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

demfad

Good prank at the Conservative Political Action Conference last week.

Progressive pranksters handed out 1000 Russian flags with TRUMP written on them. Only a few people caught on and refused them. Eventually staffers gathered them up threatening some conservatives with expulsion if they kept waving them!



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cpac-russian-flags-trump_us_58b0ca06e4b060480e0827ab

Manic Moran

Today's Indo on Sweden.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/north-america/president-trump/they-wont-admit-it-in-sweden-but-does-trump-have-a-point-35482893.html

I'm not sure I agree with him. I didn't find Arlanda a particularly good airport at all.

Professor Moriarty

Manic Moran wrote: »

Today's Indo on Sweden.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/north-america/president-trump/they-wont-admit-it-in-sweden-but-does-trump-have-a-point-35482893.html

I'm not sure I agree with him. I didn't find Arlanda a particularly good airport at all.

At least he has an open mind about Islam. He said this in 2014 while praising the integration of Islam into British society:

"The British Muslim is truly one among us – and proud to be so", describing their integration as one "of our great success stories".

And he said this in 2015:

"The unsayable truth about immigration: it's been a stunning success for Britain".

rgossip30

Christy42 wrote: »

Have you come with an argument yourself? Or a counterargument to people's points. This post is just a vague statement suggesting the post you quote is untrue without a serious counter argument.

You say that the debate is one sided but haven't tried to provide balance. Merely suggested we feel bad for being on the same side.

What is there to argue about . Trump shoots from the hip its louder creates a stir. A quieter Republican President would pursue the same agenda .
The Immigration Bill is a test of how far can it go . I disagree with Green Cards and those with residence status,work permits in difficulty . Green issues are controversial like return to coal ,fracking .
The media I take with a grain of salt as its fake petty on both sides and like a playground .

Christy42

rgossip30 wrote: »

What is there to argue about . Trump shoots from the hip its louder creates a stir. A quieter Republican President would pursue the same agenda .
The Immigration Bill is a test of how far can it go . I disagree with Green Cards and those with residence status,work permits in difficulty . Green issues are controversial like return to coal ,fracking .
The media I take with a grain of salt as its fake petty on both sides and like a playground .

Wait you said that there wasn't enough representation and now you are suggesting that there is nothing to debate about? I don't care if a quieter Republican would pursue the same agenda (I doubt it but I am unlikely to agree with a lot of whst a Republican president would do anyway given we don't share similar political opinions).

I mean you say that green issues are controversial. What is your opinion on them and whst Donald has done with respect to them?

Do you agree with Donald highlighting anything criminal done by a Muslim while ignoring the terrorist attacks in Kansas and Quebec?

rgossip30

Christy42 wrote: »

Wait you said that there wasn't enough representation and now you are suggesting that there is nothing to debate about? I don't care if a quieter Republican would pursue the same agenda (I doubt it but I am unlikely to agree with a lot of whst a Republican president would do anyway given we don't share similar political opinions).

I mean you say that green issues are controversial. What is your opinion on them and whst Donald has done with respect to them?

Do you agree with Donald highlighting anything criminal done by a Muslim while ignoring the terrorist attacks in Kansas and Quebec?

Donald Trump is man of 70 years age and has taken on a tough job in the face of adversity . I admire him for that .
I don't have much admiration for those who criticise from the closet .

Sam Russell

rgossip30 wrote: »

https://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-trump/ The link to prove the obvious .

The proof that Trump is anyway wealthy is to be seen in his tax returns. Whatever happened to those - he said he would publish them if he won.

There are plenty of people described as billionaires or millionaires who owe much more than their assets. Also much of these wealthy lists make assumptions about how much is owned of certain assets since the actual ownership is not public information. Plus money laundering hides much of this wealth.

