The Upcoming Trump Presidency

[Shrinweck]

He made it a story. All the Parks department did was release crowd estimates. He was the one that told them to shut down their Tweeting and have his press secretary lie about it being the most attended inauguration ever.

He's the president for Pete's sake. THAT'S who is being petty. He made it a story by going on about it. Just like he's making the story about voter fraud. Just like he's the one who keeps bringing up the election.


Also I assume Seek was referring to the EPA media blackout the Trump administration imposed.

Also the ban thing was sarcasm because of how much I am against it. The sarcastic joke I was trying to make was that if you're going to pass a xenophobic ban then at least include a country that has a history of sending us terrorists.

[kali o.]

He made it a story. All the Parks department did was release crowd estimates. He was the one that told them to shut down their Tweeting and have his press secretary lie about it being the most attended inauguration ever.

He's the president for Pete's sake. THAT'S who is being petty. He made it a story by going on about it. Just like he's making the story about voter fraud. Just like he's the one who keeps bringing up the election.


Also I assume Seek was referring to the EPA media blackout the Trump administration imposed.

Also the ban thing was sarcasm because of how much I am against it. The sarcastic joke I was trying to make was that if you're going to pass a xenophobic ban then at least include a country that has a history of sending us terrorists.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Why, precisely, do you think the park department retweeted those two items? If you are pretending it wasnt a political issue and didnt deserve a response...well...lol.

Trump is cleaning house from the previous administration - as he should. He took the opportunity to muzzle social media from cheap political shots moving forward, as he should. You want to reframe Trumps response as something unusual but it wasnt...that twitter user using government social media to troll the incoming administration is the unusual part - but you blissfully seem to ignore/twist that.

As for the muslim ban - I love it. We have a fucking muslim MP in Canada trying to make criticizing Islam a crime. Maybe Canada will wake up, like the US.

[Shrinweck]

Okay I got a couple things mixed up with this - the reshare was a dick move. The pettiness however is still the issue here and why it's clownish. Which is why I brought it up in the first place. The bald-faced lying is something that just keeps coming up, if not from him directly then from his mouthpiece to the country. And when it's something this petty - that is an issue. President should have bigger fish to fry.

It's very much a reasonable thing for the media to mention it when there's a lie with such glaring evidence discrediting it.

[Eric]

As for the muslim ban - I love it. We have a fucking muslim MP in Canada trying to make criticizing Islam a crime. Maybe Canada will wake up, like the US.

I can't tell if you're trolling at this point or not, come on Kali, yes PC culture helped Donald Trump win the election but you can't agree with all the shit he's doing out of fear.

I'm not the biggest fan of Islam and I certainly criticize the religion openly(and all religions for that matter), but blanket banning an entire group of people from these particular muslim countries out of fear seems ridiculous.

And look, food for thought, , Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen were the countries banned, who's fucking missing from this list? Saudi fucking Arabia lol, it's like the worst kept secret in the world the Saudis fund terror groups that hate us and would love to blow us the fuck up, on the other hand if you can find a report of terrorists from those 7 countries that were actually banned attacking US soil by all means, enlighten me. This delusion that we're living in fear of terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11 for the past 15 years is some bullshit. How many actual events outside 9/11 have been caused by Islamic terrorists that were NOT born and raised in the US.

I don't like the fact that I have a President sitting in office that's completely fine with appealing to the worst side of humanity and stroking fear as his message for why things need to get done and why we need him in office.

[kali o.]

I can't tell if you're trolling at this point or not, come on Kali, yes PC culture helped Donald Trump win the election but you can't agree with all the shit he's doing out of fear.

I'm not the biggest fan of Islam and I certainly criticize the religion openly(and all religions for that matter), but blanket banning an entire group of people from these particular muslim countries out of fear seems ridiculous.

And look, food for thought, , Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen were the countries banned, who's fucking missing from this list? Saudi fucking Arabia lol, it's like the worst kept secret in the world the Saudis fund terror groups that hate us and would love to blow us the fuck up, on the other hand if you can find a report of terrorists from those 7 countries that were actually banned attacking US soil by all means, enlighten me. This delusion that we're living in fear of terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11 for the past 15 years is some bullshit. How many actual events outside 9/11 have been caused by Islamic terrorists that were NOT born and raised in the US.

