President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Itssoeasy · 30-04-2017 2:25am

I see trump is claiming that he got 29 BILLS passed in his first 100 days. It's clear that Donald isn't clear on the difference between EOs and actual bills passed by congress. It's amazing what he will say at this point.

Igotadose · 30-04-2017 6:17am

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I see trump is claiming that he got 29 BILLS passed in his first 100 days. It's clear that Donald isn't clear on the difference between EOs and actual bills passed by congress. It's amazing what he will say at this point.

A year from now, his supporters will be all over "Yeah, we're at war in 10 places and the economy is sinking, but remember he got 29 bills passed in his first 100 days! Is 'toddlers in tiaras' on the TV yet, Beulah? Where's my Red Bull?!"

Leroy42 · 30-04-2017 9:01am

...And Justice wrote: »

Yep, we need a reset too many Looney tunes running the place, I'd love to go back to the 50's when family actually meant something.

You mean family meant what you want it to mean. You do realise that nothing has changed in terms of how you can live your life? You are free to marry, and stay married forever, free to go to church, pray, not have abortions, not be gay or attend gay weddings.

But what you really want is a period when men were in charge. When the church had the power of the country, when those different than you were ostracised you as to avoid having to deal with them.

But even if all that was worthwhile, (or possible) what is Trump doing that is going to deliver that? Reopening coal mines? Getting rid of bathroom laws (which is a state issue anyway so only a direction).

Are you sure that his version of great america is the 1950's? I'm not sure that it is? Because you know what? Trump not only believes in globalisation, he has directly benefitted from it. He has been able to expand into foreign countries whilst at the same time employing immigrants to lower his costs.

Does he only hire americans in his business's in the US? What about those hotels and golf courses around the world? Does he only buy american made products or only use american steel or american manufacturing for his clothes etc. We all know the answer to these so on what basis, other than his standout phrase, are you basing your theory that Trump wants, never mind is able to, MAGA?

Really Interested · 30-04-2017 9:37am

...And Justice wrote: »

You have YouTube at your fingertips, look it up "if" you're really interested. I don't believe you are.

You are the person saying they exist you obviously don't believe yourself.

Really Interested · 30-04-2017 9:40am

...And Justice wrote: »

Yep, we need a reset too many Looney tunes running the place, I'd love to go back to the 50's when family actually meant something.

To many a 3 thins divorced man would not fit in to the 50's view of family!

Really Interested · 30-04-2017 9:41am

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I see trump is claiming that he got 29 BILLS passed in his first 100 days. It's clear that Donald isn't clear on the difference between EOs and actual bills passed by congress. It's amazing what he will say at this point.

He knows the difference the issue is his surporters don't.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/apr/27/sean-spicer/trump-has-signed-more-bills-100-days-any-president/[URL][/url]

Peregrinus · 30-04-2017 9:58am

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I see trump is claiming that he got 29 BILLS passed in his first 100 days. It's clear that Donald isn't clear on the difference between EOs and actual bills passed by congress. It's amazing what he will say at this point.

On this one, Trump is correct. The "29" figure relates to Bills enacted by Congrss and signed by the President. It doesn't include executive orders signed by the President alone.

But there's a "never mind the quality, feel the thickness" ring to this claim. Most of the 29 Bills that Trump has signed do nothing of any great significance, and none of them needed much support or patronage from the White House to get through Congress, so the fact that they got through is not attributable to Trump or his administration.

Three of the 29 Bills appoint individuals to the Board of the Smithsonian Institution; 2 confer names on particular government buildings (there's a Department of Veterans Affairs clinic in Pago Pago which is now called the "Faleomavaega Eni Fa'aua'a Hunkin VA Clinic"); one designates a site for a national memoral to Operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield. And so forth. Conspicuously missing is a bill to repeal and replace Obmacare (promised for day 1), a bill for infrastructure spending, a bill for tax reform, or any other of the major bills that were promised.

By contrast, in his first hundred days Obama signed only 14 Bills, but they included a Bill to reverse a Supreme Court decision and reintate fair pay regulations, and a $800 bn stimulus package. You may like those measures or you may not, but they are vastly more signficant than any Bill Trump has signed in the past hundred days.

Igotadose · 30-04-2017 10:18am

Interesting read. Always these uber-wealthy are playing the long game, but interesting nevertheless. Very influential tGOP puppetmaster weighs in against Trump.

