The Trump Presidency – 2016

[digamma]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I've been amazingly wrong about most everything Trump.

Here's something else it looks like I was wrong about. I figured that "the wall" would end up being some symbolic extensions of the fence, a lot of new border guards, and a pivot to "See, we've really reduced illegal immigration, which was always the point."

But it looks like they are spending political capital on really building an actual wall: Texans Receive First Notices of Land Condemnation for Trump's Border Wall

Threatening to use Eminent Domain to take private land away from Texans is not a costless political move.

So, I'm confused by why that letter is dated January 12. Was there some cooperation between administrations? Or was there an earlier crossover date for certain staff?

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Atocep

They're offering the completely fair price of roughly $2,800 per acre.

We actually do some work in this space and $2,800 per acre may well be in excess of market price in some of those areas. Like 2x or so in some cases.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Relatively few people who will bother with Maddow at all are likely to be skeptical. Most will either accept or reject her out of hand & carry on. (Look no further than the different headline spins that the situation has gotten). The impact of this sort of thing would likely be very negligible

Hmmmmm. Today I'm seeing lefties either scratching their heads or furious at her, righties laughing at her, and those who tuned in for the first time swearing never to watch again. I don't see how this can be a zero-sum proposition. I think it's a big fail. She looks like an idiot, especially if it comes out that Team Trump had something to do with the leak.

[digamma]

Maybe I misread Comrade GA's post, but I thought he was saying that so few people watch Maddow in general that even a total blow up for her doesn't really move the needle on a larger scale.

[CrescentMoonie]

I think that's what he was saying, and her ratings would suggest otherwise. I don't watch her, and probably never will, but I don't see the big hubbub here.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by digamma

Maybe I misread Comrade GA's post, but I thought he was saying that so few people watch Maddow in general that even a total blow up for her doesn't really move the needle on a larger scale.

I'm on a different target than usual for the past couple months so I hadn't even seen her (asterisked) bump yet, just wasn't paying that much attention last week. That's on me, but that's why I was behind the curve on that. My bad, I'll own it.

That said though ...

The victory over O'Reilly, who airs during the 8 p.m. hour, comes with the noteworthy caveat that he had a substitute during his Friday telecast. (Monday through Thursday, O'Reilly won by an average 30,000 demo viewers.)

Last week's totals have been delayed apparently but for the week ending 3/5 (i.e. Trump address to Congress week) FXNC was #6 among networks with 18-49, MSNBC was 24th. 'Nuff said on the total impact in that demo. For total viewers they were 1st & 4th in prime & total day, but with FXNC holding a more than 2:1 lead. The damage of MSNBC growth isn't to FXNC, it's to CNN who does potentially risk slipping into 2nd place status with the left.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm on a different target than usual for the past couple months so I hadn't even seen her (asterisked) bump yet, just wasn't paying that much attention last week. That's on me, but that's why I was behind the curve on that. My bad, I'll own it.

That said though ...

Last week's totals have been delayed apparently but for the week ending 3/5 (i.e. Trump address to Congress week) FXNC was #6 among networks with 18-49, MSNBC was 24th. 'Nuff said on the total impact in that demo. For total viewers they were 1st & 4th in prime & total day, but with FXNC holding a more than 2:1 lead. The damage of MSNBC growth isn't to FXNC, it's to CNN who does potentially risk slipping into 2nd place status with the left.

But certainly Maddow would crow loudly if she was #1 overall for the week. I think the hype was as much about that as anything. A week of healthcare with a crazy one night rating on Trump taxes probably gives her the edge.

[larrymcg421]

Ratings | TVNewser

Based on this site, Maddow won the whole night (even beating O'Reilly) in viewers 25-54 for Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. Only O'Reilly beat her in total viewers on those days. Carlson beat her on Tuesday, but she's still ahead of everyone other than Carlson and O'Reilly. For some reason, they don't have last Monday's numbers.

[RainMaker]

She made a fool of herself last night. It did get a ton of buzz online so I'm guessing she'll win the ratings for that night. I never watch cable news and even I tuned in to see. After 10 minutes of her bloviating it became clear the returns probably had nothing in it so I turned back to the game.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

For some reason, they don't have last Monday's numbers.

The aggregator I usually grab them from is simply listing this week as "delayed" so I'll guess Monday's numbers are the issue.

fwiw, that's not a horribly unusual occurrence. It happens from time to time, most often seems to be some odd tech glitch that gets cleared up in a day or two. Other than delaying the various networks regular weekly attempts to spin the numbers (a thankless job that should remain deservedly thankless) nobody else gets too bent about it or anything.

[NobodyHere]

Another "so called judge" strikes!

