term, the things that Trump promised and that his voters most desperately need are impossible for him to deliver. Over the course of the next four years, there will be no net gain of manufacturing jobs in this country. Longer term (more than the length of time Trump will be in office), fossil fuel production will be a loser as well. Globalization and technological innovation are a runaway train that are slowly but surely changing the face of the American middle class. We need leadership that has the foresight to figure out how to deal with these issues with the length of decades in mind, not the length of political terms, and not in trying to temporarily appease a minority for the sake of votes.


I think this is an interesting discussion but not really a political one.  Candidates from both parties would love to bring manufacturing jobs back to America. 

And don't forget, Hillary WON the popular vote....
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gaslight on December 07, 2016, 08:00:21 PM
I'm pleased with the direction this thread has taken. I've said this several times. In the long-term, the things that Trump promised and that his voters most desperately need are impossible for him to deliver. Over the course of the next four years, there will be no net gain of manufacturing jobs in this country. Longer term (more than the length of time Trump will be in office), fossil fuel production will be a loser as well. Globalization and technological innovation are a runaway train that are slowly but surely changing the face of the American middle class. We need leadership that has the foresight to figure out how to deal with these issues with the length of decades in mind, not the length of political terms, and not in trying to temporarily appease a minority for the sake of votes.


I believe that the game is changing and that our approach needs to be multifaceted:
1) Introducing a Universal Basic Income seems like one part of the solution.
2) Changing the goals of education is another.
3) And this is certainly controversial, but discussing overpopulation in some manner will also be necessary.

Could not disagree more strongly on 3.  I've said this controversial statement here before, the inverse of yours: There is no physical reason why the planet could not support a population of a trillion.  It simply can't be done with today's technology.

Agree on 2.

Agree on 1, but not within the next four or eight years.  We're talking generations, unfortunately.  Automation is good enough now to churn a lot of jobs, but not good enough to basically run an economy for 320 million with a workforce of zero (or, say, 10 million or less).  Remember, the gains of automation are expressed in terms of productivity, which is output per worker.  Suppose your target UBI is $30,000.  In a country of 400 million (which we will hit, barring a catastrophic war with another superpower), that's a $12 trillion annual ask.  How many workers does it take to produce $12 trillion?  That's your measure of how far automation has progressed to make it feasible.  The current labor force of 159M produces more than that, but not by much.  So even a 100-fold increase in productivity would still require a workforce of 2M to give a UBI of $30,000 in 2016 dollars to our entire projected population.  (And, of course, it's a natural psychological tendency to not just want what 2016 offers, but to expect that it will continue to get better, too.)  Our current productivity gain rate is basically flat.  Even if it were at an absurd level of 20%+, mathematically, it would still take a while for any baseline number to increase 100x at that rate of compounding.  And the real number even counting back through the 1990s to take in the tech boom has been nowhere near that.

The only problem you have is you are thinking in terms of the population of the USA, you need to think global. The number and ubi need to work for everyone on the planet.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on December 07, 2016, 08:33:45 PM
The cost of living is much lower in some places. In parts of Africa and Asia $30K a year would trigger instant hyperinflation.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on December 07, 2016, 09:03:35 PM
Trump's WWE connection is reflected in his choice for Small Business Administration head, Vince McMahon's wife Linda.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: down4cle on December 07, 2016, 09:12:41 PM
I'm pleased with the direction this thread has taken. I've said this several times. In the long-term, the things that Trump promised and that his voters most desperately need are impossible for him to deliver. Over the course of the next four years, there will be no net gain of manufacturing jobs in this country. Longer term (more than the length of time Trump will be in office), fossil fuel production will be a loser as well. Globalization and technological innovation are a runaway train that are slowly but surely changing the face of the American middle class. We need leadership that has the foresight to figure out how to deal with these issues with the length of decades in mind, not the length of political terms, and not in trying to temporarily appease a minority for the sake of votes.


I think this is an interesting discussion but not really a political one.  Candidates from both parties would love to bring manufacturing jobs back to America. 

And don't forget, Hillary WON the popular vote....

Perhaps if we had some of buy American Steel clause for in the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.  Surely. both parties would support buying American made products...

http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/308358-last-minute-fight-over-buy-america-provision-emerges-in-water-bill
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on December 07, 2016, 09:38:35 PM
I'm pleased with the direction this thread has taken. I've said this several times. In the long-term, the things that Trump promised and that his voters most desperately need are impossible for him to deliver. Over the course of the next four years, there will be no net gain of manufacturing jobs in this country. Longer term (more than the length of time Trump will be in office), fossil fuel production will be a loser as well. Globalization and technological innovation are a runaway train that are slowly but surely changing the face of the American middle class. We need leadership that has the foresight to figure out how to deal with these issues with the length of decades in mind, not the length of political terms, and not in trying to temporarily appease a minority for the sake of votes.


I believe that the game is changing and that our approach needs to be multifaceted:
1) Introducing a Universal Basic Income seems like one part of the solution.
2) Changing the goals of education is another.
3) And this is certainly controversial, but discussing overpopulation in some manner will also be necessary.

