The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I think that's probably overly optimistic.

It'll take more than something this minor to snap CNN back into reality.

Oh they won't. But people being aware of the one-sidedness helps rally the base....apparently. This used to just be a Faux News argument but now that people see both sides are very slanted it helps a lot.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Oh they won't. But people being aware of the one-sidedness helps rally the base....apparently. This used to just be a Faux News argument but now that people see both sides are very slanted it helps a lot.

Both are an issue, but you can't ignore the government referring to anything they don't agree with as fake news and calling their own inaccuracies alternative facts.

[AENeuman]

Interesting article Why Trump will find it hard to make American economy greater. I say interesting because, who knows how truthy it is. Also, I read it in times new roman font, which I know caused me to subconsciously believe it more.

IMO, if Trump will not be held to the actual promised growth numbers, it seems relatively easy to paint the trending economic numbers in a good light. On top of that, he has already showed his ability to turn anecdotal (numbers wise) job saving deals into a national trend. Putting your presidency on the economy when: a) the president has very little short term impact on the economy, and b) when the economy is improving, is brilliant.

[JPhillips]

And that leaves out that interest rates are probably going up which will put the brakes on expansion.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Interesting article Why Trump will find it hard to make American economy greater. I say interesting because, who knows how truthy it is. Also, I read it in times new roman font, which I know caused me to subconsciously believe it more.

IMO, if Trump will not be held to the actual promised growth numbers, it seems relatively easy to paint the trending economic numbers in a good light. On top of that, he has already showed his ability to turn anecdotal (numbers wise) job saving deals into a national trend. Putting your presidency on the economy when: a) the president has very little short term impact on the economy, and b) when the economy is improving, is brilliant.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And that leaves out that interest rates are probably going up which will put the brakes on expansion.

Along the same lines:

Fatal contradictions: You can’t be both a populist and a free-market conservative | The Economist

The issue with Mr Trump is less to do with his rhetoric which is quite clearly interventionist—reticence is not his style. Many of those who voted for him are counting on him to create new jobs and push up real wages. The former will be difficult after 75 straight months of jobs growth but the latter might be possible. But if real wages rise, it will most likely be at the expense of profits (hardly anyone believes in the forecasts of consistent 3-4% GDP growth that his team has been trumpeting). The markets are clearly hoping that the small government, tax-cutting policies of Paul Ryan, the House speaker, will win through; they have also observed how many billionaires have joined the cabinet.



What about the Reagan revolution, you might cry? Breaking off the shackles of excessive regulation can be good for both profits and wages. Yes, there was a boom in the 1980s. But actually the profit share of GDP fell under Reagan. Markets did very well because there was a huge fall in interest rates; the T-bond yield fell 6 points over his two terms). Now profits are close to a record high as a share of GDP and T-bond yields are not far off their historic lows. The prospects of a repeat of the 1980s boom are slim.


In short, the markets think both May and Trump will be Thatcherite/Reaganite conservatives; their core vote hopes they won’t. One of the big battles of the next four years will be squaring that circle.

[RainMaker]

It was fun while it lasted.

FCC Chairman Under Trump Is Ajit Pai, Critic Of Net Neutrality Rules : The Two-Way : NPR

[CrescentMoonie]

This is much worse than losing net neutrality

[claphamsa]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

This is much worse than losing net neutrality

no one reports about it since its soooo unconstitutional that its meaningless.

[djsatu]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I am happy to see that TPP will not be going through. The whole trade agreement seemed sketchy from the start.

This is huge. Hopefully Canada follows suit because our idiotic government want the TPP to go through!

[JPhillips]

Apparently Trump told congressional leaders tonight that he won the popular vote, except for the three to five million illegal immigrant votes.

And Putin went on TV and said he and Trump will meet for a Yalta 2. If that doesn't scare you, look up the Yalta agreement.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Apparently Trump told congressional leaders tonight that he won the popular vote, except for the three to five million illegal immigrant votes.