I don't like the fact that I have a President sitting in office that's completely fine with appealing to the worst side of humanity and stroking fear as his message for why things need to get done and why we need him in office.

Not trolling because, as I have stated before, my issue has nothing (well, less) to do with policies and is concerned with bias media and misinformation it spreads.

We need a reality check here. Do you know how many times immigration has been restricted from countries in the past? I do. Do you know Obama even did so?

Here is what is different now - you've been convinced that it is due to "fear" (libtard buzzword); not prudence. He is also being transperant, unlike previous administrations. Further, he is doing exactly what he promised, unlike most presidents, and in record time.

Take a hard look at why you think the way you do - why different standards apply this time.

As for Saudi...Trump is an actual critic, unlike others in DC. If your complaint of them not being included is serious and not just self serving, perhaps give Trump more than just a week...

PS - as a totally cheap point for you to consider...do you know how many of those countries have their own travel & immigration bans on certain other countries...? I do. That is the problem with globalization in general -- progressives are gunning for a playing field where not everyone has to play by the same rules. That will never work - you will lose that game.

Wake up man.

[Eric]

I can't tell if you're trolling at this point or not, come on Kali, yes PC culture helped Donald Trump win the election but you can't agree with all the shit he's doing out of fear.

I'm not the biggest fan of Islam and I certainly criticize the religion openly(and all religions for that matter), but blanket banning an entire group of people from these particular muslim countries out of fear seems ridiculous.

And look, food for thought, , Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen were the countries banned, who's fucking missing from this list? Saudi fucking Arabia lol, it's like the worst kept secret in the world the Saudis fund terror groups that hate us and would love to blow us the fuck up, on the other hand if you can find a report of terrorists from those 7 countries that were actually banned attacking US soil by all means, enlighten me. This delusion that we're living in fear of terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11 for the past 15 years is some bullshit. How many actual events outside 9/11 have been caused by Islamic terrorists that were NOT born and raised in the US.

I don't like the fact that I have a President sitting in office that's completely fine with appealing to the worst side of humanity and stroking fear as his message for why things need to get done and why we need him in office.

Not trolling because, as I have stated before, my issue has nothing (well, less) to do with policies and is concerned with bias media and misinformation it spreads.

We need a reality check here. Do you know how many times immigration has been restricted from countries in the past? I do. Do you know Obama even did so?

Here is what is different now - you've been convinced that it is due to "fear" (libtard buzzword); not prudence. He is also being transperant, unlike previous administrations. Further, he is doing exactly what he promised, unlike most presidents, and in record time.

Take a hard look at why you think the way you do - why different standards apply this time.

As for Saudi...Trump is an actual critic, unlike others in DC. If your complaint of them not being included is serious and not just self serving, perhaps give Trump more than just a week...

PS - as a totally cheap point for you to consider...do you know how many of those countries have their own travel & immigration bans on certain other countries...? I do. That is the problem with globalization in general -- progressives are gunning for a playing field where not everyone has to play by the same rules. That will never work - you will lose that game.

Wake up man.

Yeah, I don't just rely on one media source, I check for multiple sources. I'm not gonna ignore all media outlets I know they all have an agenda, but you can put together truth if you're not just going with one place/perspective.

You can't compare any previous President's bans to Trump's. He banned countries and people based on their religion, that's it, which also ties to your last cheap point. It doesn't make it right.

Fear is not a fucking Liberal buzzword, that's bullshit. Fear is what motivates people to do panicy and stupid bullshit. You've seen it happen throughout history in the worst possible ways. You rile people up by making them afraid and then you push them to do awful shit to preemptively protect themselves. I don't need to make a list, you're a smart guy I'm sure you can think of a fuckton of instances in human history this has happened.

I'm black and live in America, I've seen firsthand what the fuck a fearful person looks like and how they act out of sheer terror/misunderstanding when armed with ignorance. If you want to deal with immigration, there's better ways then painting entire groups of people from the Middle East & Mexico as dangerous radical criminals and terrorists and perpetuating that as all they are. As a black man I can tell you how much it fucking sucks when I'm not given the benefit of the doubt just based on my appearance and how assumptions generally do not work out in my favor.