Quote: "The president and lawmakers have an excellent opportunity to take bold steps here and now to reverse the United States’ trajectory toward a two-tiered system: one that benefits the wealthy and well-connected (including big businesses such as Koch Industries) at the expense of everyone else"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-koch-trumps-policies-must-not-benefit-only-big-businesses-like-mine/2017/04/27/aaed9d74-29ed-11e7-a616-d7c8a68c1a66_story.html?utm_term=.0dc239a5a199

B0jangles · 30-04-2017 10:21am

On the whole "the '50s were better!" notion - just have a look at the first season of hugely successful and influential "The Twilight Zone" which came out in the latE 1950's. There are multiple episodes devoted to the idea that the present day (1959) is awful and hectic and soulless and how nice it would be to go back to a simpler time. Everytime the protagonist discovers that that is escapism or simply looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses.

It was true then, it's still true today.

mattser · 30-04-2017 10:32am

What's all this BS about 100 days?. What's next? 125 days?. Just like the Indo and it's centenary pull-outs, continuing into 2017.

Peregrinus · 30-04-2017 10:51am

mattser wrote: »

What's all this BS about 100 days?. What's next? 125 days?. Just like the Indo and it's centenary pull-outs, continuing into 2017.

This is why.

Sam Russell · 30-04-2017 10:55am

Chester Copperpot wrote: »

1950s America seems like a good period in their history ... as long as you had the right skin tone

... and political views. Remember Joe McCarthy! (I suppose being a red under the bed could count as a skin tone).

PropJoe10 · 30-04-2017 11:53am

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is why.

How much of that has he actually achieved?

Water John · 30-04-2017 12:53pm

A conservative Supreme Court judge is his only accomplishment.
The rest has been failure after failure.

BabyCheeses · 30-04-2017 1:12pm

mattser wrote: »

What's all this BS about 100 days?. What's next? 125 days?. Just like the Indo and it's centenary pull-outs, continuing into 2017.

The first 100 days tends to be an important milestone due to being the time where the presidents approval is at their highest and they attempt to get their main ideas through.

It usually downhill from here.

PopePalpatine · 30-04-2017 2:55pm

Water John wrote: »

A conservative Supreme Court judge is his only accomplishment.
The rest has been failure after failure.

I'm sure the Republicans' Big Oil & Big Coal paymasters would disagree.

Leroy42 · 30-04-2017 4:58pm

mattser wrote: »

What's all this BS about 100 days?. What's next? 125 days?. Just like the Indo and it's centenary pull-outs, continuing into 2017.

I was thinking that way too, but when you look back at nearly all previous presidents then you realise that for the majority of them the first 100 days (or so) is really the biggest chance for them to set a tone.

They come in with the wind at their backs from an election victory, and the esteem that the POTUS is held in means that even the opponents have to be careful as coming across as not going along with the wishes of the electorate.

Once that period is over, or the view that POTUS is speaking for the country as a whole starts to wane, then starting off with the opposition and moving to his own party,the members of the house and senate start to feel that they can start to chart their own course.

So the problem for Trump is not only that he didn't get anything done, but that that when he did try to achieve anything it failed, and failed in a big public way.

So at this point if you are a sitting member or senator, you start to ask yourself what benefit is there for your votes to continue to go along with a potentially injured POTUS. It is exactly the same dynamic that effects POTUS during the second term. There is simply no incentive for anybody to join your plans when you will be gone within a few years.

Look at it another way, when you start a new job you want to make a good impression, either to your boss or those working for you. Trump has spectacularly failed to do that and not only that he has shown himself to be a liar in the process.

It is very hard to get back that first impression. Its not impossible, but there is nothing that anyone can point to that would indicate that Trump has that capacity.

Finally, they can't even point to soon upcoming things. The tax plan is little more than a wish list. Its is no as if there is plenty of legislation currently rolling through the house that will come through in the next short while. There is simply nothing being even put forward never mind voted through.

Manach · 30-04-2017 4:59pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

... and political views. Remember Joe McCarthy! (I suppose being a red under the bed could count as a skin tone).

Ironically, decrypted Soviet intercepts from sources like the Verona cables showed numerous influencal insiders were agents that were acting to allow the Soviets to win the cold war. This, and the communist oppression during that era, never seem to come up during the de-rigour leftist denounations of McCarthy. Books written by authors such as John Gaddis at least can give a bit of background to this period.

