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

InTheTrees

Itssoeasy wrote: »

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

That's being run on TV all over the country.

Mr.Micro

InTheTrees wrote: »

That's being run on TV all over the country.

Is it a first, a President having to advertise his worth? The whole Whitehouse has become so cheap and tawdry. The very guy who bemoans fake news, is possibly the biggest fake ever.

BlinkingLights

There's something very "Dear Leader" about this - a sort of comically crude propaganda that is more full of holes than Swiss cheese.

Surely the American public are waking up? Even on the GOP side!

Really Interested

BlinkingLights wrote: »

There's something very "Dear Leader" about this - a sort of comically crude propaganda that is more full of holes than Swiss cheese.

Surely the American public are waking up? Even on the GOP side!

The add is not aimed at the general public but at the backsliders. A few months ago CNN did a show with trump voters all said he was great doing a great job.

Now some of the voters are turning http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/04/25/trump-voter-panel-100-days-full-intv-camerota-newday.cnn

I would bet if that panel back in another 100 days it would be 3 v 3 in a year it would be 4 flipped.

Valord

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

Is this a joke or did he actually send taxpayer dollars to "fake news" media networks to congratulate himself? Because this looks like something a liberal comedian might make in order to comically cast him as being similar to a totalitarian despot.

PopePalpatine

He had to convert them into rubles.

Billy86

Valord wrote: »

Is this a joke or did he actually send taxpayer dollars to "fake news" media networks to congratulate himself? Because this looks like something a liberal comedian might make in order to comically cast him as being similar to a totalitarian despot.

No it's real. Had it been on SNL or The Daily Show his supporters would write it off as another example of some grand media conspiracy against him and as "garbage" but since Trump brought it out they'll love it like a member of the family. This pretty much sums up the Trump presidency to date perfectly.

Valord

Billy86 wrote: »

No it's real. Had it been on SNL or The Daily Show his supporters would write it off as another example of some grand media conspiracy against him and as "garbage" but since Trump brought it out they'll love it like a member of the family. This pretty much sums up the Trump presidency to date perfectly.

There's just something quite Orwellian about it too. It's very on the nose to put out loud advertising touting vague successes with stock footage of happy people and decrying the Lugenpresse fake news as telling you the exact opposite of the truth.

Wanderer78

The sad truth is, many people will actually believe this nonsense, are we watching the American political system in its death throws? It's very disturbing to watch

Billy86

Valord wrote: »

There's just something quite Orwellian about it too. It's very on the nose to put out loud advertising touting vague successes with stock footage of happy people and decrying the Lugenpresse fake news as telling you the exact opposite of the truth.

And to the surprise of nobody, the ad has now been pulled not due to humility or taste, but sheer incompetence.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-first-100-days-ad-mcmaster-federal-law-violation-2017-5?r=US&IR=T

The ad featured a series of images and text that flashed on-screen while a narrator noted what Trump has said are his biggest achievements so far — propping up military spending, nominating Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, introducing a plan to overhaul the tax code, and getting rid of what he's called "job-crushing" regulations.

But the ad may have violated federal law by including an image of the president shaking hands with national security adviser H.R. McMaster after McMaster accepted his new role.

The Defense Department's rules state that active-duty military members are prohibited from taking part in political advertising or campaigning while in uniform. The Pentagon also said in 2005 that military personnel were barred from wearing their uniforms "during or in connection with furthering political activities ... when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity ... may be drawn."

Wanderer78

Billy86 wrote:

And to the surprise of nobody, the ad has now been pulled not due to humility or taste, but sheer incompetence.

Incredibly shambolic administration, does anybody know what they're doing in the white house?

Billy86

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Incredibly shambolic administration, does anybody know what they're doing in the white house?