[kali o.]

You can't compare any previous President's bans to Trump's. He banned countries and people based on their religion, that's it, which also ties to your last cheap point. It doesn't make it right.

Bullshit. Islamic terrorism (and to a certain extent, radical/orthodox muslims) are an issue. These countries are the breeding grounds for radicalization. That this issue is conflated with "religion" is inescapable by definition. You, of course, realize it was the PREVIOUS administration that created this list of concerning countries...right? **You** want to call this a religious based ban...tell me something, why isn't, for example, Indonesia on this list?

Face facts, you are defining things in a skewed way to suit your narrative and applying different standards to prevent that narrative from collapsing. Those other countries...here's an important point. It has nothing to do with a danger to it's citizens -- it is purely based on hatred and religion. You want to argue its the same...but the mental gymnastics you have to do to get there is astounding.

Fear is not a fucking Liberal buzzword, that's bullshit. Fear is what motivates people to do panicy and stupid bullshit. You've seen it happen throughout history in the worst possible ways. You rile people up by making them afraid and then you push them to do awful shit to preemptively protect themselves. I don't need to make a list, you're a smart guy I'm sure you can think of a fuckton of instances in human history this has happened.

Yes it is. No one is afraid of Muslims, they are simply sick and tired of not tackling a real issue that is causing problems worldwide. And make a list, so I can dismantle it and your arbitrary application to today. I will fucking red pill you eventually.

I'm black and live in America, I've seen firsthand what the fuck a fearful person looks like and how they act out of sheer terror/misunderstanding when armed with ignorance. If you want to deal with immigration, there's better ways then painting entire groups of people from the Middle East & Mexico as dangerous radical criminals and terrorists and perpetuating that as all they are. As a black man I can tell you how much it fucking sucks when I'm not given the benefit of the doubt just based on my appearance and how assumptions generally do not work out in my favor.

Trump has not painted entire groups of people from Mexico or people from the ME in the way you describe (similarly, Trump doesn't hate the disabled, gays or women either). That's the media in your head, lying to you. I can prove it to you -- just list the reasons why you think Trump has said those things.

If you are too lazy, here is a blanket point. LOOK at Europe. The migration from the middle east and north Africa is absolutely devastating the entire EU. If you won't accept proof of problems, in your face now and easily accessible, then what fucking qualifies as proof in your eyes?

PS - I heard Trump is negotiating with SA for safe zones (aka continuing to get shit done). Perhaps that is why they were not included. Is that enough to satisfy you or will you continue with your media induced hysteria of "greed greed greed!"?

PPS - I forget the code to resize images. Someone remind me.

[Eric]

ok Kali.

[kali o.]

ok Kali.

That's what I thought. Sorry your vague allusions to -isms and personal anecdotes didn't set me straight....

PS - I'll make it even easier for you (or for me to actually wake you up), what in the linked Executive Order do you specifically disagree with...the added transparency to the American people? ...the review and reform of vetting? ....the time required (120 days) to implement the new policy? Perhaps you simply disagree with protecting women, gays and Americans practicing any religion?

https://web.archive.org/web/20170130005 ... -refugees/

Also, since you apparently want to make your skin colour relevant... Opinions.

[ManaMan]

Looks like things are proceeding pretty much as expected for Trump's presidency. He's chugging right along. Protests are already kicking off in earnest (earlier than I thought).

[Shrinweck]

Looks like things are proceeding pretty much as expected for Trump's presidency. He's chugging right along. Protests are already kicking off in earnest (earlier than I thought).

Donations to things like the ACLU have picked up too. The ACLU pulled in something like six times what they get in online donations in a year in just this last weekend alone. Total yearly donations skew that impressive figure a bit, but that's a pretty crazy statistic for specifically online donations. Charitable causes for refugees got quite a lot, too.

[kali o.]

I've never really understood charitable causes / donations that go outside the local (except for churches, since I get they are doing so in order to spread the faith). I mean, I understand people pick the stories that resonate with them -- but I am sure there is a group locally that would equally touch you if you bothered to look. Plus, the stuff that I see Airbnb / Lyft / Starbucks / Kal Penn / etc doing strikes me as completely self serving and promotional...which makes me a little ill.

