The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Gaelic Hill]

I never watch those shows. But when you have a news channel on in the next room, it's hard to avoid. Maybe I should switch to the alternative music channel. Oh wait, they might play some songs by the Trump-hater band Highly Suspect. But damn, I love their music. I can't win for losing!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Gaelic Hill

I never watch those shows. But when you have a news channel on in the next room, it's hard to avoid.

I can buy that well enough for those who got upset the morning after, or even hours after. But I'll be damned if I didn't start seeing uproar before the next commercial break ended.

Granted, my gripe about people engaging in paradoxical behavior (like hanging on every word of people they don't care about) is largely rhetorical. The left does a fair bit of it too -- ask any major radio talk host -- but I expect irrational behavior from them. It's more disconcerting to me when ostensibly kindreds do it. {shrug}

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Gaelic Hill

Oh wait, they might play some songs by the Trump-hater band Highly Suspect. But damn, I love their music. I can't win for losing!

Okay, now THAT revelation I may take a shot at you for

The current single is disappointingly droning, which frustrates me because they're capable of better work.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Thing that furrows my brow is how there's so many folks who got worked up over her (rather predictable) comments and "don't care what she thinks".

My question is essentially "why'n the hell were you watching that shit show in the first place then?"

I do not, for the very life of me, understand the need some folks have to actively hunt down things that will irritate them. Surely, SURELY there can't be so many people living lives that have a shortage of irritations. Seeking out additional ones is kinda nuts to me.

100% agree with this. It almost seems like they doth protest too much. In that, they actually do care what celebrities think. They just get upset when their favorite celebs think differently from them.

[Gaelic Hill]

Love the debut album. Haven't heard the new song, but I appreciate any and all reviews (there are always too many knuckle-headed 5-star reviews on Amazon that you can't put stock in).

[PilotMan]

The fact is that Trump did mock a disabled person. No amount of denial from him can change it. It's one of the biggest reasons that I was appalled that people would even consider voting for him.

Policies aside. He is the bully. He talks big, acts big, denies ever doing anything wrong, uses his position and money to get out of responsibilities he signs on for and lashes out at anyone who dare challenge him on his actions or behaviors.

He passes out overhyped plaudits in an effort to subdue people when he knows he screwed up and repeats the same phrases over and over and over again in order to prove that he is sincere. It's akin to a 5 year old pleading to change the subject when he's been caught red handed and he desperately wants to shift the topic to something else and prove that he has learned his lesson.

Trump the bully has been given pass after pass and has learned exactly how to manipulate people. Tell them they're wonderful. Bully those you can. Publicly humiliate when appropriate to prove a point to keep others from copying and sue when all else fails.

It's a great gambit that's made him a lot of money and gotten him to the White House, but it's still just a school yard bully and all the bully behaviors that go along with it. Having been on the pointy end of that stick over and over again growing up, I have no respect for the decision to overlook these serious personality and character flaws and give him another pass.

So every time he's called out, and every time he lashes out like a little baby, good for him. He continues to prove the point that he is what he is. I would be for every tom, dick, and harry with any kind of plank to needle him publicly for all they're worth. Trump deserves to feel that kind of pressure, and that kind of public humiliation.

[Gaelic Hill]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The fact is that Trump did mock a disabled person. No amount of denial from him can change it. It's one of the biggest reasons that I was appalled that people would even consider voting for him.

Policies aside. He is the bully. He talks big, acts big, denies ever doing anything wrong, uses his position and money to get out of responsibilities he signs on for and lashes out at anyone who dare challenge him on his actions or behaviors.

He passes out overhyped plaudits in an effort to subdue people when he knows he screwed up and repeats the same phrases over and over and over again in order to prove that he is sincere. It's akin to a 5 year old pleading to change the subject when he's been caught red handed and he desperately wants to shift the topic to something else and prove that he has learned his lesson.

Trump the bully has been given pass after pass and has learned exactly how to manipulate people. Tell them they're wonderful. Bully those you can. Publicly humiliate when appropriate to prove a point to keep others from copying and sue when all else fails.