Says a lot when even the ad trying to pretend it's been a success is a complete failure! :pac:

The parodies of it should be gold though, and completely indistinguishable from the original most likely.

demfad

Wanderer78 wrote: »

The sad truth is, many people will actually believe this nonsense, are we watching the American political system in its death throws? It's very disturbing to watch

The longer it goes on (his presidency) the more damage Trump will do certainly. With authoritarians like Trump regime change can take between 1-3 years. People have the power to stop him up to a point. A lot of legislation failed because of people picking up their phone and calling their reps.
After a certain time even via coup/false flag attack teh authoritarian gets enough power so that what people do doesnt matter anymore. That's when things get really bad, and the darkness falls over US democracy.

http://www.salon.com/2017/05/01/historian-timothy-snyder-its-pretty-much-inevitable-that-trump-will-try-to-stage-a-coup-and-overthrow-democracy/#.WQhnE8idzW4.twitter

You have to accept there is a time frame. Nobody can be sure how long this particular regime change with Trump will take, but there is a clock, and the clock really is ticking. It’s three years on the outside, but in more likelihood something like a year. In January 2018 we will probably have a pretty good idea which way this thing is going. It’s going to depend more on us than on them in the meantime. Once you get past a certain threshold, it starts to depend more on them than on us, and then things are much, much worse. It makes me sad to think how Americans would behave at that point.

Edit:

When you are watching the lies etc. You arew atching Trump communicate with the half of the electorate under his spell. You are observing this from outside this bubble, inside it all makes sense (in a sense).

US is half authoritarian in this respect. Half the media, electorate accept his authority without question. He will use other methods to eventually gain power over the other half.

InTheTrees

Valord wrote: »

Is this a joke or did he actually send taxpayer dollars to "fake news" media networks to congratulate himself?

I think legally it falls under campaign finance laws. So technically its a 2020 Presidential campaign ad.

Creepy really.

InTheTrees

Billy86 wrote: »

And to the surprise of nobody, the ad has now been pulled not due to humility or taste, but sheer incompetence.

Its back. I just...experienced the new version a few minutes ago on tv.

Billy86

InTheTrees wrote: »

Its back. I just...experienced the new version a few minutes ago on tv.

Then in the ads defense, it's perfectly representative of the Trump regime - when something fails, double down on it!

Sand

Christy42 wrote: »

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.

Well, that has been the height of the Democratic analysis so far. They are perceived by voters as being the party of the rich and the wealthy, so the voters are idiots. They have nowhere else to go. They should vote Democrat by default. End of analysis.

So the 'fightback' has started in the wealthy suburbs and urban areas that already form the Democrats heartland these days. Not amongst the poor and disadvantaged blue collar states who voted for Trump and remain resolutely for him. Not because he is a great candidate - but because he at least claims to represent them. He doesn't shrug his shoulders when people lose their jobs and say "Tough. That's the way of the world", he claims he can do something about it. He will *certainly* fail, but its completely logical to vote for the candidate who claims to help you, over the candidate who doesn't and wont.

This discussion was filmed 5 years ago, at the midpoint of the Obama years. It could have been filmed yesterday. Someone like Trump has been coming for 20-25 years. Trump=Rep=Bad, Obama=Dem=Good is far too simplistic a narrative.

BabyCheeses

Sand wrote: »

Well, that has been the height of the Democratic analysis so far. They are perceived by voters as being the party of the rich and the wealthy, so the voters are idiots. They have nowhere else to go. They should vote Democrat by default. End of analysis.

So the 'fightback' has started in the wealthy suburbs and urban areas that already form the Democrats heartland these days. Not amongst the poor and disadvantaged blue collar states who voted for Trump and remain resolutely for him. Not because he is a great candidate - but because he at least claims to represent them. He doesn't shrug his shoulders when people lose their jobs and say "Tough. That's the way of the world", he claims he can do something about it. He will *certainly* fail, but its completely logical to vote for the candidate who claims to help you, over the candidate who doesn't and wont.

This discussion was filmed 5 years ago, at the midpoint of the Obama years. It could have been filmed yesterday. Someone like Trump has been coming for 20-25 years. Trump=Rep=Bad, Obama=Dem=Good is far too simplistic a narrative.

And what happens when they figure out the republicans are the party of the rich and wealthy?