Especially Starbucks...that pledge to hire 10,000 "refugees" strikes me as assbackwards and potentially illegal. Hell, Airbnb too -- pledging customers products they don't own (and they've done this before and not delivered).

Sorry, back on topic -- I read the executive order and I fail to see where people actually have issues with it (though I understand if you simply read bias news sources instead of the document). my understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, is Greencard / visa holders were not intended to be banned, just additionally screened. Instead the media just ran with it.

[Oracle]

Any ban such as this that doesn't include SA is more par for the course as far as American government is concerned. If Trump every strikes out against that regime, I'll stand up and take notice.

And why isn't Afghanistan on this list? Especially considering Iraq is on the list. I would have expected it to be the other way around.

I'm not a fan of the executive order - I see it as accomplishing very little while upping the ante on dividing people. After reading the order itself, seems to be mostly hot air (besides the refugee and immigration limitations, those I think will have very real impacts) - paying lip service to a campaign promise.

And Jesus Kali, I know you're enthusiastic now that your boy is in, but you are starting to sound a bit like your nemesis

[kali o.]

And Jesus Kali, I know you're enthusiastic now that your boy is in, but you are starting to sound a bit like your nemesis

Hey man, someones gotta try to fill the void. I am a professional void filler.

Seriously though, fuck Trump. But I am passionate about media bias and the cumulative effect it has on people, especially now when we have never been more bombarded by information. When I press people, and see them come up empty with arguments or vague allusions to shit they can't support or parrot stuff they heard or toss out anecdotes....I get frustrated. Because it is dangerous. Because it makes the people, who should ultimately hold power, puppets to others agenda.

If you think Trump hates gays, lets have a conversation about it. I am willing to bet, at the very least, I will get you to the point were you will admit it is just your opinion and you can't factually back it up. That's not an endorsement of Trump -- that's a "can you please fucking support what you think is fact for fucks sake".

[ManaMan]

Hey man, someones gotta try to fill the void. I am a professional void filler.

<insert joke about kali wanting to fill Mental's void here>

Seriously though, fuck Trump. But I am passionate about media bias and the cumulative effect it has on people, especially now when we have never been more bombarded by information. When I press people, and see them come up empty with arguments or vague allusions to shit they can't support or parrot stuff they heard or toss out anecdotes....I get frustrated. Because it is dangerous. Because it makes the people, who should ultimately hold power, puppets to others agenda.

I'm interested what you think are the biggest points of media bias today and why you think so. Maybe that could be its own thread.

If you think Trump hates gays, lets have a conversation about it.

I honestly think Trump has no problem with gay people. He had Peter Thiel speak at the convention and he just upheld Obama's protection for LGBTxyz federal workers. However, I know that Mike Pence is no fan of the gays. The same can be said of many/most Republicans. Trump may use gay rights as a bargaining chip with Republicans in Congress to get in line.

[kali o.]

I'm interested what you think are the biggest points of media bias today and why you think so. Maybe that could be its own thread.

It don't know how interesting that is and I am not sure I will articulate myself very well unless you shrink the scope to a single event (or specify what you mean by "points").

However, I know that Mike Pence is no fan of the gays.

I think it would be fairer to say he is no fan of the sin. But this is a good example of the first question.

Irresponsible News Headline
"Mike Pence shows distain for LBGT community"

Responsible News Headline
"Mike Pence opposes civil unions"

Words matter and the media can be dishonest without actually being dishonest. The media has a massive responsibility to the public, never moreso than today. It needs to act/speak with laser precision and a steadfast application of ethics and standards for news.

I think a good, simple start would be to force online news sources to classify their content as either editorial / commentary or news. Google, bing, facebook, etc would be required to not feedthrough (into their news feeds) anything that isn't "news". Have some stiffer libel / slander laws, standards and penalties in place for "news".

[Julius Seeker]

[Shrinweck]

Wow.

[ManaMan]

Here's one for you: Sean Spicer Holds a Perplexing Grudge Against Dippin’ Dots.

I wonder if he lost money owning one of thos Dippin Dots those mall kiosks in the past?