Billy86 · 30-04-2017 6:09pm

Interesting presidential approval rating trends through their first 100 days:

Year - Interview Dates - President- % Approval - % Disapproval - % No Opinion - Initial Approval - % - Change

953	Apr. 19-24	D. Eisenhower	73	10	17	68	5
1961	Apr. 28-May 3	John Kennedy	83	5	12	72	11
1969	May 1-6	        Richard Nixon	62	15	23	59	3
1977	Apr. 29-May 2	Jimmy Carter	63	18	19	66	-3
1981	May 8-11   	Ronald Reagan	68	21	11	51	17
1989	May 4-7	        George Bush	56	22	22	51	5
1993	Apr. 22-24	William Clinton	55	37	8	58	-3
2001	Apr. 20-22	George W. Bush	62	29	9	57	5
2009	Apr. 28-30	Barack Obama	65	29	6	68	-3
2017	TBD           	Donald J. Trump	40	55	5	45	-5

Starts out with the lowest approval rating of any president ever since they began tracking, and somehow manages to have the biggest loss of approval loss in 100 days of any president ever - a full 15% behind in approval and 16% in disapproval, from the next on the list. Truly remarkable stuff.

What's comical are the claims from his fans that he would win again if there were an election tomorrow - he has suffered a 4% drop in them at this point, which is likely quite large for a president in his first 100 days. Not only that but as seen from his disapproval ratings and some of the special elections that are typically among the safest Republican seats in the country, he has done an incredible job mobilising support again himself. But even ignoring that, a 4% drop in his voter share would have lost him Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, without which he would only have received 239 EC votes vs 292.

Just a random musing, goes to show how much of a failure these 100 days of his have been.

Professor Moriarty · 30-04-2017 7:05pm

Billy86 wrote: »
Interesting presidential approval rating trends through their first 100 days:

Year - Interview Dates - President- % Approval - % Disapproval - % No Opinion - Initial Approval - % - Change
953	Apr. 19-24	D. Eisenhower	73	10	17	68	5
1961	Apr. 28-May 3	John Kennedy	83	5	12	72	11
1969	May 1-6	        Richard Nixon	62	15	23	59	3
1977	Apr. 29-May 2	Jimmy Carter	63	18	19	66	-3
1981	May 8-11   	Ronald Reagan	68	21	11	51	17
1989	May 4-7	        George Bush	56	22	22	51	5
1993	Apr. 22-24	William Clinton	55	37	8	58	-3
2001	Apr. 20-22	George W. Bush	62	29	9	57	5
2009	Apr. 28-30	Barack Obama	65	29	6	68	-3
2017	TBD           	Donald J. Trump	40	55	5	45	-5
Starts out with the lowest approval rating of any president ever since they began tracking, and somehow manages to have the biggest loss of approval loss in 100 days of any president ever - a full 15% behind in approval and 16% in disapproval, from the next on the list. Truly remarkable stuff.

What's comical are the claims from his fans that he would win again if there were an election tomorrow - he has suffered a 4% drop in them at this point, which is likely quite large for a president in his first 100 days. Not only that but as seen from his disapproval ratings and some of the special elections that are typically among the safest Republican seats in the country, he has done an incredible job mobilising support again himself. But even ignoring that, a 4% drop in his voter share would have lost him Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, without which he would only have received 239 EC votes vs 292.

Just a random musing, goes to show how much of a failure these 100 days of his have been.

With a 55% disapproval rating, he'd be cleaned out if the Dems ran Mickey Mouse.

Sand · 30-04-2017 7:25pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

With a 55% disapproval rating, he'd be cleaned out if the Dems ran Mickey Mouse.

The Dems problems are vastly greater than Trump. Since before Clinton the Democrats have assumed the blue collar working man vote has no where else to go. So they have chased the new American aristocrat voters - the professional/Zuckerberg/innovative class. This has involved simultaneously attacking blue collar interests (to prove they're serious), embracing the interests of professionals (i.e. Wall Street, big pharma, etc) and endorsing financial/technological/legal 'innovation' which ultimately amounts to avoiding regulations and bringing about the return of modern day labouring, disguised as 'entrepreneurship'. As well as an embrace of identity politics, which is far more comfortable for the modern day Democrats than class politics, being that they are the party of the new aristocrats. Heavily Democrat controlled areas are some of the most unequal in the US. Inequality isnt something the Democrats fight against, its something they encourage. The message from the Democrats is that if you are poor, you deserve it.