Surely the voters would be able to figure that one out?

Water John

Well the Dems had a couple of million more votes. A small swing in a few states takes it back.
It's not all doom and gloom for them. A good review and honest refocus will sway it there way.

Sand

BabyCheeses wrote: »

And what happens when they figure out the republicans are the party of the rich and wealthy?

Surely the voters would be able to figure that one out?

They'll probably do what they did when they figured out the Obama Democrats were (and are) the part of the rich and wealthy. Vote for the other guy. Rinse and repeat in the desperate hope of breaking out of a political system so deeply captured by money. And they didn't vote for the Republicans - they voted for Trump whose unique selling point was he was not a politician, not a Republican, not a Democrat. Even Obama in 2008 ran against the establishment Clinton, with little or no track record. His numbers fell in 2012 but he still won against Romney who was the clear plutocrat candidate because he tacked ever so slightly left and populist as a tactical move.

The point is the blue collar votes are not copper fastened to the Democrats anymore, or to any party. They will vote for whichever candidate addresses their concerns, be that Republican or Democrat. The Democrat calculation that blue collar workers have nowhere else to go is incorrect.

Why wouldn't they? Clinton became President in 1993. In the 24 years since, Democrats have held the Presidency for 16 years. People talk as if the decimation of US blue collar workers happened under Republican rule. It didn't. Bill Clinton led the attacks. There is a reason Hilary Clinton aroused such fanatical hostility this time around.

As for Obama, when the panel in that video were asked why in this age of inequality (2012) Obama wasn't leading the Democratic fightback against the plutocrats the answer was simple. Because he is one of them. His staff were plutocrats. His advisor's were plutocrats. His friends are plutocrats.

No one should be shocked Obama is making money giving speaking tours to his friends.

Christy42

Sand wrote: »

Well, that has been the height of the Democratic analysis so far. They are perceived by voters as being the party of the rich and the wealthy, so the voters are idiots. They have nowhere else to go. They should vote Democrat by default. End of analysis.

So the 'fightback' has started in the wealthy suburbs and urban areas that already form the Democrats heartland these days. Not amongst the poor and disadvantaged blue collar states who voted for Trump and remain resolutely for him. Not because he is a great candidate - but because he at least claims to represent them. He doesn't shrug his shoulders when people lose their jobs and say "Tough. That's the way of the world", he claims he can do something about it. He will *certainly* fail, but its completely logical to vote for the candidate who claims to help you, over the candidate who doesn't and wont.

This discussion was filmed 5 years ago, at the midpoint of the Obama years. It could have been filmed yesterday. Someone like Trump has been coming for 20-25 years. Trump=Rep=Bad, Obama=Dem=Good is far too simplistic a narrative.

Great so they will, follow any piper who tells them they are the way even while simultaneously announcing policies that will hurt them. Now who is calling them idiots.

What they need to do is focus on the left leaning dems and reward them. Those like Warren and Sanders. More will follow if they start getting votes. Drag the Democrats back to being a properly left leaning party. It isn't just about voting Democrat. Heck vote green if you like but you can help drag a party a certain direction by voting for certain elements within it. Sure Dens =good is too simplistic a narrative but the basic ideology of the Republicans is incompatible with helping the poor.

I say it again, what message does voting for Trump and Republican houses send to the Democrats. It could easily be read as saying the Democrats should go closer to the Republicans and further from helping the poor.

Also I never said Dens =good. I repeatedly said they are far too to the right to help people. Please don't imply I said anything else.

FatherTed

Christy42 wrote: »

Great so they will, follow any piper who tells them they are the way even while simultaneously announcing policies that will hurt them. Now who is calling them idiots.

What they need to do is focus on the left leaning dems and reward them. Those like Warren and Sanders. More will follow if they start getting votes. Drag the Democrats back to being a properly left leaning party. It isn't just about voting Democrat. Heck vote green if you like but you can help drag a party a certain direction by voting for certain elements within it. Sure Dens =good is too simplistic a narrative but the basic ideology of the Republicans is incompatible with helping the poor.

