The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Why does the last 7 days feel like it should be retitled, "the education of Mr. Trump?"

Second, the way he has backtracked off of his stances or promises while losing no support from his hard line supporters just reinforces the idea that the next time around, you'll literally be able to say anything and nobody will expect that you'll actually mean any of it.

I think it's just the opposite. The vast majority of people who voted for him knew that he would back off some of these stances and didn't have a problem with it. He's still a way better option in their minds than a Clinton presidency.

I also enjoy this whole "Trump clearly didn't know how politics works" line of thinking just because he's backing off some of his hard-line stances. I'd argue the exact opposite. He knows EXACTLY how politics works.

[Ben E Lou]

Trump knows how politics works.

Trump knows not how government works.

[PilotMan]

So you weren't fooled by the hit list of hyperbole, and neither was the majority who voted for him, but that he was able to fool enough to win him the election and that makes him the smartest man in the room?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Trump knows how politics works.

Trump knows not how government works.

Agreed. But that's why you surround yourself with people that know how government does work.

Three months ago, I was sitting around with friends discussing this exact scenario. For all the bravado, it was clear even back then that Mr. Trump wasn't going to hold to a good chunk of his assertions. Most of the 'outrage' is from people still grumpy that he won the election. The same silent voters that surprised everyone and put him in office are the same people who are quietly sitting back and not surprised by any of these adjustments.

[Jas_lov]

I thought people voted for Trump because he wasn't a typical politician who would tell you what you want to hear and then do the complete opposite when elected.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

I thought people voted for Trump because he wasn't a typical politician who would tell you what you want to hear and then do the complete opposite when elected.

Trump is doing what Trump does - he's firing shit into the air and then once people are terrified he's taking a slightly more moderate stance and by doing so people are relieved and ignore the fact that what he is doing isn't what they want.

He does this continually - he's now seen as presidential if he stops ranting on twitter for more than 24 hours, he's seen as having railed against racists because he said he didn't approve despite having hired one in an influential position ... its an interesting if slightly terrifying strategy.

(I also think that he has a strategy of hiring in people around him who are naturally terrifying/incompetent to some extent in order to protect himself and make him be seen as the voice of reason who is ensuring that the more extreme situations aren't happening ... by doing so its easy for him to steer things where he wants them to go and remain somewhat impervious to flack, if he wants to do something racist - he has Bannon as the scapegoat, fancy picking on LGTBQ people, put your hand up Mr Pence etc ...)

[PilotMan]

His desire to control the media either through intimidation, by public comments and complaints, by refusing a media pool, by not having press conferences, but only controlled video or social media releases scares the shit out of me.

It's like authoritarian leader 101 right there.

And for some reason the people that supported him are all in on this strategy too? I see posts talking about good for him, he need privacy too, he shouldn't have to be beholden to the press. But what they fail to realize is that the press reports to the people and the president is fully beholden to the people. I can give some leeway here and there, but to completely rewrite the rules for a power grab is one more step down the primrose path.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The same silent voters that surprised everyone and put him in office are the same people who are quietly sitting back and not surprised by any of these adjustments.

How do you know his 60 million voters are all not surprised? I would think many of them who shouted "lock her up" and "build the wall" and booed Obamacare would be at least mildly disappointed or concerned.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I see posts talking about good for him, he need privacy too, he shouldn't have to be beholden to the press. But what they fail to realize is that the press reports to the people and the president is fully beholden to the people.

He isn't beholden to the press nor the public for going to dinner. That was, best I noticed, the original notice of "not business as usual". Honestly, deep down, I'd say even plenty of media wouldn't mind not having to cover that sort of stuff either.

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I think it's just the opposite. The vast majority of people who voted for him knew that he would back off some of these stances and didn't have a problem with it.

I don't think there is a rolly-eye emoji big enough for this comment. So going into it, a vast majority of the 60 million individuals who voted for Trump knew whole hardheartedly that the "Drain the Swamp", "Lock Her Up", "Build A Wall" etc. movement was just a farce and would never come to fruition. Yea, not buying that.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

He isn't beholden to the press nor the public for going to dinner. That was, best I noticed, the original notice of "not business as usual". Honestly, deep down, I'd say even plenty of media wouldn't mind not having to cover that sort of stuff either.