[kali o.]

Ummm, anyone not brainwashed by the leftist media already understands the myriad of reasons to hate Dippin' Dots. Wake up people.

[Shrinweck]

I admittedly had to steal this joke from someone else, but...

I hate to tell you, Betsy DeVos is the perfect Secretary of Education to serve under the founder of Trump University. SAD!

[Julius Seeker]

Apparently Donald Trump's way of making America great again is by killing children and American troops in Yemen.

Obama, and even other Republicans had qualification not to greenlight such missions. But Trump isn't qualified. He doesn't know what he's doing, and he's a coward for not taking responsibility for the consequences of his bumbling idiocy. He is not stepping into the role of President at all, he's a buffoon that happens to have executive order powers.

The US and the world will be a significantly worse place as a result of the Republican party being in power; maybe even worse than last time.

[kali o.]

Your argument is dishonest and dumb. But by all means, pretend a President plans on that micro level and it is not the same military. Would you like to guess at how many Americans and civilians were killed under Obama by drones?

I don't care if you don't like Trump. I do care that you are being stupid.

[Shrinweck]

It's true that his lack of experience in this regard will almost certainly lead to some blunders, and that's concerning, but I think the people who voted for him expected that when they voted for a celebrity rather than a politician. And, yeah, there aren't any innocent presidents in this regard in the modern era. And, yeah, Obama's drone campaigns definitely disqualify him. Trump did however micro this particular raid, in that he approved it, so it's certainly valid to criticize him over it. Even Obama had a hand in planning it, although his fault in this is basically zero since obviously they didn't call him for his opinion on the final approval.

The more concerning things to me this week include: Trump waffling on stances with Israel and China in favor of maintaining situations with them (this is actually a good thing, but why did he go off on the tangents to begin with?). This is in reference to Trump initially saying he would move the Israel embassy to Jerusalem and him going against the One China policy. Also the Kelly Conway plug for Ivanka's clothing line. Also his apparent expectation that the Judicial branch of government should just fall in line with him. The most disturbing thing is probably them getting rid of the regulations that basically punished wall street after the mortgage/housing bubble fiasco. It's genuinely hard to view that with any optimism. They're also looking to weaken the watchdog oversight group that was put into place to keep the same thing from happening again. The problem here being that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is what they're trying to weaken, is there to prioritize consumers while the other entities (like the Federal Reserve Board and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) are more out for the profit lines of the institutions.

On the other side of things something positive: I like that Spicer is calling on independent news sources to begin with as opposed to traditionally calling on the AP and network news first. That favoritism does include Breitbart, for what that's worth, but he also makes an effort to call on independent news sources that can be critical of the Trump administration and foreign press. Everyone still presumably gets their turn at a question, but, yeah, fuck network news.

[kali o.]

Trump waffling on stances with Israel and China...

Consider the possibility that Trump is being tactical. I am not saying it is...but, as you said, Trump is a businessman...and a successful one at that. The likelihood he is being strategic and advised by experts far outweighs that he is an idiot acting alone....no? Be honest.

It's not business as usual, I get that, but why is that a bad thing?

Also the Kelly Conway plug for Ivanka's clothing line.

I waffle on this. On the one hand, Ivanka is being quite unfairly attacked, by the left and media. On the other hand, I believe she has a role in the administration now, so she is fair game (even for lame tactics). Ideally, you do not want a world that's so divisive and petty...realistically, leftist tactics will be more and more adopted by center and right, and I have years of #boycottXYZ stupidity to look forward to from all sides.

[Shrinweck]

I would say the problem with Conway is that she plugged it while acting in her official capacity for the government - which at the very least is an ethics violation. Watchdog groups have called against the law itself. The violation being promoting a private business while acting officially for the government as opposed to yet more Trump nepotism. I'm kind of pressed for time as I write this post so I'm not checking right this minute, but she basically came out and told people to buy her shit if I'm remembering correctly. In any case, this is just something that I'm filing away under "More of this, then?" rather than "ARRRRGGH WHAT IS HAPPENING TO MY COUNTRY"

It's just hard to take his constant promotion of confusion when it comes to diplomacy as anything other, then, yeah "businessman" is the more polite way to put it. He's telling groups of people what they want to hear when he's in front of them but there's just no telling where things will end up. Considering how much I disagree with the man in general, I just cannot be optimistic about it. Before the inauguration I think businessman could have been more apt but at this point he's squarely into demagogue territory. But you could be right, maybe it is a deeper game.

