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

gormdubhgorm

Billy86 wrote: »

You might have taken away more had you followed the election, in that case. He was attacked for a hell of a lot of things, but I don't recall him being attacked for being white when running against a white opponent and almost exclusively white opponents in the primaries too. He was also not a politician, which is something else he was attacked on and the last 24 hours are just a brief introduction as to why. Then there are all the things he was claiming, lying about, and proposing... and that's what he was by far attacked about most of all.

First off I love the condescending assumption that I did not follow the election.

Yes, I am am well aware what happened in the election.

Perhaps I did not make the point clear enough.

If you type in Donald Trump into the mainstream media the whole tenet of it is that it will be a disaster, and mass hysteria.
The world will end etc.
If that was done with Obama the race card would be used.

It was in contrast to Obama for whom the words "breaking down racial stereotypes" "society in America has changed for the better" "the first black President" were all used to show how positive a change it was.

At best the mainstream media seem to treat Trump as a joke.

But this ignores the fact that Trump gave Hillary a hammering in America's convoluted electoral system.

I get the impression that American democracy is only valid if the winner is the one that the mainstream worldwide media want. Resulting in outrage/condescension/disbelief from the mainstream media.

America has gone from a populist media President who said all the right things, was a fantastic orator but said little of substance.


Obama:

Change: "Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek."


Path: "If you're walking down the right path and you're willing to keep walking, eventually you'll make progress."


Discrimination: "In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed."


Military action ISIS/ISIL: "Our priority is to go after ISIL. And so what we have said is that we are not engaging in a military action against the Syrian regime. We are going after ISIL facilities and personnel who are using Syria as a safe haven, in service of our strategy in Iraq."





This contrasts to a President who speaks poorly, using simple words, but communicates a simple message over and over again. "Great" will make "great", "will do great/good things" etc.

Also he spoke crudely at times and off the cuff. But again to the point.


Trump:

ISIS: "I would bomb the sh*t out of 'em!"

Women: "grab them by the p*ssy" (pre-election admittedly)

Mexicans immigrants: "We're going to do a wall; we're going to have a big, fat beautiful door on the wall; we're going to have people come in, but they're going to come in legally"


Hillary Clinton: "Crooked Hillary" (simple message that stuck with the voters)



I think this grates on the mainstream media and intellectuals even more.

Billy86

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

First off I love the condescending assumption that I did not follow the election.

And yet none of that post does a single thing to back up your entirely incorrect statement that the media simply chose to "keep attacking Trump because he is white". If anything, your last sentence ("I think [Trump crudely going off the cuff] grates on the mainstream media and intellectuals even more") actually argues against the point of yours I initially challenged...

gormdubhgorm

Billy86 wrote: »

And yet none of that post does a single thing to back up your entirely incorrect statement that the media simply chose to "keep attacking Trump because he is white". If anything, your last sentence ("I think [Trump crudely going off the cuff] grates on the mainstream media and intellectuals even more") actually argues against the point of yours I initially challenged...

The point I am making is that if Trump was not white I think the "outrage" would be much more muted.

It is a personal opinion of course, but that is what I believe particularly after the first black President etc.

slovakchick

as a female, trump sickens me, as a male he would make me wonder where his shame is

Inquitus

Trump clearly forced Spicer to do the conference against Spicer's wishes, no one wants to spend their first presser as press secretary peddling outright lies that are easily disproved, and it was obvious by the fact it was delayed again and again that he tried to talk Trump out of it. When he did take the stage he was clearly flustered and he bumbled his way through the conference with multiple stutters and missteps.

gormdubhgorm

slovakchick wrote: »

as a female, trump sickens me, as a male he would make me wonder where his shame is

BOTH males and females voted for Trump, otherwise he would not have won!

Which amused me no end considering the "I'm with her" Clinton soundbite

El_Duderino 09

Billy86 wrote:

It is starting to really look like the cowardly 'see what he does, and THEN say that's what you always wanted him to do' approach is beginning to really wear thin and be seen straight through, mind you. As his think skinned and volatile nature causes him to lash out increasingly at elements of his own fan base that do actually disagree with him on anything they can't ignore (like when they see their take home pay get slashed in order to make the rich richer), this is only going to get worse and worse.