Could not disagree more strongly on 3.  I've said this controversial statement here before, the inverse of yours: There is no physical reason why the planet could not support a population of a trillion.  It simply can't be done with today's technology.

Agree on 2.

Agree on 1, but not within the next four or eight years.  We're talking generations, unfortunately.  Automation is good enough now to churn a lot of jobs, but not good enough to basically run an economy for 320 million with a workforce of zero (or, say, 10 million or less).  Remember, the gains of automation are expressed in terms of productivity, which is output per worker.  Suppose your target UBI is $30,000.  In a country of 400 million (which we will hit, barring a catastrophic war with another superpower), that's a $12 trillion annual ask.  How many workers does it take to produce $12 trillion?  That's your measure of how far automation has progressed to make it feasible.  The current labor force of 159M produces more than that, but not by much.  So even a 100-fold increase in productivity would still require a workforce of 2M to give a UBI of $30,000 in 2016 dollars to our entire projected population.  (And, of course, it's a natural psychological tendency to not just want what 2016 offers, but to expect that it will continue to get better, too.)  Our current productivity gain rate is basically flat.  Even if it were at an absurd level of 20%+, mathematically, it would still take a while for any baseline number to increase 100x at that rate of compounding.  And the real number even counting back through the 1990s to take in the tech boom has been nowhere near that.

The only problem you have is you are thinking in terms of the population of the USA, you need to think global. The number and ubi need to work for everyone on the planet.

Why?  Why should we be limited by what either Denmark, China, or Zimbabwe can or can't do?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on December 08, 2016, 06:22:24 AM
Paul Erlich!

Possibly the most consistently incorrect person considered to be any kind of an "expert" during the last fifty years.

Look up the Ehrlich-Simon bet.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Cleburger on December 08, 2016, 07:42:49 AM
If any union guys and working class Trump supporters were waiting for buyers remorse....here it comes!

Trump Launches Tweet Attack on Carrier Steel Union Boss for Fact-Checking Him

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-unable-ignore-critics-baselessly-attacks-carrier-union-boss-n693406?cid=sm_fb
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: David on December 08, 2016, 07:49:48 AM
I need to get a Twitter account just to more easily see what crazy thing Trump is going to say next.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on December 08, 2016, 09:30:09 AM
@RealDonalDrumpf is a good follow
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: E Rocc on December 08, 2016, 10:38:57 AM
@RealDonalDrumpf is a good follow

@RealDenaldTrump is the best, the RNC staff actually accidentally quoted him on the marquee board at Gund. 

https://twitter.com/search?q=%40realdenaldtrump&src=typd&lang=en
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: matteusleus on December 08, 2016, 02:38:41 PM
If any union guys and working class Trump supporters were waiting for buyers remorse....here it comes!

Trump Launches Tweet Attack on Carrier Steel Union Boss for Fact-Checking Him

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-unable-ignore-critics-baselessly-attacks-carrier-union-boss-n693406?cid=sm_fb

The USW supported Hillary.  No surprise the union boss & Trump do not agree.  This really isn't a 'gotcha!' moment http://www.usw.org/news/media-center/releases/2016/usw-endorses-hillary-clinton
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 08, 2016, 02:42:35 PM
Populism 2016 is a billionaire who lives in a gold-plated apartment attacking a guy who works in a factory https://t.co/erKQ4a7jK2
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: X on December 08, 2016, 02:45:23 PM

The alternative view is that it allows that human labor to do other productive things.  The modern telephone didn't doom switchboard operators to lives of destitution.  Instead, it allowed them to work in new emerging fields. 

I love this line of thinking.  I can picture you as a corporate executive, calling people into your office, "Congratulations, Mr. Smith, after working for our company for 25 years we've decided to allow you to work in a new emerging field.  Good luck on your retraining, I hear you can take out student loans at very reasonable rates.  Actually, sir, I envy you.  It isn't everybody who gets to start a new career in their 50's!"
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on December 08, 2016, 02:59:19 PM
If any union guys and working class Trump supporters were waiting for buyers remorse....here it comes!

Trump Launches Tweet Attack on Carrier Steel Union Boss for Fact-Checking Him

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-unable-ignore-critics-baselessly-attacks-carrier-union-boss-n693406?cid=sm_fb

The USW supported Hillary.  No surprise the union boss & Trump do not agree.  This really isn't a 'gotcha!' moment http://www.usw.org/news/media-center/releases/2016/usw-endorses-hillary-clinton


I don't know why it would be a gotcha moment.  But your attempted point is off-base regardless.  The guy the presumptive president elect has engaged in a rather childish sparring match is the president of Local 1099, which represents the Carrier plant workers.  USW is the national organization.  it has 12 district and each district has a multitude of locals (perhaps thousands).  I don't know hwo this local endorsed, but it is not bound by the national organization's endorsement.  A local FOP or IAFF, for instance, can endorse whomever they want.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: SixthCity on December 08, 2016, 03:03:03 PM

The alternative view is that it allows that human labor to do other productive things.  The modern telephone didn't doom switchboard operators to lives of destitution.  Instead, it allowed them to work in new emerging fields. 