And Putin went on TV and said he and Trump will meet for a Yalta 2. If that doesn't scare you, look up the Yalta agreement.

Such as this?

Following Yalta, in Russia, when Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov expressed worry that the Yalta Agreement's wording might impede Stalin's plans, Stalin responded "Never mind. We'll do it our own way later."

And so he did.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Apparently Trump told congressional leaders tonight that he won the popular vote, except for the three to five million illegal immigrant votes.

And Putin went on TV and said he and Trump will meet for a Yalta 2. If that doesn't scare you, look up the Yalta agreement.

So I don't understand one minute Trump is a great secret friend to Russia with his new administration all secretly tied to Russian interests and the next minute Cold War II is about to begin. Unlike some in this thread I have no skin in the game for Trump and am generally interested what exactly your point is?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

So I don't understand one minute Trump is a great secret friend to Russia with his new administration all secretly tied to Russian interests and the next minute Cold War II is about to begin. Unlike some in this thread I have no skin in the game for Trump and am generally interested what exactly your point is?

Do you know what happened at Yalta?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Do you know what happened at Yalta?

Yes. Apparently we now are going back 70 years to show had evil the Soviets/Russians are. It's like the Japanese never agreeing to any diplomacy with the United States because we dropped an atomic bomb on them in 1945.

Anyways all I want to know from JPhillips is whether Trump is a secret Russian agent (hence his appointment of Russian friendly cabinet members) or whether Trump is just some stooge caught in Putin/Russian 70+ year long con. Because he can apparently be both if it fits the narrative.

Kind of like Obama being a Muslim and anti-Israel in some conservative narratives and then a pro-Isreali war monger in other ones.

[cuervo72]

Because of Stalin's strong promises and admission of guilt over Poland, Churchill believed that he would keep his word regarding Poland, remarking "Poor Neville Chamberlain believed he could trust Hitler. He was wrong. But I don't think I am wrong about Stalin."

Hey, maybe this puts new a perspective on the return of the bust.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by panerd

So I don't understand one minute Trump is a great secret friend to Russia with his new administration all secretly tied to Russian interests and the next minute Cold War II is about to begin. Unlike some in this thread I have no skin in the game for Trump and am generally interested what exactly your point is?

It's not that. Trump is still, whether he knows it or not, working to further the best interest of Putin. Putin knows that he has, in Trump, someone who is so interested in money, that he can use that to cloud his real strategy, which is to expand the global sphere of influence and global influence of Russia. Trump gives Putin's leadership style and his corrupt Kleptocracy legitimacy by praising his leadership style (and his approval rating). He also wishes to use Putin's ability to control the media here. He sees it as central to his desires to win the war of influence on the general populace. Putin knows all of this, which gives him a great deal of leverage in dealings. He also knows that Trump takes well to public praise and public shows of loyalty. By giving Trump that sense of security, he is more freely able to make the moves he deems fit.

Much in the same way that Stalin negotiated the treaty at Yalta, then used the weaknesses inherent in the plan, and inherent in the truces between countries to create the Iron Curtain.

We all know that Putin is an old school, Soviet KGB guy, who has been dragging Russia back to the old ways since he took office. It's no secret what his long game is. The amazing thing is that Trump sees Putin as this amazing leader in a freely elected country who isn't being given a fair shake. I think that's what truly has people astonished.

[JPhillips]

I don't think Trump is somehow controlled by Putin, I think he sees Putinism as something to emulate. He's already said he's unsure whether he would honor the, "obsolete," NATO alliance, he's aligning with other white nationalist movements in Europe that are also closely tied to Putin, he's expressed a desire to break up the EU, etc.

In short I think Trump and Bannon and Flynn are flirting with joining a global white nationalist movement that would destroy NATO and tie us more closely to Putin. A Yalta 2 fits would be an excellent starting point.