I think it's a safe bet that it isn't though lol. Playing games with our relations with fellow nuclear powers is the kind of thing that has the potential to scare me so much more than, say, losing access to my health insurance or some such.

[kali o.]

The violation being promoting a private business while acting officially for the government as opposed to yet more Trump nepotism.

Isn't that a dishonest, or at least exaggerated, framing though? I mean, others (including the media), have dragged Ivanka's business into the spotlight and made it a political anti-administration issue. Kellyanne responds and encourages people to show their support.

Surely we can both agree Kellyanne's agenda is not to promote Ivanka's business -- she was responding to a matter of politics (rather petty politics at that). A claim of violation of the letter the law, rather than the spirit of the law, seems incredibly self serving in this case.

I haven't paid much attention to this, mind you, because it seemed like a non-issue to me. I am working off vague memory and will look into it more if you disagree with any of the above.

[Shrinweck]

She urged people to go online and specifically buy Ivanka's clothesline. The ethics breach being that she should not be endorsing (“shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity.”) the product at all.

“Go buy Ivanka’s stuff is what I would say,” Ms. Conway said in a Thursday morning interview with Fox News, speaking from the White House briefing room. “I’m going to give a free commercial here: Go buy it today, everybody; you can find it online.”

Like I said it isn't the biggest deal but no I can't agree that her agenda wasn't promoting the Ivanaka line given her wording. If you find the clip she's clearly endorsing the product. The quotes aren't out of context, that's what she went there to do. Even if, as Nordstrom claimed, the sales weren't declining, it isn't right for people with very real roles in politics telling Americans what to buy. Ivanka has also resigned from the company so this is even more clearly just pure vanity. Conway has apparently apologized for it, the Trump Administration has "counseled" her about it. So even they're admitting it was a breach. I'm not crying for her to lose her job I'm just pointing out continued nepotism/favoritsm.

Pertinent (article)
links (Conway clip)

[Don]

During one year in the College Football Championship one of the announcer was something like 'This is for all the Tosquitos' during the final possession back when it was still the Tosquitos Bowl. It's estimated that such a plug is worth millions of dollars and while I'm sure the guy thought he was being funny, it doesn't change the fact that someone easily could've slipped him say $100K to say what he did. Government officials are measured by a considerable higher scrutiny compared to the guys announcing football, so this is far more serious. Even if you're in a corrupt country generally speaking nobody is going to be dumb enough to go on national TV and plug for something that's obviously related to your boss's financial interests. It's not so much as that there's this fear Conway secretly getting big bucks for plugging Ivanka's cloth line as opposed to that blatant stupidity should get punished. Honestly I don't know why they didn't just get rid of her and say like 'yeah our administration is totally tough on ethics' and deflect from the real issues, because it can't be that hard to find another person that just says Trump is awesome. This is really an issue of 'too dumb to live' and sure maybe it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things but it's not like the Ethics committee seem to be doing anything so they might as well do something to give an appearance of being useful.

[kali o.]

She urged people to go online and specifically buy Ivanka's clothesline. The ethics breach being that she should not be endorsing (“shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity.”) the product at all.

“Go buy Ivanka’s stuff is what I would say,” Ms. Conway said in a Thursday morning interview with Fox News, speaking from the White House briefing room. “I’m going to give a free commercial here: Go buy it today, everybody; you can find it online.”

Like I said it isn't the biggest deal but no I can't agree that her agenda wasn't promoting the Ivanaka line given her wording. If you find the clip she's clearly endorsing the product. The quotes aren't out of context, that's what she went there to do. Even if, as Nordstrom claimed, the sales weren't declining, it isn't right for people with very real roles in politics telling Americans what to buy. Ivanka has also resigned from the company so this is even more clearly just pure vanity. Conway has apparently apologized for it, the Trump Administration has "counseled" her about it. So even they're admitting it was a breach. I'm not crying for her to lose her job I'm just pointing out continued nepotism/favoritsm.