Itssoeasy

rgossip30 wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

Wait you said that there wasn't enough representation and now you are suggesting that there is nothing to debate about? I don't care if a quieter Republican would pursue the same agenda (I doubt it but I am unlikely to agree with a lot of whst a Republican president would do anyway given we don't share similar political opinions).

I mean you say that green issues are controversial. What is your opinion on them and whst Donald has done with respect to them?

Do you agree with Donald highlighting anything criminal done by a Muslim while ignoring the terrorist attacks in Kansas and Quebec?

Donald Trump is man of 70 years age and has taken on a tough job in the face of adversity . I admire him for that .
I don't have much admiration for those who criticise from the closet .

Adversity he has created btw. He has no one else to blame for the way in which his administration is running.

What does from the closet mean ? So people can't criticise the president of the United States if he isn't doing a good job then ?

B_Wayne

rgossip30 wrote: »

Donald Trump is man of 70 years age and has taken on a tough job in the face of adversity . I admire him for that .
I don't have much admiration for those who criticise from the closet .

I'm happy to criticise him publicly. He has behaved terribly in his first month. This is backed up by facts. He has made his presidency into a battle with the media as they've reported on what he does and are not positive. Can you explain how vilifying the media is beneficial?

Christy42

rgossip30 wrote: »

Donald Trump is man of 70 years age and has taken on a tough job in the face of adversity . I admire him for that .
I don't have much admiration for those who criticise from the closet .

This is a thread for discussing the effects of Donald Trump as well as his pros and cons. Unless you wish to engage in this I see no reason to engage with you further.

The sum total of your recent posts appears to be just giving out about those highlighting Trump's cons with absolutely no defense of those cons whatsoever.

26000 Elephants

rgossip30 wrote: »

Well if he is so stupid how did he manage to become a billionaire and get elected . You got proof or are you just following the herd .

TV is wonderful. Great lighting, clever scriptwriters and directors who can coach you on what image you need to project.

End result? - People who ask the above question.

Trump went to Deutsche Bank one time to raise money for some deal or other. Or maybe new hair - who knows? Anyway, he filled out a form and reckoned he was worth $7bn. Deutsche bank themselves were not convinced so they checked. Best figure they could come up with? $700m.

Now considering his father 'left' him money in multiples of that amount, do you think he is a great business man?

And btw - Deutsche bank lent him the money regardless - and he defaulted.

True story, bro.

26000 Elephants

ThisRegard wrote: »

Net worth. And did you notice his self made score, hardly a rags to riches story.

Those Forbes lists are untrustworthy, especially so in Trumps case. Its on a 'self assessment' basis - you tell them how much you are worth. Its been debunked on several occasions. The famous Newsweek article is another good source. Google is your friend.

His ego forces him to sex up those figures.

PopePalpatine

rgossip30 wrote: »

Donald Trump is man of 70 years age and has taken on a tough job in the face of adversity . I admire him for that .
I don't have much admiration for those who criticise from the closet .

How does this answer the following questions?

• What is your opinion on environmental issues and what Donald has done with respect to them?
• Do you agree with Donald highlighting anything criminal done by a Muslim while ignoring the terrorist attacks in Kansas and Quebec?

ThisRegard

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Those Forbes lists are untrustworthy, especially so in Trumps case. Its on a 'self assessment' basis - you tell them how much you are worth. Its been debunked on several occasions. The famous Newsweek article is another good source. Google is your friend.

His ego forces him to sex up those figures.

Oh I didn't believe it before the link to that article was posted.

Professor Moriarty

"Trump’s claim that he built a real-estate fortune out of a “small” $1 million loan is simply not credible. He benefited from numerous loans and loan guarantees, as well as his father’s connections, to make the move into Manhattan. His father also set up lucrative trusts to provide steady income. When Donald Trump became overextended in the casino business, his father bailed him out with a shady casino-chip loan—and Trump also borrowed $9 million against his future inheritance. While Trump asserts “it has not been easy for me,” he glosses over the fact that his father paved the way for his success — and that his father bailed him out when he got into trouble."