Federal judge in Hawaii freezes President Trump’s new executive order

When will Trump get tired of all this winning?

[tarcone]

Too bad these judges are wrong.
A President has the right to ban immigrants or classes of immigrants.

[JPhillips]

And yet he keeps losing.

[tarcone]

Liberal judges think they are law makers.

Everyone knows you just have to find the right judge to get anything you want.

[JPhillips]

I'm fascinated by your contention that a president could just close down all immigration.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Liberal judges think they are law makers.

Everyone knows you just have to find the right judge to get anything you want.

It was blocked by a conservative judge too. When both judicial sides view it as unconstitutional, perhaps it's unconstitutional.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Too bad these judges are wrong.
A President has the right to ban immigrants or classes of immigrants.

I'm sure you know more about the law than people who have spent their entire lives practicing. I mean you watch the O'Reilly Factor and they just went to law school.

[tarcone]

Section 212(f) of the INA reads as follows:

f. Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

[tarcone]

Law is such a tricky thing isnt it?

[Jon]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Law is such a tricky thing isnt it?

It is.

Because the Constitution supercedes any statute. It doesn't matter what the statute says if the President's actions violate the Constitution.

[RainMaker]

What you just posted backs the decision. He has to show that they are "detrimental to the interests of the United States". The INA also states in a portion I guarantee you did not read.

An alien, not described in clause (ii), shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry into the United States under clause (i) because of the alien’s past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States, unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien’s admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.

You aren't allowed to ban based on religion. It's simply not legal (as stated above). He is free to get the Republican Congress to change the current laws and give him the power to do so however. But even then he has to deal with the First Amendment issues of discrimination based on religion.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Too bad these judges are wrong.
A President has the right to ban immigrants or classes of immigrants.

I think you are on to something- if trump bans classes of immigrants no one will be able to Pass the citizenship test....brilliant

[RainMaker]

Law is tricky though I agree. I've only watched half this season of Suits so you may be right and the guys who went to Harvard and Georgetown law don't know what the law or constitution says.

[Easy Mac]

Don't worry if measles come back guys, because states rights or something.

How is this 2017?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Don't worry if measles come back guys, because states rights or something.

Not measles. Mumps.

Auburn University student diagnosed with mumps | News | oanow.com

[JPhillips]

ping: Pilotman

Trumps budget begins the process of privatizing air controllers. Thoughts?

[Ben E Lou]

McDonald's Twitter Haxxored?

McDonald's tweets to Trump: 'You are actually a disgusting excuse of a President' | TheHill

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

McDonald's Twitter Haxxored?

McDonald's tweets to Trump: 'You are actually a disgusting excuse of a President' | TheHill

Unlike #BoycottHawaii, #BoycottMcDonalds wouldn't even last an hour. What else are they going to eat, Hardee's?

[RainMaker]

Or a social media manager who was quitting and did this as his swan song. Either way, I will not have you guys besmirch Hardees.

[CrescentMoonie]

Taco Bell exists so that we don't have to settle for McDonald's.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

Taco Bell exists so that we don't have to settle for McDonald's.

I've been Taco Bell free since September 2015. The only fast food restaurant that has made me simultaneously excrete the same thing from both my mouth and my ass.

McDonald's breakfast is heavenly.

[RainMaker]

Here is a breakdown of his budget proposal.

Trump budget cuts: U.S. federal funding 2018 - Washington Post

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Or a social media manager who was quitting and did this as his swan song. Either way, I will not have you guys besmirch Hardees.

Hardee's should just get rid of all their food and sell only biscuits all day. So much lardy goodness.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Here is a breakdown of his budget proposal.

Trump budget cuts: U.S. federal funding 2018 - Washington Post

One thing I've learned is that he really wants us to have horrific water and provide no healthcare for people who drink that water.

If I wanted to put on my tinfoil hat, I'd say they're instituting a stealth eugenics program by trying to allow as many poor people die off as possible. But I'll just chalk it up to being in big oil/coals pocket.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Hardee's should just get rid of all their food and sell only biscuits all day. So much lardy goodness.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Here is a breakdown of his budget proposal.

Trump budget cuts: U.S. federal funding 2018 - Washington Post

I wonder if he's trying to make sure it's DOA... because there is no way in Hell that McCain and Graham (along with Collins) are going to be ok with slashing that much in the State Department's budget. Also.. doesn't the State Department's budget pay for embassy security...

[molson]

I may be out of touch, but, why do people follow McDonald's on twitter? It's just a bunch of McDonald's ads.

[RainMaker]

I thought Mexico was paying for the wall.