I say it again, what message does voting for Trump and Republican houses send to the Democrats. It could easily be read as saying the Democrats should go closer to the Republicans and further from helping the poor.

Also I never said Dens =good. I repeatedly said they are far too to the right to help people. Please don't imply I said anything else.

If the Dems hierarchy had done the right thing and backed Sanders who is more in line with the original Dems ideals over Clinton, it would have made for a very interesting election with Trump. Who would have won? Because Sanders also spoke about the disenfranchised so called working class and had more of a plan than Trump's MAGA.

Peregrinus

Valord wrote: »

Is this a joke or did he actually send taxpayer dollars to "fake news" media networks to congratulate himself? Because this looks like something a liberal comedian might make in order to comically cast him as being similar to a totalitarian despot.

I don't think any taxpayer dollars are involved. The ad was "paid for by Donald J. Trump for President Inc.", which is the fundraising arm of Trump's campaign. It is entitled to apply for taxpayer dollars, but only for very narrowly-specified items of expenditure, of which this ad would not, I think, be one. So this is funded by private donations.

InTheTrees

Its going to be an interesting couple of days coming up. Comey, the fbi director, is due to testify tomorrow in public followed by secret testimony the next day. Also the former attorney general Yates is due to testify tomorrow.

Today the house intelligence committee was bussed over to the CIA for a briefing. They didn't say what it was about but the chairman of the committee has recused himself in matters regarding the Russia investigation and he did not go to the CIA with the rest of the committee.

Christy42

FatherTed wrote: »

If the Dems hierarchy had done the right thing and backed Sanders who is more in line with the original Dems ideals over Clinton, it would have made for a very interesting election with Trump. Who would have won? Because Sanders also spoke about the disenfranchised so called working class and had more of a plan than Trump's MAGA.

I am unsure. Everyone had more of a plan than Trump and Sanders would have been hit with quite a lot of dirt that he was shielded from. Most specifically the claims of being a communist (in spite of his ideals being fairly in line with where Europe is in terms of free health and education) could have killed him but all what ifs and I hope that side of the party grows.

However realistically the Dems would have had to back him when he was an unknown. I am not sure why they bothered to collude against him. He had already lost as the order of states happened to be unfavourable to him. He was a relative unknown for a lot of it and was too far behind.

However the spirit of this conversation has moved to blaming the Dems for Trump. I feel like that is the Republicans best way out of this mess they are in. Blame Dems for disenfranchised voters for losing to such a terrible candidate.

Leroy42

But I think the Dems have to take some of the blame. Sure there is a cohort of Trump voters who are racist, misogynists etc etc, but there is also, IMO, a majority that are simply fed up with the ways things are, and have been.

Of course Trump is the outcome, but if it wasn't him it would have been someone else. Trump is just the perfection of the Tea party and the likes of Sarah Palin.

If all the Dems are going to do is base everything on being anti-Trump, although that of course is worthwhile, but they need to offer an alternative. It is clear that many people want change, but the US system doesn't really offer much hope of that. So they go with the most extreme of the choices they are given.

It's not the Dems fault that Trump won, but they did play a part both in the candidate they chose and how they have acted the last 20 years or so. If they are honest and actually attempt to properly tap into that feeling then they are in a clear position of advantage of the GOP whose DNA is based on looking after the wealthy, corporate america, conservative views etc. There base, much like FF & FG, is literally dying out and at the moment, unsurprisingly since they won everything, they are showing little inclination to change.

I don't think Sanders would have won, you mentioned some of the reasons. But also, it was such a change from the Dems. Suddenly they were all about the little guy? Now, with nearly 4 years to go, now is the time to start pushing this agenda so that when the next election comes around the candidate can be one of many as that is what the party, not just the candidate stands for.

Peregrinus

Christy42 wrote: »

However the spirit of this conversation has moved to blaming the Dems for Trump. I feel like that is the Republicans best way out of this mess they are in. Blame Dems for disenfranchised voters for losing to such a terrible candidate.