The 'going to dinner' side of things I don't object to at all - I do find his tone with any dissenting opinion which might be contrary to his own somewhat worrying however, attempting to brow beat the press and denigrate any which speak out in concern about his actions isn't going to further reassure those of us who find him somewhat worrying.

My issues are largely that he obviously has huge conflicts between what is best for the US and what might make him a profit within his corporations, he also appears to be hiring in people who might very negatively affect minority aspects of the US population both LBGTQ and immigrant ...

(economically I think his plans are messed up and will in time lead to a huge deficit which the Republicans will then use to attempt to further undermine Medicare and Welfare, but that is a separate issue and largely ideological in nature)

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

He isn't beholden to the press nor the public for going to dinner. That was, best I noticed, the original notice of "not business as usual". Honestly, deep down, I'd say even plenty of media wouldn't mind not having to cover that sort of stuff either.

They may not, but just going to dinner is one thing, saying you're in for the night, then sneaking out the back door to avoid being followed is another. Like I said, that's just part of the effort to manipulate. As president elect, the rules are different.

It's not just that one moment. It's the culmination of what he's done, said, and how he's behaved.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

he also appears to be hiring in people who might very negatively affect minority aspects of the US population both LBGTQ and immigrant ...

I certainly hope you're right, otherwise not sure there was much point in electing him. Both groups have been catered to absurdly in recent years & it's well past time for corrections to more rational levels.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I certainly hope you're right, otherwise not sure there was much point in electing him. Both groups have been catered to absurdly in recent years & it's well past time for corrections to more rational levels.

Sweep, sweep, sweep all those shitbags back under the rug from where they came, right?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I think it's just the opposite. The vast majority of people who voted for him knew that he would back off some of these stances and didn't have a problem with it. He's still a way better option in their minds than a Clinton presidency.

I also enjoy this whole "Trump clearly didn't know how politics works" line of thinking just because he's backing off some of his hard-line stances. I'd argue the exact opposite. He knows EXACTLY how politics works.

I think the vast majority of people who voted for him don't care what his stance is on political issues.

[cuervo72]

I think the word Jon is looking for is "uppity."

[MrBug708]

Betsy DeVos for Sec of Education? Bleh

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I certainly hope you're right, otherwise not sure there was much point in electing him. Both groups have been catered to absurdly in recent years & it's well past time for corrections to more rational levels.

Gosh yes, heaven forbid that the concept of 'equality' be taken seriously ... I know you're not in favor of the constitution and such

(end sarcasm)

PS - Seriously Jon, while i differ hugely from you on politics, I'm somewhat disappointed that you appear not to believe in equality for your fellow person ... nothing that the LBGTQ community have achieved takes away from anyone else and it purely is a movement towards giving them the protections and rights that everyone else has had for years.

[NobodyHere]

And Nikki Haley is Ambassador to the UN.

I think it's fairly safe to start printing those Haley 2024 stickers now.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Agreed. But that's why you surround yourself with people that know how government does work.

Three months ago, I was sitting around with friends discussing this exact scenario. For all the bravado, it was clear even back then that Mr. Trump wasn't going to hold to a good chunk of his assertions. Most of the 'outrage' is from people still grumpy that he won the election. The same silent voters that surprised everyone and put him in office are the same people who are quietly sitting back and not surprised by any of these adjustments.

And who exactly has been nominated or appointed that has government experience?

[cuervo72]

Not the new DoE head, that's for sure. But then when you want to dismantle a department, I guess that's what you do.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Betsy DeVos for Sec of Education? Bleh

Really good choice, imo.

[cuervo72]

yy, sounds great!

Michigan spends $1B on charter schools but fails to hold them accountable

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Really good choice, imo.

Why? She has no government or education experience.