[miked]

Glad to see there is a $5B cut to the NIH. Who needs research when we can have more fighter planes. Maybe my lab can have a bake sale. Interesting thing about the NIH cuts...when we get a grant we spend all the money to hire people and buy supplies, which in turn create jobs and tax revenue.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by miked

Glad to see there is a $5B cut to the NIH. Who needs research when we can have more fighter planes. Maybe my lab can have a bake sale. Interesting thing about the NIH cuts...when we get a grant we spend all the money to hire people and buy supplies, which in turn create jobs and tax revenue.

But what do you do to keep America safe?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

I may be out of touch, but, why do people follow McDonald's on twitter? It's just a bunch of McDonald's ads.

And coupons. That's why most people follow retail brands.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by miked

Glad to see there is a $5B cut to the NIH. Who needs research when we can have more fighter planes. Maybe my lab can have a bake sale. Interesting thing about the NIH cuts...when we get a grant we spend all the money to hire people and buy supplies, which in turn create jobs and tax revenue.

"We need higher paying American jobs!"

Makes a budget that eliminates a ton of high paying American jobs.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

"We need higher paying American jobs!"

Makes a budget that eliminates a ton of high paying American jobs.

Yeah, but those are jobs for elite snowflake no-nothings, not for real, hard-working Americans.

[RainMaker]

The wall is going to be built with Chinese steel and foreign labor so the real hard-working Americans don't get much out of it anyway.

[QuikSand]

Amidst the predictable left/right ideological battle over the Trump "skinny" budget, there's an opportunity we are clearly going to miss here. Set aside some specific things (military buildup most notably) and this represents probably the most coherent and detailed proposal from anyone in power to really examine the proper role and footprint of our federal government. On a certain level, it's a legitimate test for the many who like to dabble with the intellectual concepts of libertarianism, or simultaneously/alternatively with a states-first anti-federalist view of government.

I think it is intellectually honest to be aggressively pro-arts, and at the same time to believe it wise to get the feds out of funding them in a major way. And on down the food chain for many, or most, of the cuts that people are going to decry as horrifying.

Alas... the chance of that debate really happening in a meaningful way is awfully slim. But might be nice to wave as it flashes by.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I think it is intellectually honest to be aggressively pro-arts, and at the same time to believe it wise to get the feds out of funding them in a major way.

That would mean that person has no real knowledge of the history of art - as quite a bit of the works that we consider to be masterpieces were the result of government patronage. The 'market' has never been considered to be a great way to promote the arts, because what is popular isn't particularly that which is artistically important.

[digamma]

Thanks Meryl.

I'll expand on this, because my quip is exactly what I'm criticizing. And I'll state that I believe it is important to support the arts at a federal level. I think the NEA, NPR and PBS are important government initiatives.

However, dismissing a position that values the arts while honestly believing they are better supported privately as uneducated or lacks the appreciation of importance is really not helpful to the discourse and quite frankly doesn't help win elections.

This is a small example but messaging of knowing what is best for the population versus showing why policy is best is why the poor perception of liberals continues.

[JPhillips]

Like so many Trump plans the NEA cuts will hit his voters the hardest. The cuts to large, urban arts organizations will hurt, but won't kill much programming. The cuts to smaller organizations around the country, especially those in rural areas, will kill those programs.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by digamma

However, dismissing a position that values the arts while honestly believing they are better supported privately as uneducated or lacks the appreciation of importance is really not helpful to the discourse and quite frankly doesn't help win elections.

It really is a problem of lack of education though. Why, what's your suggestion... you are right, but I like it this way. I'm sure that'll really going to win votes.

I don't actually care that much about sparing the feelings of conservative snowflakes so they think a bit better about me while they cast their vote against the arts anyway.

[digamma]

It's not about hurting conservatives feelings. It's about showing why it's better policy for those affected by it.

Look, I think Mick Mulvaney is a grade a jack ass, but when he goes on the morning talk shows and says things like a struggling single mother in Flint, MI shouldn't be asked to pay for the NEA or museums, that's a pretty simple and "fuck yeah" type argument. I think you have to show that the arts are pretty cool and not in a we know better than you kind of way. But showing that people in the community use these grants for all sorts of interesting things and it makes a difference. And you can use it too. Etc.

It's kind of the Obama Between two Ferns idea. Think outside the box to sell your policy.

So, yes, you can sound smart by talking about art history, and that may work on the Virginia Highlands coffee shop scene, but it doesn't really sell in a lot of places.

I fully realize that the tables are turned a bit right now and opposition and defense require a different approach, but in the end messaging is really the key and right now, outside of a pretty awesome weekend of pussy hats, Democrats suck at it.