I wonder if that will happen. I'd say it's much likely that Trump's supporters will say those things aren't important, or simply say it never happened. Option a fox news viewer, the truth is that ore people turned up to Trump's inauguration than any president ever 'period'

Although the numbers could well shift before the next election. He won by targeting the narrowest of paths and aiming perfectly. Maybe there will be enough floating voters who are turned off by his approach.

I can't see how the man will make more money from Trump. His labour secretary hates the labour unions. He wanted to remove the minimum wage and an entitlement to toilet breaks for fast food staff. I can't see anyone being paid more to He can cut tax but he will also cut programmes that help the common man. He will need to give them something else in return.

I expect to see military parades with tanks and missiles etc. I can't see what else he will actually give the working man except 2 poorly paid jobs and nationalism.

Billy86 wrote:

To be "fair and balanced" that's always been Fox's approach, they even do the lying about the attendance numbers themselves if nobody else will. Can't remember exactly which, but during a protest in Obama's earlier years, where Fox were claiming 1mn+ in attendance and using footage from completely different events to back this up.

It was a tea party rally I think. I'd say it was an accident alright. There would never be an accident that shows conservatives in a bad light though. Those kinds of accidents don't happen on fox news

slovakchick

BOTH males and 'republican' females voted for Trump

gormdubhgorm

slovakchick wrote: »

BOTH males and 'republican' females voted for Trump

They are not real women or the"right" type of woman I suppose?

Inquitus

Anyways if we had any doubt as to whether he has Narcissitic Personality Disorder, that debate has been firmly put to bed today, as I said earlier in the thread before the CIA and subsequent White House press conferences, if hes a narcissist he will not be able to cope with the facts that his inauguration attendance was not as big as he wished, and would start another meltdown into bare faced lies about the numbers, which he did in the end.

Also deciding not to address the huge Women's Marches which outnumbered his inauguration crowds is just fairly pathetic. Any president should have the good grace to address the folks who marched today especially given its one of the biggest protest marches in US history. Again, his Narcissism does not allow him to do so, anything that lessens his self perceived glow is to be downplayed and ignored. So dangerous to have a man like Trump as president of the USA, and so called "leader of the free world!".

Itssoeasy

I mean a photo showing the same view eight years apart has rattled trump and his press secretary ? Good god help us. In the grand scheme of things this picture row is nothing to the things he may face as president yet we saw a look at his reaction which was horrific.

That speech at the CIA turned into a speech about great he was. It was bizarre.

Itssoeasy

Also kelly Anne Conway said this morning that the new press secretary didn't tell lies he just gave an "alternative facts" that's a new on me I have to say.

Hande hoche!

Hope it doesn't become the new "post truth".

PopePalpatine

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Hope it doesn't become the new "post truth".

It will, after all, "alternative facts" has a more palatable ring to it than "post-truth".

Hande hoche!

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It will, after all, "alternative facts" has a more palatable ring to it than "post-truth".

Now that's an uncomfortable truth.

Water John

If i want fiction, I can read a novel. Not listen to Spicer.

Inquitus

Kellyanne Conway really takes the biscuit in her interview today, won't answer the simple question, constantly deflects to other irrelevant topics and decides he new word for lies is "Alternative Facts", this is a train wreck already, she's a sensible lady, I presume she tried to prevent Trump from sending out Spicer to lie to the nation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcBblq-QOo4

mattser

Inquitus wrote: »

Kellyanne Conway really takes the biscuit in her interview today, won't answer the simple question, constantly deflects to other irrelevant topics and decides he new word for lies is "Alternative Facts", this is a train wreck already, she's a sensible lady, I presume she tried to prevent Trump from sending out Spicer to lie to the nation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcBblq-QOo4

The President could hone up his alleged bullying skills by watching good old Chuck. She wasn't going to be lectured, fair play to her.

dudara

Inquitus wrote: »

Kellyanne Conway really takes the biscuit in her interview today, won't answer the simple question, constantly deflects to other irrelevant topics and decides he new word for lies is "Alternative Facts", this is a train wreck already, she's a sensible lady, I presume she tried to prevent Trump from sending out Spicer to lie to the nation.

While I'm not impressed at all by her choice of boss & career, I am pretty impressed by her ability to think on her feet. She's far from stupid.

Frank Bullitt

"Alternative facts", there is the theme for the next 4 years so.

PopePalpatine

mattser wrote: »

The President could hone up his alleged bullying skills by watching good old Chuck. She wasn't going to be lectured, fair play to her.