"In 1978, the same year that Fred Trump set up the credit line for his son at Chase Manhattan, Trump’s personal finances collapsed. By then, he had borrowed $38 million from his line of credit—the bank adjusted the available amount up by $3 million when Trump exceeded his credit limit.

Losses came across the board. A number of Trump’s New York rental properties—on Third Avenue, Fifth Avenue, East 56th Street, East 57th Street, East 61st Street and East 67th Street—all were financial flops; Trump was forced to pay his own money for the operations of the properties because rental income failed to cover the cost. Partnership investments—Park Briar Associates, Regency Lexington Partners and 220 Prospect Street Company—contributed even more red ink. The interest owed to Chase Manhattan on Trump’s massive use of his credit line topped off the dismal financial performance."


"By December 1990, when Mr. Trump needed to make an $18.4 million interest payment, his father, Fred C. Trump, sent a lawyer to the Castle to buy $3.3 million in chips, to provide him with an infusion of cash. The younger Mr. Trump made the payment, but the Casino Control Commission fined the Castle $65,000 for what had amounted to an illegal loan."

swampgas

Is this a solo run by George W Bush, or the start of a coordinated move by the GOP to oust Trump, I wonder?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/george-w-bush-free-press-indispensable-democracy-n726141

George W. Bush on Monday broke with President Trump and called the media "indispensable to democracy."

In his first in-depth interview since Trump's inauguration, the former president took aim at the current White House occupant's oft repeated claim that the mainstream media is the "enemy of the people" — but took care not to mention Trump by name.

"I consider the media to be indispensable to democracy," Bush told Matt Lauer on the TODAY show. "That we need the media to hold people like me to account. I mean, power can be very addictive and it can be corrosive and it's important for the media to call to account people who abuse their power, whether it be here or elsewhere."

Pointedly, Bush told Lauer that he had tried to get Russian President Vladimir Putin "to accept the notion of an independent press."

"It's kind of hard to, you know, tell others to have an independent free press when we're not willing to have one ourselves," he said.

Water John

Well, it's a fairly directed and pointed pushback. No misunderstanding there.

It's worrying when you know, the last 4 Presidents are worried about the present incumbent. They would also have access to info reserved for the few.

BabyCheeses

Another day and Trump as usual has decided to see how can he say something that sounds stupid.

"Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated"

You would think that someone running for president seeking to repeal and replace the ACA would have had some idea for this. Unless his plan for that was as detailed for his super secret plan to defeat ISIS.

Call Me Jimmy

EX! President George W is a Mess! As a politician he was overrated. People are saying his health is failing. Sad!

weekday

Manic Moran wrote: »

Today's Indo on Sweden.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/north-america/president-trump/they-wont-admit-it-in-sweden-but-does-trump-have-a-point-35482893.html

I'm not sure I agree with him. I didn't find Arlanda a particularly good airport at all.

nothing happened in sweden last night

Peregrinus

rgossip30 wrote: »

I remember being told once that debate needs balance . This thread is too one sided and obsessed with petty negative comments for any debate . What a difference it would be if Trump was black or muslim.

Let me fix that for you: What a difference it would make if Trump and his supporters said anything defensible.

What a debate needs is opposing cases which are both at least arguable. It's not possible to "debate" arrant nonsense; all you can really do is point out that it's arrant nonsense.

We all know what's going on here; due to his short attention span and tenuous grasp of reality Trump made a public statement indicating that he was under the impression that there had been a recent terrorist atrocity in Sweden. There hadn't, of course. The fall-back position for Trump's defenders is that he was referring to a recent television programme on Fox about problems Sweden is said to be experiencing as a result of high immigration. Trump's comment is said to have been based on a misunderstanding of what the programme said.

(I pause to not that it's pretty telling that his defenders are seeking to explain his behaviour on the grounds that he misunderstood a report he saw on television.)