Pertinent (article)
links (Conway clip)

I still think we will agree. Was Kellyanne simply promoting Ivanka's brand/monetary gain OR was she responding to an issue of petty politics (boycott Trump)? There is a distinction there, and I am not arguing Kellyanne was correct, only that the issue should not be framed dishonestly.

[kali o.]

I found the presser today pretty interesting. Pro-trumpers think he was awesome, anti-trump people think he was embarrassing. I wonder what those in the middle thought...

I was only disappointed on one front - Russia has been intentionally provocative in 3 recent actions (as mentioned by the reporter). They most assuredly are testing Trump and exploiting a currently vulnerable US for political points home & abroad. Trump cannot be naive and should put an end to it.

[Don]

He did say the spy ship is very bad and that Russia took Crimea and need to give it back, and I'm reading that Kremlin told their media to stop giving as much coverage to Trump now that he's not being totally friendly with them. Unless Trump is literally a spy from Russia, I can't see why he'd continue to put up with Russian provocation since there's no reason for him to risk treason to appease Russians as he can get far more power/wealth taking the same risk just stealing from US. Trump seems to have a tendency to promise the impossible so I guess that's why he's friendly with Russians because he thinks he can broker a great deal and be known as the most awesome president ever. When it's clear this won't work out, I don't see why he'd continue to put up with Russian provocation, unless he's expecting Putin to jump down from a helicopter without a shirt and take over Canada and give half of the land to him for his cooperation.

[Shrinweck]

unless he's expecting Putin to jump down from a helicopter without a shirt and take over Canada and give half of the land to him for his cooperation.

I would like to watch that movie, now, please.

[ManaMan]

One of the people in this comic reminded me of someone from this forum. I won't say who.

[kali o.]

I think you nailed it Princess. How he eats his steak is very, very important "news".

[Oracle]

Fucking partisans.

[kali o.]

Fucking partisans.

Fence-sitters get to look down on everyone else, but the lack of oxygen up there causes brain damage.

Pick a side, you fucking Canadian!

[Oracle]

Fucking partisans.

Fence-sitters get to look down on everyone else, but the lack of oxygen up there causes brain damage.

Pick a side, you fucking Canadian!

That's like asking an atheist to pick a religion. What's the point, it makes no fucking difference :p

[ManaMan]

Pick a side, you fucking Canadian!

If there's one thing I can't abide it's a Saskatchewanian who won't pick sides in US national politics.

[kali o.]

That's like asking an atheist to pick a religion. What's the point, it makes no fucking difference :p

You are either a Dawkins atheist or a Hitchens atheist -- there is no in-between.

If there's one thing I can't abide it's a Saskatchewanian who won't pick sides in US national politics.

They won't even pick a side in Canadian politics, instead forming their own creatively named "Saskatchewan Party". Wankers.

[Oracle]

They won't even pick a side in Canadian politics, instead forming their own creatively named "Saskatchewan Party". Wankers.

We're facing a 1.2 billion dollar deficit (province of 1.13 million people) after the biggest resource boom years in our history (oil, potash, uranium), about to experience huge cuts to public service sectors, and talks about privatizing profitable government owned corps. Oh, we picked a side. Guess which one :p

Wankers is right.

[ManaMan]

It's actually fine by me that you don't care about US politics (I'd try not to care if I lived in Canada). I just wanted to use the word "Saskatchewanian" which I'd just learned thanks to Wikipedia is what you call someone from Saskatchewan. It's now my favorite demonym right after "Connecticutian" (someone from Connecticut). Sorry about your wanky politics. I feel your pain. Wisconsin is run by a wanker who looks like he just got smacked in the face with a shovel and who thought building a wall on the Canadian border was worth considering.

[Oracle]

It's not that I don't care about US politics - Canadian politics is unavoidably connected to decision made in the US. I'm just not partisan. I don't care which side gets in, I just care about outcomes.

Just tired of the mud-slinging by both sides, which basically exchanges all useful policy discussions with conversations like "You're a dick", "No, YOU'RE a dick". Just doesn't seem productive, but that's likely the point - distract from the real issues.