Now what complicates this is that I can't see any way Mattis goes along with any of this. Hopefully that voice of reason is enough to make this an unrealized fear.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't think Trump is somehow controlled by Putin, I think he sees Putinism as something to emulate. He's already said he's unsure whether he would honor the, "obsolete," NATO alliance, he's aligning with other white nationalist movements in Europe that are also closely tied to Putin, he's expressed a desire to break up the EU, etc.

In short I think Trump and Bannon and Flynn are flirting with joining a global white nationalist movement that would destroy NATO and tie us more closely to Putin. A Yalta 2 fits would be an excellent starting point.

Now what complicates this is that I can't see any way Mattis goes along with any of this. Hopefully that voice of reason is enough to make this an unrealized fear.

Granted this could be said about any internet discussion but here goes with this one...

So basically every FOFC/Facebook/liberal poster of any intelligence both high/low can see right through Putin's evil plan. But Trump and his group of advisers are either both so dumb and/or so racist that they don't?

[cuervo72]

Well, that's why there's the inclination to wonder if they are in league with Putin -- they can't possibly be that blind.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Well, that's why there's the inclination to wonder if they are in league with Putin -- they can't possibly be that blind.

Or as I have stated before there is still election fatigue/grasping at straws from the left about how their candidate lost an election to Donald Trump so it's some sort of Russian conspiracy. Not so different than the Obama Muslim/voter fraud/coming for your guns/NWO teleprompter reader... nonsense that the left has correctly laughed about. This time they just are completely clueless that they are on the other side of the 8-ball.

EDIT: I mean there were certain crazy fringes of the right that claimed Obama was some sort of Commie/Russia sympathizer that was going to make Cuba the 51st state and bring in 1950's USSR curriculum to our schools. The Trump conspiracies are this dumb to those of us who do not have a vested interest in the left's point of view.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by panerd

Or as I have stated before there is still election fatigue/grasping at straws from the left about how their candidate lost an election to Donald Trump so it's some sort of Russian conspiracy. Not so different than the Obama Muslim/voter fraud/coming for your guns/NWO teleprompter reader... nonsense that the left has correctly laughed about. This time they just are completely clueless that they are on the other side of the 8-ball.

EDIT: I mean there were certain crazy fringes of the right that claimed Obama was some sort of Commie/Russia sympathizer that was going to make Cuba the 51st state and bring in 1950's USSR curriculum to our schools. The Trump conspiracies are this dumb to those of us who do not have a vested interest in the left's point of view.

But surely you can see the difference between conspiracy theories based on nothing, and people having theories about where things are headed based on words Trump has actually said (repealing the ACA, overturning Roe, pulling out of NATO, the un-importance of the UN...).

[cuervo72]

So if you're Putin looking to Make Russia Great Again, what might you want to see happen in Europe? Like, if you gave him Jon's three wishes.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

So basically every FOFC/Facebook/liberal poster of any intelligence both high/low can see right through Putin's evil plan. But Trump and his group of advisers are either both so dumb and/or so racist that they don't?

A good chunk of conservatives see it too. Trump was really the only candidate running on either side that viewed Putin favorably.

Putin is a brutal dictator. This is well documented. I think a country such as ours should be extremely skeptical of the motives of such a man.

For what it's worth I'm not talking about the election. I don't think Russia did anything more than spread some propaganda which is par for the course in international politics. My concern is more with giving concessions and removing sanctions on a country such as Russia that is a threat to so many people.

[larrymcg421]

If I switch to Libertarian, can I then announce that in every single post as a way to remind everyone that my political opinions have pure motives and are unsullied by partisan politics?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

If I switch to Libertarian, can I then announce that in every single post as a way to remind everyone that my political opinions have pure motives and are unsullied by partisan politics?

Sure. Or talk about how silly some of the Libertarian ideas and viewpoints are. (Like most do in this thread) The Russian election rigging is possibly one of the dumber partisan arguments I have heard in some time.

[Butter]

So the extensive intelligence report, the bipartisan Congressional support of research into these allegations, and expulsion of diplomats was all a show?