It's a great gambit that's made him a lot of money and gotten him to the White House, but it's still just a school yard bully and all the bully behaviors that go along with it. Having been on the pointy end of that stick over and over again growing up, I have no respect for the decision to overlook these serious personality and character flaws and give him another pass.

So every time he's called out, and every time he lashes out like a little baby, good for him. He continues to prove the point that he is what he is. I would be for every tom, dick, and harry with any kind of plank to needle him publicly for all they're worth. Trump deserves to feel that kind of pressure, and that kind of public humiliation.

Even though I voted for him, I agree with some of your post. Here are three things:

* He didn't need to run. He honestly and sincerely wants to help America.

* It's almost universal that people who deal with him in private say that he is incredibly gracious and non-confrontational.

* If I worked for a company with a CEO like Public-Trump, I would not give a hoot about his character (unless he/she acted criminally). Just keep that stock moving upward.


Those things won't change your view, but they did make a difference for me (especially compared to my view of Hillary).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Gaelic Hill

Love the debut album. Haven't heard the new song, but I appreciate any and all reviews (there are always too many knuckle-headed 5-star reviews on Amazon that you can't put stock in).

Last year I "scored" 198 different rock albums for my annual year-end Top 25(ish) Albums of the Year list.

Mister Asylum was 185th of those. Song-wise, I found "Bloodfeather" to be reasonably tolerable. Thought "Lydia" was poor, hate the current single "My Name Is Human".

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Gaelic Hill

Even though I voted for him, I agree with some of your post. Here are three things:

* He didn't need to run. He honestly and sincerely wants to help America.

* It's almost universal that people who deal with him in private say that he is incredibly gracious and non-confrontational.

* If I worked for a company with a CEO like Public-Trump, I would not give a hoot about his character (unless he/she acted criminally). Just keep that stock moving upward.


Those things won't change your view, but they did make a difference for me (especially compared to my view of Hillary).

I don't feel like anyone sincerely trying to help America would have spent the last 8 years saying the sitting, active President isn't actually an American.

Also, all the extremely vague points you stated as to why you voted for him could just as easily be applied to Hillary Clinton. They're just fluff that can't be independently verified.

[Gaelic Hill]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Last year I "scored" 198 different rock albums for my annual year-end Top 25(ish) Albums of the Year list.

Mister Asylum was 185th of those. Song-wise, I found "Bloodfeather" to be reasonably tolerable. Thought "Lydia" was poor, hate the current single "My Name Is Human".

I started a new thread. Maybe you can share your list?

[Gaelic Hill]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I don't feel like anyone sincerely trying to help America would have spent the last 8 years saying the sitting, active President isn't actually an American.

Also, all the extremely vague points you stated as to why you voted for him could just as easily be applied to Hillary Clinton. They're just fluff that can't be independently verified.

Those aren't vague. They also aren't my reasons. They are just mitigating factors when trying to cope with his public antics.

[PilotMan]

He didn't need to run, but he will say that his biggest asset is the marketability of his name. Now, if being the President of the US isn't the biggest stage in the world to market your name I don't know what is. The implicit value alone from being in that position will pad his bottom line in more ways than he can count right now. It was always a way to move the needle on himself.

Whether he really wants to help America? I mean, c'mon. Who among us wouldn't? It's a freebie.

It's easy to be a gracious host at a party. Easy to spread your money around to make yourself feel better (we all do it to some extent), and to be non-confrontational when you're at the top of the food chain. He's got minions all over that will do that bidding for him. Your comment isn't generally applicable to a broad range of circumstances. There are plenty of times that he has shown, through his own actions, that he isn't non-confrontational.

And the final point is a great way to feel when you're doing good. All ethics go out the window when it benefits you and you're winning. But when bankruptcy comes, and the boss starts shitting down your back, and the same rules still apply, everyone comes out dirty except him.

[Gaelic Hill]

I actually had the experience of my CEO bullet point. During his particular scandal (I won't name the company for personal reasons), I found myself on the elevator with him and he was happily chatting up a colleague seemingly without a care in the world. I only say this anecdotally as a (possibly) interesting post.

[digamma]

This is when the ambition bogeyman creeps back in. Trump has talked about wanting to be President since the 1980s. Look at his past quotes and articles.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Thing that furrows my brow is how there's so many folks who got worked up over her (rather predictable) comments and "don't care what she thinks".