The result was the unthinkable happened and Trump won in those blue collar states that Clinton and the Democrats have taken for granted for decades. And that was with Trump, a horrific candidate who should have lost to any reasonable candidate. The Republicans will be back next time with a far better candidate who makes basically the same sales pitch. The underlying dynamic is very troubling for the Democrats. Even the good result in Georgia isn't all that encouraging - the district is a wealthy suburban area, the same voters the Democrats have been pitching themselves too since before Bill Clinton.

Even the Democrat reaction to the defeat has been 'more of the same', rather than questioning if they really ought to be the party of Zuckerberg and Wall Street.

Sam Russell · 30-04-2017 7:43pm

Manach wrote: »

Ironically, decrypted Soviet intercepts from sources like the Verona cables showed numerous influencal insiders were agents that were acting to allow the Soviets to win the cold war. This, and the communist oppression during that era, never seem to come up during the de-rigour leftist denounations of McCarthy. Books written by authors such as John Gaddis at least can give a bit of background to this period.

This is off topic but just to say McCarthy led witch hunts against anyone who was left wing, and paid little respect for views that differed from his very distorted view. I do not think most victims of his purge were Soviet spies or even very many if any were. They would have to have been very poor spies to have been caught in his net.

Anyway, back to DJT, he told his rally in PA that the wall is back on target, plus more nonsense.

...And Justice · 30-04-2017 8:58pm

It looks like North Korea are on the same road to Iraq, Rex Tillerson has just delivered the most hawkish statement to the UN. In my opinion the US is going to war with NK, they've deployed THAAD on golf courses in SK and residents in the area are not happy. A major conflict is on the cards here.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sec-tillerson-un-security-council-act-north-korea-does-n752471

Water John · 30-04-2017 10:40pm

Joe Biden was who O'Bama cosied to for the blue collar vote.
Large political parties looking to capture half the voters in any country need to able to keep different interests within its ranks.
Looking after the blue collar worker___Biden, Young socially concious____Sanders, Female radical ___Warren, Etc.
Catering for sections, should be possible as many areas are not mutually exclusive.
You build a coalition within your own party.

hatrickpatrick · 01-05-2017 12:13am

Sand wrote: »

Even the Democrat reaction to the defeat has been 'more of the same', rather than questioning if they really ought to be the party of Zuckerberg and Wall Street.

Bingo. I have yet to see a single high-up Dem question their own behaviour, message, policies, or ideology. At most perhaps they criticise their propaganda efforts as having been insufficient - at no point do they ever seem to ask "are we maybe doing something that's pissing off millions of people who are subsequently too disgusted with us to vote for us?"

Nody · 01-05-2017 9:17am

Oh Trump never stop giving interviews; the latest reason why his 100 days has been a failure? The constitution. You heard it right; it's the constitutions fault with it's checks and balances that he could not get his stuff done with a republican senate, republican house and him as president. Not his failure to actually get his own flipping party to work with him, no sir, it's the constitution that's at fault here and should be changed.

Enjoy!

Christy42 · 01-05-2017 12:52pm

Nody wrote: »

Oh Trump never stop giving interviews; the latest reason why his 100 days has been a failure? The constitution. You heard it right; it's the constitutions fault with it's checks and balances that he could not get his stuff done with a republican senate, republican house and him as president. Not his failure to actually get his own flipping party to work with him, no sir, it's the constitution that's at fault here and should be changed.

Enjoy!

And the party that love the constitution will still back him. This is ridiculous at this point he is coming closer and closer to saying he can't do the job. America is not a facist state and therefore has checks and balances on every position. Other presidents had to deal with them but he is simply incapable.

Sofa Spud · 01-05-2017 2:35pm

Nody wrote: »

Oh Trump never stop giving interviews; the latest reason why his 100 days has been a failure? The constitution. You heard it right; it's the constitutions fault with it's checks and balances that he could not get his stuff done with a republican senate, republican house and him as president. Not his failure to actually get his own flipping party to work with him, no sir, it's the constitution that's at fault here and should be changed.

Enjoy!

Be interesting to see if this was a one-off brain-fart or is he sowing the seed of calling for constitutional changes to provide him with more executive powers. Have to imagine it's just the former - cannot see the more rational side of Reps providing him with cover for any messing with the constitutional status quo...