Maybe it's not mostly everyone else who is dumb.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

Sure. Or talk about how silly some of the Libertarian ideas and viewpoints are. (Like most do in this thread) The Russian election rigging is possibly one of the dumber partisan arguments I have heard in some time.

No one is talking about Russians rigging anything. You are the only one bringing it up for some reason.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by panerd

Sure. Or talk about how silly some of the Libertarian ideas and viewpoints are. (Like most do in this thread) The Russian election rigging is possibly one of the dumber partisan arguments I have heard in some time.

The arguments I've seen aren't about 'rigging' - its about the effect of them releasing/encouraging propaganda and information obtained through hacking in an attempt to influence the electorate.

That is a real concern although the effect is debatable, ascertaining how to keep elections sensible and constructive when "facts" are contradicted by so many sources online is something that all democratic countries will have to address in the future.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

If I switch to Libertarian, can I then announce that in every single post as a way to remind everyone that my political opinions have pure motives and are unsullied by partisan politics?

Nope. I know a lot of people think that way, but it isn't accurate. Being impartial means you can see the good, the bad, the ugly from both sides. It means you can understand the other persons point of view without resorting to calling them racist idiots (like the left) or commies who don't love Murica (like many on the right)

I don't think anyone is "pure" I think we all have opinions and I've grown tired of being dubbed racist, stupid, or being lumped in with real racists because I hold views that don't 100% align with a certain side.

I'm pro gay marriage, pro choice, pro police cameras and prosecutions of dirty police officers, I'm against the death penalty, I'm for full scale prison reform. I'm also only in favor of very limited gun control, think we desperately need to secure our borders, and think political correctness has reached the point of complete and total lunacy.

I think the media and leadership in both parties are morally bankrupt. I think it's unbelievably sad that Obama told half truths or outrite lies over 50% of the time during the last 8 years and that was GOOD, because practically every other politician is much worse.

So where do you think I should go Larry? You think I'm going to be accepted a Democratic rally considering my views on immigration, BLM and gun control? You think I can walk into a Republican rally and say I think we should keep funding Planned Parenthood and that I think prisoners should be treated like human beings? You think the democratic group is going to be behind me when I say that it's a horror show that the makers of Obamacare lied to the American people to get it through? Or do you think the Righies are going to accept me saying trickle down economics is a horrible idea?

I'm not libertarian. I'm not some superior moral being who deserves to be bowed down to. But I am a person who cares deeply about the world and I'm tired of being called horrific names because I don't buy into a certain belief system. I'm also going to call out the BS from both sides equally. Believe me when I say this, it's much harder. I would be a lot happier if I could just eat the BS that one party spews so i could cheer for it like a football team.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Butter

expulsion of diplomats

On that part, did anyone actually think that was anything other than Obie having a little tantrum? On either side of the aisle even?

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

On that part, did anyone actually think that was anything other than Obie having a little tantrum? On either side of the aisle even?

Zero doubt about it. Zero.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by TroyF

It means you can understand the other persons point of view without resorting to calling them racist idiots (like the left) or commies who don't love Murica (like many on the right)

There's a lot of irony there.

[Kodos]

From the guy who supports the King of Tantrums.

[larrymcg421]

My whole point is that I'm tired of seeing everyone feel the need to proclaim their political preferences before making the argument, as if that should somehow affect how the argument should be viewed (I have myself have fallen into this trap in the past.). Just make the damn argument. If you're a Libertarian or other third party, or someone in the middle, that doesn't mean your argument has any more merit than the liberal attacking Trump or the conservative defending Trump. Because here's the thing: even if you're right that the liberal or conservative are just making partisan arguments that they wouldn't agree with if the roles were reversed, the argument is still there. You've done nothing to defeat it.

So is the Russian interference a problem? Are the Trump/Russia policies a problem? Even if you believe that the liberals here making those arguments are only doing it because they are sore losers who can't handle losing the election, you've done nothing to prove that either of those things aren't a problem.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Kodos

From the guy who supports the King of Tantrums.