I love this line of thinking.  I can picture you as a corporate executive, calling people into your office, "Congratulations, Mr. Smith, after working for our company for 25 years we've decided to allow you to work in a new emerging field.  Good luck on your retraining, I hear you can take out student loans at very reasonable rates.  Actually, sir, I envy you.  It isn't everybody who gets to start a new career in their 50's!"

Granted moves within the labor market do get much harder with age, is the premise incorrect?  Or do you just find it emotionally unsatisfying?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on December 08, 2016, 03:09:26 PM
I need to get a Twitter account just to more easily see what crazy thing Trump is going to say next.

I'm so glad that winning the election hasn't caused him to slow down, at all. I'm looking forward to our president Tweeting jokes about Rosie O'Donnell between ordering drone strikes and issuing border wall plans. These are like modern day "fireside chats." They're very comforting in these hard times, these fireside Tweets.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: clvlndr on December 08, 2016, 03:16:22 PM
I need to get a Twitter account just to more easily see what crazy thing Trump is going to say next.

I'm so glad that winning the election hasn't caused him to slow down, at all. I'm looking forward to our president Tweeting jokes about Rosie O'Donnell between ordering drone strikes and issuing border wall plans. These are like modern day "fireside chats." They're very comforting in these hard times, these fireside Tweets.

Really?  Petulant cyber rants from a man to be seated in the most powerful post in the world is comforting to you?  Whatever floats your boat....
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: 327 on December 08, 2016, 03:23:38 PM

The alternative view is that it allows that human labor to do other productive things.  The modern telephone didn't doom switchboard operators to lives of destitution.  Instead, it allowed them to work in new emerging fields. 

I love this line of thinking.  I can picture you as a corporate executive, calling people into your office, "Congratulations, Mr. Smith, after working for our company for 25 years we've decided to allow you to work in a new emerging field.  Good luck on your retraining, I hear you can take out student loans at very reasonable rates.  Actually, sir, I envy you.  It isn't everybody who gets to start a new career in their 50's!"

Granted moves within the labor market do get much harder with age, is the premise incorrect?  Or do you just find it emotionally unsatisfying?

It can be two things.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: matteusleus on December 08, 2016, 03:27:57 PM
If any union guys and working class Trump supporters were waiting for buyers remorse....here it comes!

Trump Launches Tweet Attack on Carrier Steel Union Boss for Fact-Checking Him

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-unable-ignore-critics-baselessly-attacks-carrier-union-boss-n693406?cid=sm_fb

The USW supported Hillary.  No surprise the union boss & Trump do not agree.  This really isn't a 'gotcha!' moment http://www.usw.org/news/media-center/releases/2016/usw-endorses-hillary-clinton


I don't know why it would be a gotcha moment.  But your attempted point is off-base regardless.  The guy the presumptive president elect has engaged in a rather childish sparring match is the president of Local 1099, which represents the Carrier plant workers.  USW is the national organization.  it has 12 district and each district has a multitude of locals (perhaps thousands).  I don't know hwo this local endorsed, but it is not bound by the national organization's endorsement.  A local FOP or IAFF, for instance, can endorse whomever they want.

Everyone is so anxious to say 'told you so!' (or I said 'gotcha!') as why Trump should not be President.  I do agree his Twitter rants are completely unprofessional and something a lot of us could not do in our own jobs.  I'll never defend that.  We all know Trump is flawed... and I suppose that puts it mildly.  All I'm saying is just take it easy for awhile and see what kinds of policies he's able to push through & judge him on that. 

Unlike Hillary, we elected a political outsider who has not spent their entire life building up to this moment.  Trump is very transparent but I do not agree Hillary (or any other politician) would treat their opponents any differently in private.  Seasoned politicians (or anybody other than Trump) would just want to do it without it being traced back to them.  Any president's personality will never determine the success or failure of their administration. 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: bfwissel on December 08, 2016, 03:31:31 PM
Unlike Hillary, we elected a political outsider who has not spent their entire life building up to this moment.  Trump is very transparent but I do not agree Hillary (or any other politician) would treat their opponents any differently in private.  Seasoned politicians (or anybody other than Trump) would just want to do it without it being traced back to them.  Any president's personality will never determine the success or failure of their administration. 

How on earth can Trump be considered transparent?  His lies are bigger than his personality and that's saying a lot.  If anything he's the polar opposite of transparent.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: StrapHanger on December 08, 2016, 03:31:46 PM

The alternative view is that it allows that human labor to do other productive things.  The modern telephone didn't doom switchboard operators to lives of destitution.  Instead, it allowed them to work in new emerging fields. 

I love this line of thinking.  I can picture you as a corporate executive, calling people into your office, "Congratulations, Mr. Smith, after working for our company for 25 years we've decided to allow you to work in a new emerging field.  Good luck on your retraining, I hear you can take out student loans at very reasonable rates.  Actually, sir, I envy you.  It isn't everybody who gets to start a new career in their 50's!"

Granted moves within the labor market do get much harder with age, is the premise incorrect?  Or do you just find it emotionally unsatisfying?