Yup. For a while the Trumpistas would try to deflect any attack on Trump by pointing out how terrible a candidate Hillary was. Whether or not you agree with that assessment, as a tactic is loses force quite rapidly simply because, good or bad, Hillary is irrelevant. Nothing fades faster than an unsuccessful presidential nominee.

So now the tactic is "blame the Dems for nominating a poor candidate". Again, there may be merit in this view, but it's not really going to have much traction for very long. In the midterm elections next year, and in the presidential election in 2020, nobody is going to be making their decision on the basis of who the Democrats nominated in 2016.

Christy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yup. For a while the Trumpistas would try to deflect any attack on Trump by pointing out how terrible a candidate Hillary was. Whether or not you agree with that assessment, as a tactic is loses force quite rapidly simply because, good or bad, Hillary is irrelevant. Nothing fades faster than an unsuccessful presidential nominee.

So now the tactic is "blame the Dems for nominating a poor candidate". Again, there may be merit in this view, but it's not really going to have much traction for very long. In the midterm elections next year, and in the presidential election in 2020, nobody is going to be making their decision on the basis of who the Democrats nominated in 2016.

While there is a worthwhile discussion there in terms of Democrat strategy but I don't think the Republicans are massively interested in it and this is not the thread.

It at least forces them to admit that if you have to blame the opposition for the president who was your party's nominee then you must have a pretty terrible president in the white house at the moment.

Chips Lovell

Sand wrote: »

So the 'fightback' has started in the wealthy suburbs and urban areas that already form the Democrats heartland these days. Not amongst the poor and disadvantaged blue collar states who voted for Trump and remain resolutely for him. Not because he is a great candidate - but because he at least claims to represent them.

The problem is that analysis doesn't tally with voting patterns:

Of the one in three Americans who earn less than $50,000 a year, a majority voted for Clinton. A majority of those who earn more backed Trump.

demfad

Sand wrote: »

They'll probably do what they did when they figured out the Obama Democrats were (and are) the part of the rich and wealthy. Vote for the other guy. Rinse and repeat in the desperate hope of breaking out of a political system so deeply captured by money. And they didn't vote for the Republicans - they voted for Trump whose unique selling point was he was not a politician, not a Republican, not a Democrat. Even Obama in 2008 ran against the establishment Clinton, with little or no track record. His numbers fell in 2012 but he still won against Romney who was the clear plutocrat candidate because he tacked ever so slightly left and populist as a tactical move.

The point is the blue collar votes are not copper fastened to the Democrats anymore, or to any party. They will vote for whichever candidate addresses their concerns, be that Republican or Democrat. The Democrat calculation that blue collar workers have nowhere else to go is incorrect.

Why wouldn't they? Clinton became President in 1993. In the 24 years since, Democrats have held the Presidency for 16 years. People talk as if the decimation of US blue collar workers happened under Republican rule. It didn't. Bill Clinton led the attacks. There is a reason Hilary Clinton aroused such fanatical hostility this time around.

As for Obama, when the panel in that video were asked why in this age of inequality (2012) Obama wasn't leading the Democratic fightback against the plutocrats the answer was simple. Because he is one of them. His staff were plutocrats. His advisor's were plutocrats. His friends are plutocrats.

No one should be shocked Obama is making money giving speaking tours to his friends.

Just to point out the poorest demographic did NOT vote for Trump. 94% of black females voted for Clinton. Therefore when you say Blue collar workers what you really mean is blue collar white males outside the big cities.

If you want to accurately analyse Trump's appeal you need to look at his racist authoritarian message. I agree that an outsider, any outsider, had a great chance to win the Republican nomination. But you also need to look at his message to evangelicals (25% of US population): he promised teh Council for National Policy everything including Gorsuch for SCOTUS.

Obama created 16 million jobs, helped workers rights, started to move to renewable energy (huge anti-establishment move). Hold fire on his speeches till you see where the money goes.

You are judging him on tea-party propaganda.