To support even this rather thin excuse, it's vitally necessary that Sweden should, in fact, be suffering these problems as a result of high immigration. Awkwardly for the Trumpistas, evidence for this is fairly thin. The strongest affirmation of the reality of these problems is found in the right-wing echo chamber, where Trumpistas quote one another and pretend that one another's opinions constitute "evidence".

How are we supposed to debate this? How can you have a "balanced" debate without pointing out the weakness in the Trumpista position; namely, that it's based on a worldview rooted in ignorance?

The President of the United States articulate a view of reality based on his own mis-recollection of a Fox news report which itself has been debunked. What does a "balanced" response to that look like?

Nody

Water John wrote: »

Well, it's a fairly directed and pointed pushback. No misunderstanding there.

It's worrying when you know, the last 4 Presidents are worried about the present incumbent. They would also have access to info reserved for the few.

To be fair though the Bush clan has been very much anti Trump for quite a while to the point they even said they would not vote on him when he became the republican candidate and part of that I'd guess would be related to Jeb Bush's failure to get nominated.

Peregrinus

Nody wrote: »

To be fair though the Bush clan has been very much anti Trump for quite a while to the point they even said they would not vote on him when he became the republican candidate and part of that I'd guess would be related to Jeb Bush's failure to get nominated.

Honestly? I wouldn't think so. The Kennedys made no such statement when Ted Kennedy failed to secure the Democratic nomination in '80, and in general such a stance would be unthinkable; it would reflect very badly on the family concerned and, recognising that, whatever their private feelings they would not make such a statement. It was only thinkable in Trump's case because of his manifest unfitness for the office he was seeking, and the Bushes could never have come out with that statement if many other respected Republicans, without such a family axe to grind, had not being saying similar things.

weisses

Meanwhile .....

Trump accuses Obama for the leaks and the town halls protest

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/02/27/trump-says-obama-is-helping-to-organize-protests-against-his-presidency/?utm_term=.8aa3fa07efd4

Without of course providing any evidence, which header do we file this under? fake news ? .. Alternative facts?

Akrasia

swampgas wrote: »

Is this a solo run by George W Bush, or the start of a coordinated move by the GOP to oust Trump, I wonder?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/george-w-bush-free-press-indispensable-democracy-n726141

Its not exactly a revolutionary statement to say that a government should respect an independent and free press.

It's sad that it's come to the stage where George W Bush is attacking someone for damaging the free press, when his own administration was responsible for massive media consolidation through his media deregulation legislation.

Trump's attacks on 'fake news' is a blatant attack on the media, but the real damage was done to the press when it was packaged up and sold. There are currently 5 media corporations who control 90% of the media in the US, and there is a merger in progress between AT&T and Time warner to consolidate even further.

And the fact that ISPs are becoming integrated into these media corporations means that the battle for net neutrality is the real battle for the marketplace of ideas and information

Trump's statements about 'fake news' are bad, but the fact that he's almost certainly going to end net neutrality
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/it-begins-trumps-fcc-launches-attack-on-net-neutrality-transparency-rules
and allow the media companies who own the ISPs to throttle competing media is the first horseman of the apocalypse

I wonder if it's a deliberate strategy.
1. Create outrage against fake news
2. End net neutrality
3. 'Compel' (or 'permit') ISPs to block 'fake news' as defined by the administration (starting off with the blatantly 'fake news', but including valid alternative news sources along the fringes)
4. Unprecedented control over the thoughts and opinions of the population by a tiny number of billionaires

Wanderer78

weisses wrote:

Without of course providing any evidence, which header do we file this under? fake news ? .. Alternative facts?

Fake alternative facts or alternative fake news maybe?

Akrasia wrote:

And the fact that ISPs are becoming integrated into these media corporations means that the battle for net neutrality is the real battle for the marketplace of ideas and information

Ah the internet wizards will find ways around this stuff, we probably all should be using things like vpn's anyway

ThisRegard

Akrasia wrote: »

Its not exactly a revolutionary statement to say that a government should respect an independent and free press.