Isn't the real benefit of mechanization that allows everyone else to pay less for a product or service? And a result, the savings get spent in other ways that grow other sectors? It seems silly to debate whether or not dislocated workers are actually harmed by the process, because of course they are. The more important political question is whether or not those workers and their communities can be compensated enough to remove their electoral veto, now that it's clear there is an electoral veto.

And that's one of the many rubs. Mechanization no doubt benefits the US economy as a whole, but it's obviously doing so in a geographically uneven way. I can't find the source right now, but I'm pretty sure Southern California has lost more manufacturing jobs in recent years than the entire Rust Belt. But the amount of new firm formation and growth in California obviously blows Ohio away. It's that second part that's the real difference, not the loss of manufacturing jobs.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on December 08, 2016, 03:47:33 PM
Any president's personality will never determine the success or failure of their administration. 

I couldn't disagree with this more.  The POTUS is our head statesman, top diplomat, and commander-in-chief.  His personality and temperament matter quite a bit. 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: matteusleus on December 08, 2016, 04:13:42 PM
Any president's personality will never determine the success or failure of their administration. 

I couldn't disagree with this more.  The POTUS is our head statesman, top diplomat, and commander-in-chief.  His personality and temperament matter quite a bit.

If personality and temperament matter... how did we end up having to choose between Trump & Hillary?    :wtf: :-D
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: X on December 08, 2016, 04:27:37 PM

The alternative view is that it allows that human labor to do other productive things.  The modern telephone didn't doom switchboard operators to lives of destitution.  Instead, it allowed them to work in new emerging fields. 

I love this line of thinking.  I can picture you as a corporate executive, calling people into your office, "Congratulations, Mr. Smith, after working for our company for 25 years we've decided to allow you to work in a new emerging field.  Good luck on your retraining, I hear you can take out student loans at very reasonable rates.  Actually, sir, I envy you.  It isn't everybody who gets to start a new career in their 50's!"

Granted moves within the labor market do get much harder with age, is the premise incorrect?  Or do you just find it emotionally unsatisfying?

Yes, your premise is incorrect.  There's a very real difference between being "allowed to work in a new emerging field" and having one's current field disappear out from underneath one's own feet.  I'm not saying creative destruction isn't a necessary part of economic and technological progress, but your attempt at putting a Pollyanna-ish gloss on it indicates that you're clueless about the very real pain and dislocation it causes to those on the "destruction" side of that equation.  And that sort of cluelessness has real impacts upon what we do as a society to aid those who've had their livelihoods fall apart.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on December 08, 2016, 04:40:05 PM
It's a very old-fashioned "strong back" view of the world. It's not like they hire a bunch of inexperienced bodies to do modern high-tech work. Maybe in the 1800s when Asians in California went straight from mining to building the railroads or people moving from the farms to factory labor in the 1950s that mentality worked. Nowadays they like to hire people who grew up with the technology. Specialists only!
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on December 08, 2016, 05:31:57 PM
^ It depends on the job. If we're trying to get futuristic and figure out what people will do in a dystopian future of mass automation, it's likely there will still be plenty of jobs programming, servicing, and maintaining equipment. Those will be "high tech" by today's standards but in context should be no more difficult to figure out than using a shovel (so long as our schools can keep up and teach everyone the basics of how a computer works). Plus, no matter how much automation we see, there will always be room for innovation, creativity, leadership, etc. (essentially thought leaders). We're already seeing the highest paying and best jobs become focused on those areas. There will also always be demand for personal services and professional services, even if it is a lower demand. I just don't think society would ever reach a point where automation has replaced 50% of jobs and those 50% of people can't figure out something - anything - to contribute to society.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 08, 2016, 07:30:29 PM
Sounds like Boeing got the message. If you want to play, you've got to pay. Ain't populism great...

Boeing pledges $1 million for Donald Trump's inaugural events https://t.co/EWpq4CXZe6
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on December 08, 2016, 07:56:11 PM
Sounds like Boeing got the message. If you want to play, you've got to pay. Ain't populism great...

Boeing pledges $1 million for Donald Trump's inaugural events https://t.co/EWpq4CXZe6

And it's the same amount that Boeing donated to Obama's inauguration.  Yawn
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on December 08, 2016, 08:12:52 PM
I'm so glad these people aren't in power anymore... the fact that anyone would want the government to determine what is "real news" and what is "fake news" seems so Orwellian to me. Even the way they're selling it sounds like a line out of 1984: "Lives are at risk — lives of ordinary people just trying to go about their days..." Yeah, that sounds like a very good reason to ban free speech:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/309532-clinton-blasts-epidemic-of-fake-news
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on December 08, 2016, 08:55:27 PM
How bad does the private sector have to fail by selling fantasies before an authority figure has to show up to explain that it's fake like wrestling or Santa?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 09, 2016, 12:23:00 AM
And it's the same amount that Boeing donated to Obama's inauguration.  Yawn

Boeing wasn't supporting him until now. I thought Trump was going to drain the swamp of of such pay-to-play politics? Isn't that what he said was the benefit of electing a rich guy who wasn't beholden to any interests?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 09, 2016, 12:23:39 AM
Donald Trump is going to get somebody killed
http://wpo.st/cdIK2
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on December 09, 2016, 06:08:32 AM
And it's the same amount that Boeing donated to Obama's inauguration.  Yawn

Boeing wasn't supporting him until now. I thought Trump was going to drain the swamp of of such pay-to-play politics? Isn't that what he said was the benefit of electing a rich guy who wasn't beholden to any interests?