My question is essentially "why'n the hell were you watching that shit show in the first place then?"

"But what about the people who hate Stern?"
"Good point. The average Stern hater listens for 2 and a half hours a day."
"But if they hate him, why do they listen?"
"Most common answer: I want to see what he'll say next."

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

These actors are only heroes in their own mind. The award events for acting have kind of become like Scientology meetings. They sit in a room and pat each other on the back about how great they are, while the general public just wishes they'd shut up and focus on their job.

I can't stand the awards shows now either. It's just predictable at this point. Does have a weird cultish vibe to it. The Oscars were terrible and the politicizing of it has started already.

I do think people on the right lose the whole "stick to Hollywood" line when they just elected a reality TV star President.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Gaelic Hill

I'm not necessarily supporting Trump in these twitter reactions, but I will say that this election cycle has partly ruined me for watching movies that these !@#$%^*& actors are in. I might never again watch movies with Ruffalo, Sheen, Streep, Wyle, etc. To be fair, I also avoid a few conservative actors, like that drunk anti-Semite Mel Gibson. I just have a hard time "seeing" the characters; I only see the actors. I wish I knew NOTHING about these people.

I can understand that sentiment but I think you'd find it easier to just ignore that stuff in life. I used to care a lot in sports about the players moral compass. It just ruined sports for me. Same would go for movies and TV. You're going to be unhappy having to pre-screen any entertainment with whether you like their politics or not.

[MrBug708]

I liked Meryl Streep a lot less when she was louding cheering for Roman Polanski, none predator of the weak. I liked her speech, her points were excellent, and her acting was superb, like it always is.

[Atocep]

I'm a bit bothered we have a president elect with such thin skin that someone in Hollywood can't talk about him with him without him 1.) commenting on it 2.) throwing an insult back

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I'm a bit bothered we have a president elect with such thin skin that someone in Hollywood can't talk about him with him without him 1.) commenting on it 2.) throwing an insult back

Yet it is a great distraction from the actual issues.

Trump played this game to the presidency, why should he stop now?

[CrescentMoonie]

Where was Streep when the Obama administration was using drones to bomb civilians in non war zones and imprisoning whistleblowers?

[PilotMan]

and your totally equivalent point is?

[CrescentMoonie]

My stunningly obvious point is that, when she was getting medals from the people in the White House, she had nothing to say about them committing war crimes. I'd take her comments about the douchebag PEOTUS more seriously if she had shown as much public indignity towards the obvious problems with Obama as she's showing about mocking a handicapped reporter. Drone strikes on civilians outside of war zones is much worse than being a putz on Twitter.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

My stunningly obvious point is that, when she was getting medals from the people in the White House, she had nothing to say about them committing war crimes. I'd take her comments about the douchebag PEOTUS more seriously if she had shown as much public indignity towards the obvious problems with Obama as she's showing about mocking a handicapped reporter. Drone strikes on civilians outside of war zones is much worse than being a putz on Twitter.

We don't expect consistency from our politicians, why would we hold actors to a higher standard?

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Gaelic Hill

I'm not necessarily supporting Trump in these twitter reactions, but I will say that this election cycle has partly ruined me for watching movies that these !@#$%^*& actors are in. I might never again watch movies with Ruffalo, Sheen, Streep, Wyle, etc. To be fair, I also avoid a few conservative actors, like that drunk anti-Semite Mel Gibson. I just have a hard time "seeing" the characters; I only see the actors. I wish I knew NOTHING about these people.

Switch to French cinema

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by Atocep

We don't expect consistency from our politicians, why would we hold actors to a higher standard?

Because some of them, like Matt Damon, don't pull punches regardless of the party in office. Even if I don't agree with him I can respect him. Streep needs to stick to being a phenomenal actress if she's going to be no better than a TV news talking head.

[nol]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

100% agree with this. It almost seems like they doth protest too much. In that, they actually do care what celebrities think. They just get upset when their favorite celebs think differently from them.