Akrasia · 01-05-2017 3:49pm

He did congratulate Erdogan after he won his referendum giving him massively expanded powers in Turkey.

Trump would love to be able to ban wikipedia like Turkey have just done.

InTheTrees · 01-05-2017 3:50pm

Sofa Spud wrote: »

Be interesting to see if this was a one-off brain-fart or is he sowing the seed of calling for constitutional changes to provide him with more executive powers. Have to imagine it's just the former - cannot see the more rational side of Reps providing him with cover for any messing with the constitutional status quo...

I think most of what comes out of trumps mouth is brain fart.

Luckily the constitution is stronger than trump.

Really Interested · 01-05-2017 3:53pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

I think most of what comes out of trumps mouth is brain fart.

Luckily the constitution is stronger than trump.

To say most things that come out of Trumps mouth are brain farts, is an insult to both brains and farts as both in normal people have a use.

InTheTrees · 01-05-2017 4:14pm

I got a shock this morning watching the news. The republicans are running adverts saying what a great job trump has done. I'm using my phone but I'll post a link later.
Lunacy.
He's so unpopular he has to pay for ads saying how great he is.

Harika · 01-05-2017 4:15pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

I got a shock this morning watching the news. The republicans are running adverts saying what a great job trump has done. I'm using my phone but I'll post a link later.
Lunacy.
He's so unpopular he has to pay for ads saying how great he is.

Seems he learned a thing or two from Kim Jong-un.

Kitsunegari · 01-05-2017 4:34pm

The Guardian are suggesting Sen. Warren as a potential opponent to Trump in 2020. If that's the standard of candidate the Democrats are going to put forward then I think we'll be looking at 8 years of Trump.

The biggest challenge for Trump will be from within the Republicans IMO. Ryan and co are trying to support and go against Trump at the same time. The Democrats don't look capable of any reform so we'll likely be stuck with two more terrible candidates on the ticket in 2020 as it stands.

Itssoeasy · 01-05-2017 4:35pm

I see that mr trump has made another baffling comment about Andrew Jackson and the civil war. And he asked the question that no us historian has never asked, and that's "why couldn't the civil war have been avoided?"

In every interview I've seen of his where I see written answers, his answers are baffling and his train of thought is off the wall.

Professor Moriarty · 01-05-2017 5:20pm

When pressed on CBS about his claims of being wiretapped by Obama, Trump does a Trump.

Christy42 · 01-05-2017 6:06pm

Kitsunegari wrote: »

The Guardian are suggesting Sen. Warren as a potential opponent to Trump in 2020. If that's the standard of candidate the Democrats are going to put forward then I think we'll be looking at 8 years of Trump.

The biggest challenge for Trump will be from within the Republicans IMO. Ryan and co are trying to support and go against Trump at the same time. The Democrats don't look capable of any reform so we'll likely be stuck with two more terrible candidates on the ticket in 2020 as it stands.

Which way do you want them to reform. They lost the blue collar vote. If you want them to help the blue collar voters they need someone along the lines of Warren and Sanders.

However the blue collar vote very much voted for someone trying to screw them over from a great height so maybe they should go along those lines a lot more. It was even stated a lot before that this was going to happen so presumably they knew. Poor people voting for Republicans is like a Turkey voting for Christmas. If you want to help the less well off you need a left wing party which the democrats are not.

I should point out that the Dems only need an extra per cent or so to take back the white house. An extra point from where we were months ago when people were still claiming that Trump would pivot away from being a racist idiot and would be this masterful negotiator who could actually get thinga done in Washington.

Sand · 01-05-2017 6:38pm

Water John wrote: »

Joe Biden was who O'Bama cosied to for the blue collar vote.
Large political parties looking to capture half the voters in any country need to able to keep different interests within its ranks.
Looking after the blue collar worker___Biden, Young socially concious____Sanders, Female radical ___Warren, Etc.
Catering for sections, should be possible as many areas are not mutually exclusive.
You build a coalition within your own party.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, the interests of blue collar workers and aristocrats are mutually exclusive. The Democrats always understood this - they used to represent those blue collar workers against the aristocrats. But then they calculated the blue collar workers had no where else to go. They were wrong, and twitter identity politics isnt a rallying cry that is going to unify their party.