Your posts make no sense.  Boeing is a national defense contractor that donates to these type of national events, same as many others, regardless of whom is elected.  Should Trump tell them to take the money back?  scale back the inauguration?  Self fund the entire thing at one of his hotels instead?  Boy that would generate some big headlines from the left... 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hts121 on December 09, 2016, 06:39:05 AM
I'm so glad these people aren't in power anymore... the fact that anyone would want the government to determine what is "real news" and what is "fake news" seems so Orwellian to me. Even the way they're selling it sounds like a line out of 1984: "Lives are at risk — lives of ordinary people just trying to go about their days..." Yeah, that sounds like a very good reason to ban free speech:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/309532-clinton-blasts-epidemic-of-fake-news

 I agree with you here, which is why Trump's constant attacks on and threats against the media are so troubling. It's one thing to do it while you're just a rich prick. Quite another when you are th presumptive president elect
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 09, 2016, 06:48:16 AM
Did trump say that he is a wealthy man and therefore did not need political contributions? Tell me you're smart enough to understand what actually happened with Boeing. Trump said he wouldn't play the Washington DC game. Now it's more corrupt than ever.

Another example? Trump gave his foundation's largest donor a cabinet spot yesterday. Did you see blaring headlines? Imagine if HRC had done that??
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: JYP on December 09, 2016, 06:51:38 AM
It looks like the Trump Presidency is already starting to affect Japanese J-Pop culture:

Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on December 09, 2016, 08:05:50 AM
Just a reminder that if we'd lost WWII, Asia could be dominated by the weirdest country in world history.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gaslight on December 09, 2016, 08:08:52 AM
Did trump say that he is a wealthy man and therefore did not need political contributions? Tell me you're smart enough to understand what actually happened with Boeing. Trump said he wouldn't play the Washington DC game. Now it's more corrupt than ever.

Another example? Trump gave his foundation's largest donor a cabinet spot yesterday. Did you see blaring headlines? Imagine if HRC had done that??

If HRC was elected, she would have done the same thing if not worse. There would be no reporting about it, except for fake news sites.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: smith on December 09, 2016, 08:18:02 AM
Did trump say that he is a wealthy man and therefore did not need political contributions? Tell me you're smart enough to understand what actually happened with Boeing. Trump said he wouldn't play the Washington DC game. Now it's more corrupt than ever.

Another example? Trump gave his foundation's largest donor a cabinet spot yesterday. Did you see blaring headlines? Imagine if HRC had done that??

If HRC was elected, she would have done the same thing if not worse. There would be no reporting about it, except for fake news sites.

You telling us Fox News wouldn't be reporting it if HRC did that???  Oh... yeah.. you're right.  Just fake news sites.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gaslight on December 09, 2016, 08:38:20 AM
Did trump say that he is a wealthy man and therefore did not need political contributions? Tell me you're smart enough to understand what actually happened with Boeing. Trump said he wouldn't play the Washington DC game. Now it's more corrupt than ever.

Another example? Trump gave his foundation's largest donor a cabinet spot yesterday. Did you see blaring headlines? Imagine if HRC had done that??

If HRC was elected, she would have done the same thing if not worse. There would be no reporting about it, except for fake news sites.

You telling us Fox News wouldn't be reporting it if HRC did that???  Oh... yeah.. you're right.  Just fake news sites.

Right Fake news sites, CNN, and Faux News.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on December 09, 2016, 09:14:42 AM
Did trump say that he is a wealthy man and therefore did not need political contributions? Tell me you're smart enough to understand what actually happened with Boeing. Trump said he wouldn't play the Washington DC game. Now it's more corrupt than ever.


Is it?   Really?  More corrupt than ever?  Bold statement...

You should take a few days off from reading about Trump.  At this pace you will be ready for the loony bin come springtime.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: taestell on December 09, 2016, 09:28:24 AM
Donald Trump refuses to give up his Executive Producer role on the Apprentice and says he'll work on it in his "spare time". I wonder if the people who complained about how much golf Obama played will be upset about Trump literally having a part-time job that he refuses to give up.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on December 09, 2016, 09:40:49 AM
Haha, those people that think the Presidency is like a small town flower shop where the owner is always behind the counter or in the back wearing one of those clear green accounting visors should be losing their minds indeed.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on December 09, 2016, 09:45:37 AM
Donald Trump refuses to give up his Executive Producer role on the Apprentice and says he'll work on it in his "spare time". I wonder if the people who complained about how much golf Obama played will be upset about Trump literally having a part-time job that he refuses to give up.

Did you see Paul Ryan's interview on "60 Minutes" where he said Trump always answers his cell phone? 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 09, 2016, 10:00:07 AM
The so-called Trump Bump in the stock market......