Trump's fanboys are so predictable.

Inquitus

mattser wrote: »

The President could hone up his alleged bullying skills by watching good old Chuck. She wasn't going to be lectured, fair play to her.

Bullied, ye right, he gave her a fair shake and all he wanted was an answer to his question, a very valid question, as to why Trump forced his press secretary's first act in the White House Press Room to be lying to the nation over the size of the crowd at his Inauguration.

Frank Bullitt

mattser wrote: »

The President could hone up his alleged bullying skills by watching good old Chuck. She wasn't going to be lectured, fair play to her.

Getting called out on your continuous falsehoods really is a terrible form of bullying. Tragic to see.

The woman is a donkey with no moral compass to work from. I for one am enjoying this run of from from the administration. The more they do it, the more it hurts them.

I just hope the people of America see it and get active about it.

El_Duderino 09

mattser wrote:

The President could hone up his alleged bullying skills by watching good old Chuck. She wasn't going to be lectured, fair play to her.

He's a journalist. He asked a question which she didn't answer. He would have been poor at HS job if he didn't pursue it to get her to answer. He gave her plenty of time at the start to deliver her prepared lines the he asked her again. That's the contract between journalist and interviewee

Gintonious wrote:

The woman is a donkey with no moral compass to work from. I for one am enjoying this run of from from the administration. The more they do it, the more it hurts them.

Do you think they'll see it like that? There haven't been as many trump supporters on this thread today so it's hard to tell how they viewed all this stuff.

Cartouche

Trump is preparing to unload a volley of many more executive orders. Courtesy of Axios, which quotes "one of the best-wired Republican lobbyists in town", here is a preview of the initial round of Trump executive actions, some of which may hit as soon as Sunday afternoon:

Look for a possible hiring freeze at executive branch
5-year lobbying ban on transition and administration officials
Mexico City policy, which prevents foreign NGOs from getting U.S. family planning money if they provide abortions with non-U.S. funds. (It's already illegal to use U.S dollars on abortions.)
Task the Defense Secretary and joint chiefs to come up with plan to eviscerate ISIS
Report on readiness, and something cyber security related
Border/immigration: Something on sanctuary cities, expand E-Verify, an extreme vetting proposal
Trade: Withdraw from TPP and a thorough review of NAFTA
Axios also notes that "the Mexico City executive order could come as soon as today."

Furthermore, watch for dozens of EPA executive orders coming down the pike. "Says a Trump source: "EPA has clean water-related and some 30,000 foot regulatory ones lined up [immediately]...We have dozens for the EPA...Starting Monday through the month of February. We have to roll them out gradually."

El_Duderino 09

I suppose the point of fighting about inauguration numbers us twofold. One side is he laid down a marker for the media -only cover us in a favourable light. The other is to drop a dead cat on the table to completely remove the protest marches and Russian connection investigations.

Jan_de_Bakker

Are these protesters for real ? - the womens rights protesters - are they thinking of the right country here ?
Do they really believe women will be repressed now that DT is the president ?

They should be protesting the Saudi or Iranian embassy...

And chanting Trump is anti Gay ??? really ?? since when ?

again, I think these people are protesting the wrong country ..

Inquitus

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

And chanting Trump is anti Gay ??? really ?? since when ? .

Trumps VP, Pence, was the most anti-gay Governor in the US, constantly eroding their rights at every opportunity. I don't think it's unreasonable for people to infer Trump's presidency, given his VP and his cabinet picks, is likely to be anti-gay.

KingBrian2

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

Are these protesters for real ? - the womens rights protesters - are they thinking of the right country here ?
Do they really believe women will be repressed now that DT is the president ?

They should be protesting the Saudi or Iranian embassy...

And chanting Trump is anti Gay ??? really ?? since when ?

again, I think these people are protesting the wrong country ..

What can you say Americans are screwed up people.:(

oscarBravo

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

Are these protesters for real ? - the womens rights protesters - are they thinking of the right country here ?
Do they really believe women will be repressed now that DT is the president ?

Cartouche wrote: »

Mexico City policy, which prevents foreign NGOs from getting U.S. family planning money if they provide abortions with non-U.S. funds. (It's already illegal to use U.S dollars on abortions.)

Yeah, women have nothing to fear from a Trump/Pence presidency.