[Zeus]

I ain't much for politics but man, that's a train wreck down there I can't keep my eyes off of. It boggles my mind the speed and intensity of the daily insanity that comes from that administration. It aint good for either side and one has no choice but to go along for the ride and the other is too inept to do anything tangible.

Well, at least SNL and Colbert have gotten a huge push because of this

[kali o.]

So its been awhile - plenty of time for us all to be exposed to all sorts of information and influences...

Is the media bias or is Trump really a Nazi sympathizer(small chuckle for the cartoon a few posts up, anyone)?

Do you think Trump is doing a good job?

Will 2018 bring a swing or the status quo?

[Don]

What Trump or any other president believes doesn't really matter as long as he's not actually passing laws that enforces the said beliefs. Now Trump happens to be dumb enough to talk about things that nobody in their right mind would talk about, and this also makes it pretty much impossible for his administration to actually govern so there's no lasting damage.

I was hoping he'd accidentally get North Korea to attack somewhere and then end up solving a problem that pretty much requires war. I don't think harsh words or even sanctions is actually going to convince North Korea to stop their nuclear program so a war is inevitable, and if Trump's harsh words gets him an easy pretext to declare war that'd actually be pretty brilliant. Doesn't look like NK is biting now, but abandoning strategic patience is probably the right choice.

[Eric]

So its been awhile - plenty of time for us all to be exposed to all sorts of information and influences...

Is the media bias or is Trump really a Nazi sympathizer(small chuckle for the cartoon a few posts up, anyone)?

Do you think Trump is doing a good job?

Will 2018 bring a swing or the status quo?

I'll bite

He's an old rich racist white man and a narcissist who can't stand being wrong. Him defending Nazi's/removal of confederate statues isn't shocking to anyone who's been paying attention.

His Presidency is a raging dumpster fire of stupid as expected, nothing will change and he can't govern, it's the best possible outcome just gotta ride it out until he either quits or is impeached(And I don't even mean for the Russia stuff, I mean for being an incompetent idiot).

lol

[Shrinweck]

Probably the least inflammatory thing I could say about it is that he's being encouraging to the supremacists.

His presidency isn't doing anything all that well except for maybe repealing minor Obama environmental policies. I suppose the stock market is doing alright, but it's hard to consider that to be anything but a soon-to-burst bubble.

Losing Bannon was probably a step in the right direction, though. It's hard to know how much of what has been going on is him, however.

[Shrinweck]

I edited this into my post but upon realizing how much longer it was than my original post figured I should just post again:


I wanted to elaborate on Bannon a bit. Losing Bannon is good for general governing of the country, but probably not so much for Trump himself. Bannon's opinions can be construed as misguided but his political know-how is on point and clearly a big reason why Trump has gotten elected and maintained his popularity with his core voters. I think the loss of Bannon will shift a fair amount of things towards the middle (i.e. listening to Ivanka and Jared more often), but that's not going to win him any favors with moderate Republicans and Democrats. Trump is too divisive. Obama brought down Osama bin Laden and people who disliked Obama had a difficult time coming to terms with being happy about it. Trump could find a way to do the equivalent and people would have an even rougher time being pleased with it.

Bannon's direction moved him in a way that ignored these people in favor of the people who put him into power, and without Bannon Trump's efforts (i.e. his second address about Charlottesville) to connect with the other people will likely be fruitless and isolate his core voters. It's worth noting here that reportedly Bannon warned him that a second address would be called too little and too late. The man is competent.

[Julius Seeker]

I have been hardly paying attention to politics this summer. But it's almost a given that, looking at political news, Trump's said or done something stupid or ignorant again. The latest thing is staring directly at the eclipse without eye protection - which, while not political, is considered stupid, even among children.

There have been idiot Presidents before; George W. Bush. What makes Trump significantly worse is his extreme laziness (which in itself, is another form of stupidity) and his childishness.

It seems to me that if Obama or Clinton had been anywhere near as poor at the job as Trump, they would have already been booted out of office. You would think by Trump's whining that one of them was President, and that he's a victim of their current tyranny. I don't think any world leader has whined so much before; that's the one area where he excels, he outdoes every other world leader combined in that regard.

When he does inevitably go out, who will likely replace him?