"Goldman Sachs has accounted for nearly a third of the Dow Jones industrial average's gains”
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/09/bank-stocks-the-companies-that-made-the-markets-records-highs.html
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on December 09, 2016, 10:07:37 AM
^ This is great news for everyone, I'm not sure why you're trying to paint it as a negative:

The financial sector is watched as an indicator of economic growth. The more business activity there is, the more loans are taken out, and the more money banks can make.

"It's typically healthy that the financials are leading. It's suggesting the economy is in good shape. It's not something we've had" over the last few years, said Bruce Bittles, chief investment strategist at Baird.


This implies the country is very optimistic about the Trump presidency (well, aside from a small minority who still want to move to Canada). We all stand to make money and enjoy economic success. Perhaps we might even be great again?
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 09, 2016, 10:12:08 AM
Trump's Presidency Is Shaping Up to Be an American Tragedy
His administration is likely to be just as bad as you think – and possibly worse
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/trumps-presidency-is-shaping-up-to-be-an-american-tragedy-w454640
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: gottaplan on December 09, 2016, 10:13:24 AM
^KJP and others are angry & bitter either way.  If the stock market tanks, it's Trump's fault, he's wrecking the economy.  If it goes up, it's rigged to benefit the wealthy.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: GCrites80s on December 09, 2016, 10:16:01 AM
Donald Trump refuses to give up his Executive Producer role on the Apprentice and says he'll work on it in his "spare time". I wonder if the people who complained about how much golf Obama played will be upset about Trump literally having a part-time job that he refuses to give up.

Did you see Paul Ryan's interview on "60 Minutes" where he said Trump always answers his cell phone? 


"Hi Donald this is Tom Green! My bum is on the rail!!!!!"



"Wonderful to hear from you, Tom. You want to come back to the show?"
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 09, 2016, 10:16:58 AM
You should take a few days off from reading about Trump.  At this pace you will be ready for the loony bin come springtime.

I think you have me confused with your zombie buddies in the Alt-Reality crowd...
https://egbertowillies.com/2016/12/09/rachel-maddow-poll-trump-voter-reality/
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hootenany on December 09, 2016, 10:31:25 AM
Let's just do a quick rundown of some of Trump's more controversial cabinet picks.

Department of Education:  Betsy DeVos - Doesn't believe in public education and has spent years advocating school choice voucher programs.  Silver lining - she supports Common Core.

Secretary of Treasury:  Steven Mnuchin - Former CIO of Goldman Sachs.  I believe Trump actually sued his investment firm Dune Capital Management related to the Chicago Trump Tower project.

Labor Secretary:  Andrew F. Puzder - Fast food CEO.  Against increases to the federal minimum wage as he believes it should be left to the states.

EPA:  Scott Pruitt:  Doesn't believe in the core mission of the EPA.  Staunch critic of clean air and clean water standards.  Climate change denier.  Massive recipient of energy company contributions.  It is very likely that many EPA regulations will be rolled back.

Department of Defense:  James "Mad Dog" Mattis - This position is typically a civilian role (more than 7 years out of the service) and will require Mattis to be granted a waiver by Congress.  Civilian control of our military is a hallmark of our democracy that is being ignored in this administration. 

Homeland Security:  John Kelly - This position has been held by a civilian since it's creation.  Putting a recently retired General in charge of domestic security is a departure from the historical norm a deserves scrutiny regardless of Kelly's stellar reputation.  We don't use our military to police our own people.  Hopefully that doesn't change in this administration.

National Security Advisor:  Michael Flynn - Conspiracy theorist.

Attorney General:  Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III - Was denied a judicial appointment by Reagan in the 80's due to his racist statements.  He will be in charge of enforcing civil rights and immigration law.  His past statements indicate he strongly disagrees with current law in both areas.  He is in favor of reducing not just illegal immigration, but all immigration to the United States.

HHS:  Tom Price - Will be in charge of our refugee system.  He is against the resettlement of any Syrian refugees in the US. 

HUD:  Ben Carson - Didn't want the job and claimed he was unqualified.  I believe him.  He has no experience with housing policy and has made statements against efforts to desegregate our subsidized housings developments.