Until they resolve that issue, they are going to face persistent problems. If not Trump, so other Republican will make the same bid in fertile territory.

Christy42 wrote: »

Which way do you want them to reform. They lost the blue collar vote. If you want them to help the blue collar voters they need someone along the lines of Warren and Sanders.

However the blue collar vote very much voted for someone trying to screw them over from a great height so maybe they should go along those lines a lot more. It was even stated a lot before that this was going to happen so presumably they knew. Poor people voting for Republicans is like a Turkey voting for Christmas. If you want to help the less well off you need a left wing party which the democrats are not.

I should point out that the Dems only need an extra per cent or so to take back the white house. An extra point from where we were months ago when people were still claiming that Trump would pivot away from being a racist idiot and would be this masterful negotiator who could actually get thinga done in Washington.

No, not necessarily. The Democrats are not the blue collar party anymore. Areas where Democrats dominate - where Republicans have next to no influence - are some of the most unequal in the United States. There is no evidence that the Democrats are somehow prevented by the Reps from combating inequality. The Dems endorse inequality and have done so at least since the Clintons. Poor people voting for Democrats is like a battered wife returning home for another beating.

Look at Barack Obama. Nice guy, but he appointed Geithner as Treasury Secretary. Neil Barofsky recalls that when he met with Geithner to discuss the bailout plans in 2009 that 'a lightbulb went on' for him. Warren had challenged Geithner on how the bailout plan would help homeowners. Geithner responded by explaining how it would help the banks.

Obama is a nice guy, but every time there was decision to be made between the interests of the blue collar and the interests of the aristocrats, the Democrats always back the aristocrats. Every time.

Sofa Spud · 01-05-2017 7:23pm

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I see that mr trump has made another baffling comment about Andrew Jackson and the civil war. And he asked the question that no us historian has never asked, and that's "why couldn't the civil war have been avoided?"

In every interview I've seen of his where I see written answers, his answers are baffling and his train of thought is off the wall.

I loved his one a few months ago in a speech - I think possibly at CPAC - where he was talking about Lincoln and he said something along the lines of 'Who Knew that Abe Lincoln was a Republican? I think more people should know that!'. He said that as he stood there, literally talking to the party that calls itself The Party of Lincoln in much the same way FF like to call themselves the Republican Party, and it was clear he was really happy with he new fact of the day that he probably heard on Fox and Friends and wanted to share it with everybody....

InTheTrees · 01-05-2017 7:29pm

Here's trumps tv ad thats all over the airwaves today.

Lying piece of sh*t

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNQlAFonJU

Water John · 01-05-2017 7:29pm

The Blue Collar vote flipped from O'Bama/Biden to Trump because they believed the Dems represented rich people, twice as much as the GOP.
This is from the Dems own research.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/05/01/why-did-trump-win-new-research-by-democrats-offers-a-worrisome-answer/?utm_term=.aed00bbc9a4d&wpisrc=nl_most-draw8&wpmm=1

They'll have to put their heads together to overcome that.

The upside would be, after soul searching and changing tack, it can be won back.

Sand · 01-05-2017 7:33pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

Here's trumps tv ad thats all over the airwaves today.

Lying piece of sh*t

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNQlAFonJU

"...You wouldn't know it from watching the news..."

No. You wouldn't.

Christy42 · 01-05-2017 7:38pm

Sand wrote: »

Unfortunately for the Democrats, the interests of blue collar workers and aristocrats are mutually exclusive. The Democrats always understood this - they used to represent those blue collar workers against the aristocrats. But then they calculated the blue collar workers had no where else to go. They were wrong, and twitter identity politics isnt a rallying cry that is going to unify their party.

Until they resolve that issue, they are going to face persistent problems. If not Trump, so other Republican will make the same bid in fertile territory.

No, not necessarily. The Democrats are not the blue collar party anymore. Areas where Democrats dominate - where Republicans have next to no influence - are some of the most unequal in the United States. There is no evidence that the Democrats are somehow prevented by the Reps from combating inequality. The Dems endorse inequality and have done so at least since the Clintons. Poor people voting for Democrats is like a battered wife returning home for another beating.

Look at Barack Obama. Nice guy, but he appointed Geithner as Treasury Secretary. Neil Barofsky recalls that when he met with Geithner to discuss the bailout plans in 2009 that 'a lightbulb went on' for him. Warren had challenged Geithner on how the bailout plan would help homeowners. Geithner responded by explaining how it would help the banks.