Who better to recognize one?

(I notice that in your attempt to troll me, you didn't bother disputing my point)

[Marmel]

I'm basically a 'stick my head in the sand' when it comes to politics type of guy, but I read about Trump sayng that he would have won the popular vote if it wasn't for 3-5 million illegal votes, so...

The President just claimed that the election which brought him into power was highly compromised by illegal ballots.

Yeah, head back in the sand for 4 more years.

[JPhillips]

Everybody realizes that the "diplomats" were really spies, right? Are people really going to oppose dismissing foreign agents?

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Marmel

I'm basically a 'stick my head in the sand' when it comes to politics type of guy, but I read about Trump sayng that he would have won the popular vote if it wasn't for 3-5 million illegal votes, so...

The President just claimed that the election which brought him into power was highly compromised by illegal ballots.

Yeah, head back in the sand for 4 more years.

If Joe Wilson really had balls, he would have yelled out "You Lie!"

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Wait (and I'm being serious in asking this) ... you mean that isn't something that's widely realized elsewhere?

I honestly can't speak for the other 99% of the world population. I suppose there are many places in the world that don't consider themselves 'friends of the USA' and immediately regard the media in the USA as clowns, puppets of the politics, equal to what the western world is taught to think about Russia, Iran or North Korea (for example). But I live in the 'friends of the USA' part of the world, people here are actually willing to attempt to trust people from the USA. Be it the president, sensation seeking journalists, or somebody random.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

So, I'll ask: are the leading Dutch news outlet(s) considered believable/trustworthy, or are they viewed at home the same way we view ours here?

For me personally, I've been skeptic about the largest source of news here (NOS), but am willing to accept that most of what they put on tv, radio or wherever is decently checked. (Anecdotal, 2 days ago I sent the NOS a "your article is wrong, because [facts]". To my surprise, although it took about 48, they did change their incorrect article. No 'thank you', once again, this wasn't the first time...). The last 15 or so years the two main tv media, but news papers as well, seem to have shifted towards sensation news, while I feel like I'm born and raised in an 'ask questions' environment. Skeptic, but still willing to think the journalists try to be objective.

From the small sample size that I can gather, I think a large portion of the people in the Netherlands think everything they read in the newspapers or see on those 2 main tv stations is true. They forward the international news, and their coverage and stance on issues is usually similar.

At the same time, what can I know? We've got our own share of "It was liked on Facebook, so it must be true". Besides them, there could still be a large part of the public (25%?) that don't bother to gather news through those media. My perception (too) is based on the limited stuff I see and can get my hands on...

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

My whole point is that I'm tired of seeing everyone feel the need to proclaim their political preferences before making the argument, as if that should somehow affect how the argument should be viewed (I have myself have fallen into this trap in the past.). Just make the damn argument. If you're a Libertarian or other third party, or someone in the middle, that doesn't mean your argument has any more merit than the liberal attacking Trump or the conservative defending Trump. Because here's the thing: even if you're right that the liberal or conservative are just making partisan arguments that they wouldn't agree with if the roles were reversed, the argument is still there. You've done nothing to defeat it.

So is the Russian interference a problem? Are the Trump/Russia policies a problem? Even if you believe that the liberals here making those arguments are only doing it because they are sore losers who can't handle losing the election, you've done nothing to prove that either of those things aren't a problem.

Most people feel the need to do that because of how stereotyped they are based on having ONE opinion. Walk into a room that is decidedly left of center. Tell them you think there is a major issue with immigration and that we MUST do something to curb the flow of illegal immigrants to this country.

Watch what happens. It won't be more than 30 seconds before someone starts on about how Trump is a racist to shoot down your point. Same thing applies the other way. Walk into a room and say "I think we need to have a much tighter control on guns" and there will be Hillary, Bernie Sanders and Obama comments in about 3 seconds.