Generals:  Donald Trump has added more Generals (current and former) to his cabinet than any President in modern history and we're just getting started.  These include James Mattis (Defense), Michael Flynn (national security advisor), Mike Pompeo (CIA Director), and John Kelly (Homeland Security Director).  The prominent role the military seems to be taking in the executive branch has many concerned since, again, civilian control of the military is a hallmark of our democracy.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 09, 2016, 11:42:26 AM
Media seem intent on normalizing his cabinet picks who will be enablers rather than modifiers of his short attention span, thin-skinned, narcissistic and obsessive preoccupation with his critics instead of the job at hand, eg intelligence briefings.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Ram23 on December 09, 2016, 12:42:18 PM
^^ I couldn't be happier about some of those appointments. None of them should come as a big surprise to anybody, nor should they be "controversial" at all given the fact that Trump was elected. We elected him to do some of the many things you are calling out as "controversial" with your criticisms. We don't want Syrian refugees settled in the US, we are sick and tired of how the Justice Department has torn apart our country over the last 8 years, HUD has been failing inner cities and needs a change, the national wage should be set at state level (if it even needs to exist), etc. These ideas aren't controversial at all - they're what our president was elected to do.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: sir2gees on December 09, 2016, 12:56:22 PM
^So, appointing a guy who has made racists comments as AG helps heal the country? I just don't get it. You say the Justice Department has "torn apart" the country, but Trump appoints a guy who called black attorneys boy and said the KKK was ok until he learned about their drug use. Please...
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hootenany on December 09, 2016, 01:28:31 PM
^^ I couldn't be happier about some of those appointments. None of them should come as a big surprise to anybody, nor should they be "controversial" at all given the fact that Trump was elected. We elected him to do some of the many things you are calling out as "controversial" with your criticisms. We don't want Syrian refugees settled in the US, we are sick and tired of how the Justice Department has torn apart our country over the last 8 years, HUD has been failing inner cities and needs a change, the national wage should be set at state level (if it even needs to exist), etc. These ideas aren't controversial at all - they're what our president was elected to do.

Was Trump elected to appoint a bunch of Wall Street executives to positions of power in our government?  Is that what Trump voters asked for?  I think most of the people that voted for Trump would be at least confused by the appointments of Steve Mnuchin and Wilbur Ross if not flat outraged.  The appointment of Carson is also confusing given his seeming lack of interest in the position and undeniable lack of experience.  I think these picks are controversial on both sides of the aisle.

Did the overwhelming support of labor unions inspire Trump to nominate an anti union CEO to Labor Secretary?

You're absolutely right about Tom Price and Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III though.  The xenophobia expressed at Trump rallies, by supporters online, and by the candidate himself should leave none of us surprised that he would appoint anti-immigrant / refugee individuals to positions of power.  That one I could see coming.

EDIT - I would also like to add that you need to admit that you understand why appointing someone who doesn't believe the EPA has a right to exist to head the EPA is controversial.  You get that, right?  The person that will be at the top of the Environmental Protection Agency doesn't believe that the environment needs to be protected.  He doesn't believe in the core missions of the agency.  It would be like appointing a pacifist to run the Department of Defense.  It just doesn't make any sense.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: IAGuy39 on December 09, 2016, 01:29:33 PM
So with all these generals becoming in charge of everything from domestic to international policy, are we seeing the start of, oh idk, a military state??
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Gramarye on December 09, 2016, 02:14:45 PM
^^ I couldn't be happier about some of those appointments. None of them should come as a big surprise to anybody, nor should they be "controversial" at all given the fact that Trump was elected. We elected him to do some of the many things you are calling out as "controversial" with your criticisms. We don't want Syrian refugees settled in the US, we are sick and tired of how the Justice Department has torn apart our country over the last 8 years, HUD has been failing inner cities and needs a change, the national wage should be set at state level (if it even needs to exist), etc. These ideas aren't controversial at all - they're what our president was elected to do.

Was Trump elected to appoint a bunch of Wall Street executives to positions of power in our government?  Is that what Trump voters asked for?  I think most of the people that voted for Trump would be at least confused by the appointments of Steve Mnuchin and Wilbur Ross if not flat outraged.  The appointment of Carson is also confusing given his seeming lack of interest in the position and undeniable lack of experience.  I think these picks are controversial on both sides of the aisle.

I would agree with this.

Quote
Did the overwhelming support of labor unions inspire Trump to nominate an anti union CEO to Labor Secretary?

"Overwhelming support?"  The only labor unions that endorsed Trump were the FOP, National Border Patrol Council, and National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council.  He might have had more support among the rank-and-file, of course (in fact, it's a near-certainty that he did, vis-a-vis the national organizations), but "overwhelming support" is still pretty exaggerated.

Quote
You're absolutely right about Tom Price and Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III though.  The xenophobia expressed at Trump rallies, by supporters online, and by the candidate himself should leave none of us surprised that he would appoint anti-immigrant / refugee individuals to positions of power.  That one I could see coming.

"Xenophobia" in the sense of not wanting 12 million illegal aliens in the country or to open the gates to see here what's been happening (and swept under the rug by the denialist establishment in power) in Europe, in Germany, in the Netherlands, in France?  Call it xenophobia if you want, I guess, but I think the xeno in this case has justified some phobos, and if you refuse to deal with that and just fling it as a slur at everyone who has legitimate concerns about who comes into this country, you're deliberately blinding yourself to one of Trump's strongest appeals.  Bluntly, if the Democrats refuse to give on this issue, they will be handing Trump an extraordinarily powerful weapon against them that will probably cover a lot of other sins--of which Trump is likely to commit a great deal--come midterm and reelection time.

Quote
EDIT - I would also like to add that you need to admit that you understand why appointing someone who doesn't believe the EPA has a right to exist to head the EPA is controversial.  You get that, right?  The person that will be at the top of the Environmental Protection Agency doesn't believe that the environment needs to be protected.  He doesn't believe in the core missions of the agency.  It would be like appointing a pacifist to run the Department of Defense.  It just doesn't make any sense.