Yeah, the people who get the most worked up about 'Hollywood liberal elites' talking down to them have certainly watched more television and movies than I ever have.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

My stunningly obvious point is that, when she was getting medals from the people in the White House, she had nothing to say about them committing war crimes. I'd take her comments about the douchebag PEOTUS more seriously if she had shown as much public indignity towards the obvious problems with Obama as she's showing about mocking a handicapped reporter. Drone strikes on civilians outside of war zones is much worse than being a putz on Twitter.

Log In - New York Times

1. "airstrikes it has conducted outside conventional war zones like Afghanistan have killed 64 to 116 civilian bystanders and about 2,500 members of terrorist groups" You got to ask, if your non war zone bombing killed 2,500 terrorist, is still a non war zone?
2. "Most of the strikes have been carried out by drones in chaotic places like Libya, tribal Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen"
3. Your obsession with Streep suggests you care nothing about the Boko Haram girls.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Log In - New York Times

1. "airstrikes it has conducted outside conventional war zones like Afghanistan have killed 64 to 116 civilian bystanders and about 2,500 members of terrorist groups" You got to ask, if your non war zone bombing killed 2,500 terrorist, is still a non war zone?

Knowingly killing civilians in a non war zone is a war crime. Period. It's wrong when a Republican okays it and it's wrong when a Democrat okays it. If you're okay with murder then you don't get to complain about Tweets and mocking disabled people.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

Knowingly killing civilians in a non war zone is a war crime.

I don't think that means what you think it does. For example, the Bush Doctrine vs. declaration of war.

[SirFozzie]

So, there's a movement out there on Twitter called #grabyourwallet which intends to hurt businesses who somehow work with Trump in one way or another.

Now, look, I can understand that boycotts are a useful way to get the message out that behavior is to be punished (look at FlushRush/StopRush etcetera, which did a good job in driving advertisers away from Rush Limbaugh after the comments he made on Sandra Fluke"

The latest thing is boycotting LL Bean because one member of the family that owns LL Bean donated to a pro-Trump Super PAC.

Not the company. Not even the majority owner (ownership is split amongst the family).

I'm going to be blunt here, if you think that it's ok to boycott LL Bean because one member of their board donated to Trump, but you laughed at "One Million Moms" calling for a boycott of Target and Campbell's Soup for supporting same sex marriage, then you're vastly ignorant or need to check yourself for hypocrisy.

LL Bean isn't alone on the list: Other companies included in #GrabYourWallet's boycott list include Amazon, Bed Bath & Beyond, Hudson Bay, Macy's, TJ Maxx and Walmart." I think it's probably quicker to list who you CAN shop at then who you can't.

Politics, profits and the president at L.L. Bean - The Boston Globe

(fake edit: Why does it not surprise me that the person running the #grabyourwallet campaign is a "Brand & digital strategist".. I don't think that they are doing it solely for the brand marketing (of themselves), but there has to be at least some of that in there)

(fake edit 2: Andddd she's arguing with me on twitter. *laughs*)

[RainMaker]

Have these boycotts ever worked? Seems people like to talk about boycotts but not actually following through. It's the most slacktivist of all the slacktivism.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Have these boycotts ever worked? Seems people like to talk about boycotts but not actually following through. It's the most slacktivist of all the slacktivism.

I think the most slacktivist idea ever was the one day gas boycotts.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Have these boycotts ever worked? Seems people like to talk about boycotts but not actually following through. It's the most slacktivist of all the slacktivism.

Boycotts only work if they actually hit the business in the wallet. A handful of people on the interwebz not buying LL Bean isn't going to get it done.

[SirFozzie]

It works if it can keep a company associated with scandal/bad PR. Two thatworked I can speak of, one is I said, the Flush Rush/Stop Rush campaign, the other is (ugh) Gamergate's targetting of Intel (a move that was later reversed with feeling as Intel found out that they were being used by a vocal fringe whose energies were much bigger then their numbers.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Pretty funny.

Meryl Streep, speech, Golden Globes, UFC, MMA, Dana White

“Hollywood is crawling with outsiders and foreigners. And if we kick them all out you’ll have nothing to watch but football and mixed martial arts, which are not the arts,” Streep said.

The offhand comment certainly got under the skin of everybody in the MMA community, but UFC president Dana White decided to respond on Monday when speaking to TMZ.