[JPhillips]

lol

Nigel Farage wanted to make the UK great again and now he's planning to emigrate to the United States.

[Groundhog]

Good article from the New York Times on Trump in Scotland. I saw a documentary on this about 9 or so months before a Trump presidency ever seemed like a thing that could actually happen.

[kingfc22]

This guy just loves his social media.

Now he's claiming he won the popular vote due to all the "millions of people who voted illegally". Another clear case of him trying to misdirect everyone. First it was blast SNL to cover up his steep multiple million dollar settlement.

Now it's claim all the votes were illegal to begin with so how can a recount actually matter since any votes that do turn up were likely illegal in the first place.

[jeff061]

Soooo how many idiotic and scary tweets does he need to send out before people stop thinking he's some mastermind.

He's just an idiot. There's no plan. He thinks stupid things, has no impulse control, no understanding of basic american values and kneejerk posts every thought that goes into his childlike brain.

It's frightening.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Betsy DeVos for Sec of Education? Bleh

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Really good choice, imo.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Why? She has no government or education experience.

Aren't the DeVos family a major contributors to various voucher initiatives and bills that attempted to privatize schools? Don't know that I want someone with that agenda in this position.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Aren't the DeVos family a major contributors to various voucher initiatives and bills that attempted to privatize schools? Don't know that I want someone with that agenda in this position.

Arne Duncan was a charter school finance guru and Obama's basketball buddy. He had no background in actual education. Sadly, out of 10 secretaries of education, only 2 (Terrel Bell and John King Jr.) had any meaningful experience with education. It's nothing but a crony position.

[JPhillips]

Duncan ran the Chicago schools for almost eight years before becoming Secretary.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Duncan ran the Chicago schools for almost eight years before becoming Secretary.

Duncan's "running" of Chicago schools was built on inflating test scores by closing low performing schools and handing them over to the charter organization he worked for before that. He's a CEO, not an educator, and he ran Chicago schools that way. There's also little to no evidence that his closing and reopening of schools actually improved the results for any of the students involved.

His time as Secretary of Education ended like this:

The ugly charter school scandal Arne Duncan is leaving behind

[JPhillips]

I'm not saying he was good, but he did have a background in education.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm not saying he was good, but he did have a background in education.

No, he didn't. He had a background as a CEO who closed schools to pump up city test scores. He never studied education. He never worked in education in any position other than chief of staff/CEO. He was a CEO and only a CEO for Chicago Public Schools trying to solve financial problems with no regard for the actual education of the students. My hours spent playing Football Manager are as relevant to a real coaching position as his job as CEO was to setting education policy.

[Julio Riddols]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Gosh yes, heaven forbid that the concept of 'equality' be taken seriously ... I know you're not in favor of the constitution and such

(end sarcasm)

PS - Seriously Jon, while i differ hugely from you on politics, I'm somewhat disappointed that you appear not to believe in equality for your fellow person ... nothing that the LBGTQ community have achieved takes away from anyone else and it purely is a movement towards giving them the protections and rights that everyone else has had for years.

But its so icky. The thought of those.. Those.. Things.. Being free to enjoy their love lives as they see fit.. It makes the skin crawl. Its not enough to rest assured that they are certainly headed straight to hell, no sir. They must experience hell here first. /s

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

No, he didn't. He had a background as a CEO who closed schools to pump up city test scores. He never studied education. He never worked in education in any position other than chief of staff/CEO. He was a CEO and only a CEO for Chicago Public Schools trying to solve financial problems with no regard for the actual education of the students. My hours spent playing Football Manager are as relevant to a real coaching position as his job as CEO was to setting education policy.

If you want to argue he had no education experience because his education experience doesn't count, you win. Congratulations.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If you want to argue he had no education experience because his education experience doesn't count, you win. Congratulations.

Seriously. What a strange argument.

[Chief Rum]

So, CM is incorrect to say that Duncan had no background in education, but he should have just noted that Duncan was bad at it. Cool beans.