You make it sound like only Greenpeace activists should be EPA administrators.  Pruitt is actually on record saying that he doesn't think the EPA should be completely wound down and eliminated (though of course the notion that that position has any currency at all is horrific to many Democrats, let alone Greens, who think the EPA should be funded more like the Defense Department and vice versa).  But yes, to those skeptical of government power and particularly of the expansive regulatory reach of the federal government under Obama, it makes absolutely perfect sense to have people who are skeptical about the departments running them.  It isn't like appointing a pacifist to run the U.S. Department of Defense.  It's closer to America suddenly having the power to appoint a pacifist to run the Red Army.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: Hootenany on December 09, 2016, 03:06:01 PM
Did the overwhelming support of labor unions inspire Trump to nominate an anti union CEO to Labor Secretary?

"Overwhelming support?"  The only labor unions that endorsed Trump were the FOP, National Border Patrol Council, and National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council.  He might have had more support among the rank-and-file, of course (in fact, it's a near-certainty that he did, vis-a-vis the national organizations), but "overwhelming support" is still pretty exaggerated.

You're right.  My memory did not serve me well.  I thought I recalled Trump winning the union household vote, but now I see that is incorrect.  Clinton won by about 8 points which is down from the 18 points Obama beat Romney by.

You're absolutely right about Tom Price and Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III though.  The xenophobia expressed at Trump rallies, by supporters online, and by the candidate himself should leave none of us surprised that he would appoint anti-immigrant / refugee individuals to positions of power.  That one I could see coming.

"Xenophobia" in the sense of not wanting 12 million illegal aliens in the country or to open the gates to see here what's been happening (and swept under the rug by the denialist establishment in power) in Europe, in Germany, in the Netherlands, in France?  Call it xenophobia if you want, I guess, but I think the xeno in this case has justified some phobos, and if you refuse to deal with that and just fling it as a slur at everyone who has legitimate concerns about who comes into this country, you're deliberately blinding yourself to one of Trump's strongest appeals.  Bluntly, if the Democrats refuse to give on this issue, they will be handing Trump an extraordinarily powerful weapon against them that will probably cover a lot of other sins--of which Trump is likely to commit a great deal--come midterm and reelection time.

You're conflating at least two different topics here.  You're talking about your disdain for the illegal immigrants in the country (which is understandable, but completely exaggerated for political gain) and then you talk about what's happening in Europe which is a distinctly different problem (refugees).  Then you talk about concerns about "who comes into this country".  When you say that we all know you aren't talking about Mexicans or Guatemalans or any other nationality.  You're talking about Muslims.  Many Trump supporters don't want Muslims entering the United States and the President elect has supported that position in writing and on the stump.  A fear of Muslims is understandable to some degree given what's happening with ISIS, but it's the job of our government and the President specifically to ease those concerns and foster shared patriotism between every unique individual in the country.  George Bush understood that.  Donald Trump does not.

I actually agree that Democrats need to stop labelling every individual a xenophobe if they express anxiety regarding Muslims.  Bill Maher talks about this a lot and I think he's right.  But we need to hold our elected leaders to a higher standard.

EDIT - I would also like to add that you need to admit that you understand why appointing someone who doesn't believe the EPA has a right to exist to head the EPA is controversial.  You get that, right?  The person that will be at the top of the Environmental Protection Agency doesn't believe that the environment needs to be protected.  He doesn't believe in the core missions of the agency.  It would be like appointing a pacifist to run the Department of Defense.  It just doesn't make any sense.

You make it sound like only Greenpeace activists should be EPA administrators.  Pruitt is actually on record saying that he doesn't think the EPA should be completely wound down and eliminated (though of course the notion that that position has any currency at all is horrific to many Democrats, let alone Greens, who think the EPA should be funded more like the Defense Department and vice versa).  But yes, to those skeptical of government power and particularly of the expansive regulatory reach of the federal government under Obama, it makes absolutely perfect sense to have people who are skeptical about the departments running them.  It isn't like appointing a pacifist to run the U.S. Department of Defense.  It's closer to America suddenly having the power to appoint a pacifist to run the Red Army.

The EPA is not the enemy.  It's an agency charged with protecting our air, drinking water, natural resources, etc.  I don't understand how a comparison to the USSR Army has any relevance at all.
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 09, 2016, 03:18:18 PM
Donald Trump’s Harassment of a Teenage Girl on Twitter Led to Death and Rape Threats
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/12/trumps-harassment-of-an-18-year-old-girl-on-twitter-led-to-death-threats.html?mid=facebook_nymag
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 09, 2016, 03:53:42 PM
This is what happens as he attacks private citizens on twitter (part 3,012)...

AFSCME Council 5
‏@AFSCMEMN5
Trump's appalling attack on union leader Chuck Jones leads to death threats: http://buff.ly/2ggeJb0 
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: KJP on December 09, 2016, 08:19:26 PM
Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_russiahack-1215p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.558f0cb33ad1
Title: Re: The Trump Presidency
Post by: unusualfire on December 09, 2016, 09:46:01 PM