“It’s not going to be everybody’s thing and the last thing in the world I expect is an uppity, 80-year old lady to be in our demographic and love mixed martial arts,” White said.

Streep, who is actually 67-years old, spent the majority of her speech attacking Trump for appearing to mock a disabled reporter in 2015 while also asking the press to make sure to hold the new President accountable for each and everything he says or does over the next four years.

White was an open advocate for Trump during the election campaign and even spoke for him at the Republican National Convention, but he’s not sure if that’s why Streep singled out MMA when giving her speech on Sunday.

“I don’t know. Maybe. Maybe she did, I’m not sure. I mean (UFC owner) Ari Emanuel is definitely Hollywood and he makes movies and TV shows and wasn’t a Trump supporter either, but I don’t know,” White said.

“If you really look at who follows the UFC and is into mixed martial arts, it’s everybody. I don’t expect an 80-year old woman to be a big fan of mixed martial arts and listen, everybody’s into whatever (they’re into). I’m not a big fan of golf. It doesn’t mean people should stop watching it. If you don’t like it, change the channel.”

[ISiddiqui]

Uh.. whoosh? The reason she said "mixed martial arts" because she wanted to say "which are not the arts". I thought that was fairly obvious.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Uh.. whoosh? The reason she said "mixed martial arts" because she wanted to say "which are not the arts". I thought that was fairly obvious.

It's shocking that a tone deaf celebrity would paint with a broad brush, which is the arts.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Pretty funny post from my friend, Amy Bruni, on her private FB page.

I take offense to the fact people keep using the term "reality tv personality" like it's a derogatory term or something.

[Drake]

The thing with the NFL and the MMA didn't bug me (i.e., they're not the arts) because I also know that most sports fans would have their heads explode if people started calling ballet a sport.

It's not derogatory to say that football and mixed martial arts aren't "arts" even if they can be executed with artistry. They belong in the very useful non-arts category of sports, in the same way that an incredibly athletic dancer can belong in the very useful non-sports category of the arts.

The fact that I watched a 15 minute segment on Fox where people flipped their shit about her swipe at middle America in this non-central-to-her-thesis comment seemed like everything that's wrong with our society in a nutshell.

Both parties are equally guilty of this stupid projection and seeing things in the worst possible light (stubbornly, and on purpose, I suspect), and I'm getting tired of it.

[Ben E Lou]

"What did the president-elect pay Russian hookers to urinate on one another, and when did he pay them?"#UpdatedWatergateQuotes

— Mat (@sunnyright) January 10, 2017

[RainMaker]

Guess this isn't surprising considering his stance on vaccines in the past.

Vaccine skeptic Robert Kennedy Jr. says Trump asked him to lead commission on ‘vaccine safety’ - The Washington Post

[JPhillips]

If CNN is right, and if the Russians really do have compromising material on Trump, what does that mean for the country? How can Trump or the Deep State or Congress handle this?

[cuervo72]

At this point, do Trump supporters care if he is into water sports?

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If CNN is right, and if the Russians really do have compromising material on Trump, what does that mean for the country? How can Trump or the Deep State or Congress handle this?

LOL. "If CNN is right" That has to be the most funny line I have read in awhile. Thanks, man.

[RainMaker]

Wouldn't it be better to have him be someone blackmailed opposed to someone who is genuinely pro-Russia/Putin?

[JPhillips]

There is no truth.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Wouldn't it be better to have him be someone blackmailed opposed to someone who is genuinely pro-Russia/Putin?

Maybe not all that much better, practically speaking.

Russia looking good in the preseason, have to say.

[SirFozzie]

We're definitely in a post-truth world, where about just anyone else, I'd say "Can you share whatever your smoking?" instead of "I dunno.. sounds plausible knowing the target..."

[albionmoonlight]

So if it turns out that we don't see tape of Trump getting peed on, then this will all be seen as anti-climatic.

This is a guy who openly lusts after his daughter. Getting peed on by a consenting non-relative adult would be a step up for him.

I wish that the media would actually focus on the story--that the President elect has deep ties to a hostile foreign state and the GOP refuses to even investigate them--instead of whatever weird gross sex thing Trump has going on at the time.