[ISiddiqui]

Technically, it's arguable if Duncan's background was good or bad.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Soooo how many idiotic and scary tweets does he need to send out before people stop thinking he's some mastermind.

He's just an idiot. There's no plan. He thinks stupid things, has no impulse control, no understanding of basic american values and kneejerk posts every thought that goes into his childlike brain.

It's frightening.

On the other hand whenever he does it there is some scandal or other going on which has actual substance to it which the media then manages to forget about in their excitement about his latest idiocy.

This time around its the conflict of interest with him retaining control of his business empire while becoming president ... but instead of focusing on that the media is now all twitchy about a vote recount.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

On the other hand whenever he does it there is some scandal or other going on which has actual substance to it which the media then manages to forget about in their excitement about his latest idiocy.

This time around its the conflict of interest with him retaining control of his business empire while becoming president ... but instead of focusing on that the media is now all twitchy about a vote recount.

That, to me, is the genius (unintentional or not) of the GOP. They realized that the media does not have a liberal or a conservative bias. The media has an eyeball bias.

And stupid shit like Jill Stein inspired recounts and who is booing whom at Hamilton gets eyeballs. Actual news like the President-Elect's conflicts of interest, gets pushed off the front page.

Trump is perfect for this strategy.

[ISiddiqui]

He's the Zaphod Beeblebrox of the US.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Technically, it's arguable if Duncan's background was good or bad.

That you describe it as arguable already tells me all I need to know.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

That you describe it as arguable already tells me all I need to know.

What, that I actually exist in reality?

Of course it's arguable. There is a reason why Duncan was hired as SecEd (and had broad bipartisan support in the Senate - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...695&s_pos=list ) - people liked what he did with Chicago's schools. Here's a writer for Time Magazine in 2008 applauding him:

Will Arne Duncan Shake Up America's Schools? - TIME

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

What, that I actually exist in reality?

Of course it's arguable. There is a reason why Duncan was hired as SecEd (and had broad bipartisan support in the Senate - Education Nominee Is Warmly Received in Senate - washingtonpost.com ) - people liked what he did with Chicago's schools. Here's a writer for Time Magazine in 2008 applauding him:

Will Arne Duncan Shake Up America's Schools? - TIME

You faithfully argue the left ideology without fail, Imran. So when you don't automatically toe the party line and make Duncan out to be the most amazing awesome thing to come around, it stands out to me.

Like Mizzou Bball Fan in the baseball thread: if he says something bad about the Royals (or not filled with superlatives), it tells me a lot.

[ISiddiqui]

I kind of struggle to understand 'the left ideology' being the same as 'automatically [toeing] the party line'? As if Sanders supporters aren't on the left. Or the Democratic Party doesn't have factions.

I'm also not entirely sure how saying Duncan's legacy in Chicago is arguably good or bad makes him out to be "the most amazing awesome thing to come around".

Just sounds incredibly hyperbolic and overwrought to me.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[JPhillips]

I know I'm Chairman Mao, but that description doesn't fit Imran well at all, IMO.

[kingfc22]

And the next ridiculous tirade is here...Now he needs PROOF that his ridiculous claims are in fact ridiculous when it comes to all this voter fraud that went against him. I'm pretty sure all the fact checking during the campaign took care of any further need to go through this exercise.

[cuervo72]

Meanwhile, he's selling tree ornaments for $149 and tumblers for $35. Forget a news network, he needs his own QVC.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I kind of struggle to understand 'the left ideology' being the same as 'automatically [toeing] the party line'? As if Sanders supporters aren't on the left. Or the Democratic Party doesn't have factions.

I'm also not entirely sure how saying Duncan's legacy in Chicago is arguably good or bad makes him out to be "the most amazing awesome thing to come around".

Just sounds incredibly hyperbolic and overwrought to me.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Don't make it more complicated than it is. I am just saying when someone whom I view as very predisposed to particular beliefs suddenly espouses a stance that is not in line with that (i.e. you not being 100% behind Duncan's track record), it suggests to me he must be pretty crappy, if even the loyalists aren't right there behind him.