I think the VP himself said the same the other week.

Peregrinus

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Another day and Trump as usual has decided to see how can he say something that sounds stupid.

"Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated"

You would think that someone running for president seeking to repeal and replace the ACA would have had some idea for this. Unless his plan for that was as detailed for his super secret plan to defeat ISIS.

Back in the year 2000, Donald Trump was calling for universal healthcare, and with the insight that only The Donald can bring to bear on the great issues of the day, pointed out that "working out detailed plans will take time".

Well, he's had 17 years since then to work on some detailed plans, and to date he's got as far as discovering that healthcare is "so complicated" - something lesser men and women thought they understood back in 2000, but undoubtedly they will be comforted to have The Donald confirm it for them.

The Donald has promised a plan that is less costly, provides better benefits and offers coverage to more people than current arrangements, but so far progress towards that plan consists only in the insight that healthcare is "so complicated". If that's the best he can do in 17 years, the prospects that he can answer the other questions that need to be answered to come up with a new and better healthcare policy in the next 4 years, or even in the next 8 years, are not strong.

As he's also said he doesn't want to repeal the current arrangements until he can replace them with new and better arrangements, I think the current arrangements are safe. Unless, of course, he was lying about that last bit. But that can't be, can it?

rgossip30

Peregrinus wrote: »

Let me fix that for you: What a difference it would make if Trump and his supporters said anything defensible.

What a debate needs is opposing cases which are both at least arguable. It's not possible to "debate" arrant nonsense; all you can really do is point out that it's arrant nonsense.

We all know what's going on here; due to his short attention span and tenuous grasp of reality Trump made a public statement indicating that he was under the impression that there had been a recent terrorist atrocity in Sweden. There hadn't, of course. The fall-back position for Trump's defenders is that he was referring to a recent television programme on Fox about problems Sweden is said to be experiencing as a result of high immigration. Trump's comment is said to have been based on a misunderstanding of what the programme said.

(I pause to not that it's pretty telling that his defenders are seeking to explain his behaviour on the grounds that he misunderstood a report he saw on television.)

To support even this rather thin excuse, it's vitally necessary that Sweden should, in fact, be suffering these problems as a result of high immigration. Awkwardly for the Trumpistas, evidence for this is fairly thin. The strongest affirmation of the reality of these problems is found in the right-wing echo chamber, where Trumpistas quote one another and pretend that one another's opinions constitute "evidence".

How are we supposed to debate this? How can you have a "balanced" debate without pointing out the weakness in the Trumpista position; namely, that it's based on a worldview rooted in ignorance?

The President of the United States articulate a view of reality based on his own mis-recollection of a Fox news report which itself has been debunked. What does a "balanced" response to that look like?

This is really a petty affair and insignificant . I thought you could have found a better reason to prove that Donald trump is an unfit President . I have no wish to aid you in that regard .

Christy42

Whst is interesting is aside from what Trump says is what he ignores. I mean this is a man that has twitter battles with celebrities but somehow failed to acknowledge the recent terrorist attack in Kansas? I mean his policy is largely based on security and stopping terrorist attacks. Why did he not mention it? I wonder whst the difference is?

Similarly with the threats to Jewish people recently. He was even asked point blank about it and entirely dodged the question of doing anything about it. Merely turned being not racist into a competition and declared himself the winner. Didn't actually mention doing anything to protect the Jewish community. Again I can't imagine why he ignores it. He tweeted about the minor incident in France and these are taking place in the country he says he is putting first.

Finally not the US but in the neighbouring country of Canada their latest terrorist attack was largely ignored. I say largely as to be fair Spicer did address it but only by lying about it.

I mean this is a regime that has made up several terrorist attacks and yet is ignoring terrorist threats that are happening/threatened in their locality.