Obama is a nice guy, but every time there was decision to be made between the interests of the blue collar and the interests of the aristocrats, the Democrats always back the aristocrats. Every time.

You avoided the point of arguing how Republicans will help. I did mention that Democrats are still too right wing to seriously help the less well off but some of them have at least tried.

So far all Trump has done is try and remove any chance of them ever having healthcare. Obamacare has issues but it was a step in the right direction that Republicans tried to undue. It is a big issue of two party politics. The less well off get no where to go since the Dems ignore them and the Republicans will try and hurt them.

So it is a question of whether or not the Dems move towards those the blue collar voters went with (Trump and Republicans) or if they move towards those who might try and help the blue collar workers (and they can even keep the identity politics since that part is not against the needs of blue collar workers-many of whom will be lgbt or people of colour).

Water John · 01-05-2017 7:44pm

Would be an interesting situation if Independents got the balance of power in both Houses. Easy enough for it to happen.
In reality was there quite often before, because on diff issues, legislators did not stick rigidly to their own party line.
It has just become far more polarised recently.

Sand · 01-05-2017 7:53pm

Christy42 wrote: »

You avoided the point of arguing how Republicans will help. I did mention that Democrats are still too right wing to seriously help the less well off but some of them have at least tried.

So far all Trump has done is try and remove any chance of them ever having healthcare. Obamacare has issues but it was a step in the right direction that Republicans tried to undue. It is a big issue of two party politics. The less well off get no where to go since the Dems ignore them and the Republicans will try and hurt them.

So it is a question of whether or not the Dems move towards those the blue collar voters went with (Trump and Republicans) or if they move towards those who might try and help the blue collar workers (and they can even keep the identity politics since that part is not against the needs of blue collar workers-many of whom will be lgbt or people of colour).

They didn't vote for Republicans in 2016. They voted for change to the establishment, as represented by Trump. Just as they voted for change to the establishment, as represented by Obama previously. In both scenarios, they are trying to break out of the catch 22 trap where neither party represents them.

The Democrats don't ignore the less well off. They don't try to help them but are somehow prevented from doing so. They also try to hurt them through their embrace of 'innovation' and the interests of Zuckerberg and Co. Democrats *need* to attack the less well off, to prove themselves to the professional/aristocratic class.

The identity politics is a distraction from class politics. That's why the Democrats have embraced it, to replace class politics. Its hard to be a class warrior when you are yachting with Goldman Sachs for your holidays. Much more financially and politically expedient to pretend the real battle lines are in toilet signs and pronouns.

Billy86 · 01-05-2017 8:28pm

Sand wrote: »

No, not necessarily. The Democrats are not the blue collar party anymore. Areas where Democrats dominate - where Republicans have next to no influence - are some of the most unequal in the United States. There is no evidence that the Democrats are somehow prevented by the Reps from combating inequality. The Dems endorse inequality and have done so at least since the Clintons. Poor people voting for Democrats is like a battered wife returning home for another beating.

Can't really agree too much with that. Yes, the Democrats often don't look out for the average person but the Republicans are comfortably worse offenders on that end. A lot of income inequality issues stemmed from their favourite president of the lot (Reagan) who they continue to worship as a God like figure despite the proven failures of his trickle down policies (policies that Trump will double and triple down on, since it's his family's pocket than the money won't be "trickling down" from). Furthermore they don't even try to hide that they are actors on behalf of corporations, doing the complete opposite of what they say (more on that later) - let's not forget that one of the reasons Trumpcare failed was because many Republicans felt it would not line the pockets of the wealthy enough and gave too much to the working/middle classes as one recent example.

That's a considerable issue the Democrats face also, that the Republicans have tied themselves in so deeply with religion in a country that has a very large number of hardliners and fundamentalists, and as such not voting Republican is seen as 'not doing the Christian thing' in many areas. The end result of this is that the Republicans have a considerably large voter base that refuses to hold it to any standard other than occasionally paying lip service to their religion.

Also, regarding the idea of the Democrats being the 'party of Wall Street' both are guilty here but there Republicans even moreso. Just from today - Republicans are marching ahead with a mammoth 593-page bill to deregulate Wall Street

Regarding income inequality, I'm pretty sure you would find the same if not worse in heavily Republican areas (apart from those of course that basically have no economy but don't appear to their representatives accountable for that at any point and continue to vote the The Almighty 'R').