So, as a defense mechanism, you have to state "I didn't vote for Trump, but I have an issue with immigration. . . " or I'm not part of the BLM movement, but I think police should wear cameras"

There ARE Libertarians out there who are like the stereotypical vegans and will just spout off how great their lifestyle is to anyone. I think most people are stating it as a defense mechanism and nothing more.

I've actually commented about Russia in one of the threads by the way. This guy in the center believes Russia did try to influence the election. I'm bothered more by how easy it was for them to do it. They didn't release LIES to influence the election. They just released one side. Russia and third parties don't have any power in the process unless we give them that power. Shame on Hillary, shame on Trump and shame on us for allowing the corruption to continue while cheering on our side. That allowed the influence in the first place.

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by Marmel

I'm basically a 'stick my head in the sand' when it comes to politics type of guy, but I read about Trump sayng that he would have won the popular vote if it wasn't for 3-5 million illegal votes, so...

The President just claimed that the election which brought him into power was highly compromised by illegal ballots.

Yeah, head back in the sand for 4 more years.

100% absurd and to make matters worse the lead Republicans in the Senate don't have the balls to say anything against it. At least Paul Ryan and Lindsey Graham of all people understand that you need to draw a line somewhere when it comes to stupidity.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Everybody realizes that the "diplomats" were really spies, right? Are people really going to oppose dismissing foreign agents?

I guess if for some reason your party's leader is pro-Russia, you would. There's nothing stopping him from letting them back in the country if he feels it was in error.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

100% absurd and to make matters worse the lead Republicans in the Senate don't have the balls to say anything against it. At least Paul Ryan and Lindsey Graham of all people understand that you need to draw a line somewhere when it comes to stupidity.

I'm sure Graham will be dutifully concerned as he votes for everything Trump demands.

[thesloppy]

I must say, the last few days have helped to increase my distaste for the Dems and the Obama administration....not out of spite for losing the election, as seems to be the current accepted liberal narrative, but because this current train-wreck has already seemingly managed to generate more political action & traction over the past 4 days than the previous administration did in it's 8 years.

To be sure, there are loads of repeated, probably valid reasons for each specific incident one could raise with the last administration, but less acceptable reasons for why that (im)balance of power & action has existed for my entire life.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Amazing how Trump continues to manipulate the media and liberals. He basically just throws shit against a wall, which causes the media and liberals to say, "Look, there's shit on the wall!" Meanwhile, he continues to march right along with his agenda, while the media and liberals are still pointing at the shit on the wall. It's oddly fantastic.

[RainMaker]

He's not manipulating anyone. This isn't some master chess match. He's a populist targeting a specific demographic. None of his major policy pitches will come fruition (Mexico paying for a wall, multi-trillion dollar infrastructure plan, ending crime in major cities).

His policies will likely end up being standard Republican stuff outside of a few wrinkles like TPP. None of that matters because policy doesn't matter in this country. It's about getting morons to buy into some cult of personality.

[Jas_lov]

Will there be any outrage at how many executive orders Trump is signing? That was a criticism of Obama.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

Will there be any outrage at how many executive orders Trump is signing? That was a criticism of Obama.

Nope, 'cause his actually make sense & are good things.

On the other hand, I'm sure there will be some grousing from the left about 'em because of who is doing them (same folks who defended the previous).

Double hypocrisy in action frankly, but that's just the norm.

[cuervo72]

More shit against the wall:

Badlands National Park Twitter account goes rogue, starts tweeting scientific facts - CBS News

Trump Administration Restricts News from Federal Scientists at USDA, EPA - Scientific American

[BishopMVP]

Speaking of walls... Twitter

That should push Russia to the back burner for a bit. (FTR I'm with Obama on Russia - they're a smaller, weaker nation that's a demographic basket case whose economy is only propped up when commodity prices are in a boom period. A minor annoyance but no more danger of expanding outside their immediate vicinity and recovering great power status and becoming an existential threat than the Austro-Hungarian or Ottoman Empires.)