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

...And Justice

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Trump's useful idiot in the EPA, Pruitt, has had most of the climate change information on their website removed pending a rewrite "to better reflect the approach of the new leadership". I really don't know how Trump supporters will be able to look their grandchildren in the eye in years to come. It's one thing to ignore reality to suit yourself but it's of a different order to ignore your grandchildren's future. Wilful and selfish stupidity.

Just like when the Irish government promoted diesel during the recession? It suits the narrative at the time. Politicians do not look forward "except in Japan" it's 4 years of line your own pockets for every politician. The only places I've witnessed a politician being sacked, is the UK and Japan.

Really Interested

...And Justice wrote: »

Maybe you're right, but there's also tapes of Clinton looking for access to area 51 and being told to take a hike. Then he's denied that it existed, then he admitted that it existed but was never there.

Anyway we are going around in circles, the point is that American presidents are controlled by big money. You don't build fleets of aircraft carriers unless you are going to use them. NK is on the axis of evil list from bushes presidency.

Donald Trump is realised that he doesn't have the power.

The reason why I wanted trump to win is because I'm sick to death of terrorism and this liberal crap with men and women pissing and crapping in the same toilet. Also the gender neutrality stuff is pathetic.

Humans are different, there's males and females, both genders require different things. I don't fancy having a dump with the female director of HR next to me in the toilet.

Funny how you don't link to these videos. Funny thing is there is some shadow state that is so secret and it controls everything but they are so stupid they can stop presidents being recorded taking orders.

The rest of your stuff is just wa wa wa liberals terror trump going to stop me having to **** in the same room as a female give me some pease god the snowflakes really have taken over, just not the ones everyone talks about.

oscarBravo

...And Justice wrote: »

I'd love to see the world burn...

Yeah, that's a sentiment I've always felt underlay a lot of Trump support. It's almost refreshing to see it openly expressed.

...And Justice

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, that's a sentiment I've always felt underlay a lot of Trump support. It's almost refreshing to see it openly expressed.

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.

ancapailldorcha

Posts deleted. Raise the standard of posting please.

...And Justice

Really Interested wrote: »

Funny how you don't link to these videos. Funny thing is there is some shadow state that is so secret and it controls everything but they are so stupid they can stop presidents being recorded taking orders.

The rest of your stuff is just wa wa wa liberals terror trump going to stop me having to **** in the same room as a female give me some pease god the snowflakes really have taken over, just not the ones everyone talks about.

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

ECO_Mental

Just listening to Comrad Trumpski and his BS about the press and they have been very unfair on him. On the back of this I have subscribed to the Washington Post. He cannot get away this **** and the lies. In the age of free media etc he is trying to discredit real reporting, my $20 hopefully will investigate this fraud.....

PopePalpatine

...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.

And the "Make America Great Again" mask slips once more.

Chester Copperpot

...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.

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

BabyCheeses

Chester Copperpot wrote: »

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

Now now, women also got paid less then men, assuming the place would even hire women. Between that and the whole segregation thing, it tells you a lot about a person when they yearn for such a time when things were great for them.

Itssoeasy

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

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

...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

...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

...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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is why.

How much of that has he actually achieved?

Water John

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

BabyCheeses

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

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

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

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

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

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.