Obama is a nice guy, but every time there was decision to be made between the interests of the blue collar and the interests of the aristocrats, the Democrats always back the aristocrats. Every time.

Very often yes, except his biggest action to benefit the average American was the one the Republicans opposed stronger than maybe anything they ever have as a party, and with a fair degree of success. Needless to say, like good Christians many of their supporters blindly followed as they fought hard to get rid of the same ACA they depended on and polled on being happy with (unless the poll called it Obamacare, in which case they hated it).

It's the massive failing of a two party system because it really is a definitive example of 'pick your poison' but I can't conceivably see how one doesn't view the Republicans as the worse of the two with regards to these kinds of issues.

To add to the analogies on beaten wives and Turkey's voting for Christmas though, is that the blue collar rust belters and the likes voting for Trump was like someone stubbing their toe on a bunch of things others left lying around, preventing them from going where they needed to get to, and ultimately in an effort to get back at those who left the debris and mess there... they decided to stab themselves in the face.

Valord · 01-05-2017 9:47pm

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Thanks for the free physiological lesson. If you're constantly reading negative stories about Trump, your perception of him is obviously going to be negative too. I think it's fair to question things and hammer him on certain others, but the hysteria surrounding him has never been seen before, it's constant hit after hit, and was during the campaign too. My own feeling is somewhat negative so far, but it's no where near the hysterical levels others are expressing.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/study-91-percent-of-trump-coverage-on-broadcast-news-was-negative-230297

A non partisan poll was released yesterday about the media and Trumps Whitehouse, and IMO some people might find the results surprising.

https://morningconsult.com/2017/04/28/political-media-earns-poor-marks-americans/

Maybe because this is kind of a silly survey to begin with. It's comparing something very specific (the Trump WH) to something incredibly vague and nebulous ("the media"). What one person thinks of when they hear "the media" is very different to what another person does. How about comparing his trust rating to actual tangible outlets instead? What are the ratings of CNN, Fox, the NY Times, WaPo, MSNBC, Reuters, AP, local papers, etc?

This seems almost like asking people if they trust "politicians" and then when they inevitably say they don't in large numbers, you use it to declare that some politicians you don't like aren't trusted by most people. Just bundling everything together is the same reason we always see those useless statistics about how some 90% of Americans disapprove of congress, which completely hides the fact that almost everyone is pretty satisfied with their own representatives and are happy to re-elect them quite easily.

Christy42 · 01-05-2017 10:43pm

Sand wrote: »

They didn't vote for Republicans in 2016. They voted for change to the establishment, as represented by Trump. Just as they voted for change to the establishment, as represented by Obama previously. In both scenarios, they are trying to break out of the catch 22 trap where neither party represents them.

The Democrats don't ignore the less well off. They don't try to help them but are somehow prevented from doing so. They also try to hurt them through their embrace of 'innovation' and the interests of Zuckerberg and Co. Democrats *need* to attack the less well off, to prove themselves to the professional/aristocratic class.

The identity politics is a distraction from class politics. That's why the Democrats have embraced it, to replace class politics. Its hard to be a class warrior when you are yachting with Goldman Sachs for your holidays. Much more financially and politically expedient to pretend the real battle lines are in toilet signs and pronouns.

Identity politics is its own issue. The difference between the classes is not the only issue out there and lgbt legislation affects millions. Anyone who voted for Trump because they think he doesn't go yachting with Godman Sachs deserves him as a president really.

They voted a spoilt rich kid backed by Republicans and expected change? If you want change vote for the style you want within a party. Vote Sanders. Vote for a 3rd party,campaign too change how votes are counted (proportional representation or the French system would help). Sure none of these will likely work but it is trying.

Saying you are voting for change while voting for a man campaigning on reducing taxes for rich, reducing health care assistance for the poor and is backed by Republicans is laughable logic.

For Forks Sake · 01-05-2017 11:05pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

Here's trumps tv ad thats all over the airwaves today.

Lying piece of sh*t

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNQlAFonJU

Truly nauseating

Itssoeasy · 02-05-2017 12:10am

InTheTrees wrote: »

Here's trumps tv ad thats all over the airwaves today.

Lying piece of sh*t

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNQlAFonJU

That is... I'm not sure what that is I've just watched.

President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Comments