Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

mrcheez

Woah Trump is having a bit of a meltdown on Twitter at the moment over Puerto Rico.

8 tweets in past hour on that subject alone.

Itssoeasy

PopePalpatine wrote: »

On top of that, it's the NY Post, owned by the GOP's favourite Australian. If the Dems were to nominate a black woman to take on Trump, Kamala Harris would be a better bet. Given that she co-sponsored Bernie's "Medicare For All" bill in the Senate and previously prosecuted white collar criminals, I think she could appeal to voters who were put off by Clinton. Sure, she might be her state's junior Senator (and OK, the fact she represents California probably opens up another angle for the GOP's attack ads), but Obama was in the same position.

Yes. Ive been very impressed with Kamala Harris. She's very well spoken and able to articulate her points of view and she has had legislative experience.

Itssoeasy

mrcheez wrote: »

Woah Trump is having a bit of a meltdown on Twitter at the moment over Puerto Rico.

8 tweets in past hour on that subject alone.

Praising everyone. Maybe it was pointed out that having a go off the mayor of a city on an Island that's been devastated by a Hurricane isn't a good PR move. Now it shouldn't have to be pointed out to him, as any human being with any bit of compassion and empathy would try to help in some way. Donald trump has none of that.

StringerBell

Water John wrote: »

I will be fine with that, though I'd suspect the 3 of being bought.

If the sample size was 100, 3 non believers would not be an accurate reflection of the scientific community. It would be too many.

JRant

Found this fascinating read, it's on the long side but well worth it.

http://quillette.com/2017/09/28/trump-voters-irrational/

It highlights voter behaviour and dives into the reasoning behind it.

Nody

Nody wrote: »

Now here's an interesting twist for 2020 election; how about Trump vs. Oprah? Now it sounds outlandish as a starting point but thinking about it from a Democrat point of view it would make sense; you have a woman of color who's got a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge network already who's very popular. Will help engage the base and non whites alike and someone who can easily handle Trump in a debate or showdown.

We come back to the claim after the last election that Hillary lost because of sexism. If people really believe that then is it self-sabotage?

Nody

Deleted User wrote: »

We come back to the claim after the last election that Hillary lost because of sexism. If people really believe that then is it self-sabotage?

Democrats lost because they did not get their base out and did not offer hope; she'd tick both of those boxes and would have Obama, Michelle etc. out stoking her fires as well.

pitifulgod

Nody wrote: »

Democrats lost because they did not get their base out and did not offer hope; she'd tick both of those boxes and would have Obama, Michelle etc. out stoking her fires as well.

I really really don't want any candidate going out there who hasn't some experience as a Governor, Senator or Congressperson. I really think a person should have prior experience before becoming President. I really dislike the idea of starting at the very top.

Nody

pitifulgod wrote: »

I really really don't want any candidate going out there who hasn't some experience as a Governor, Senator or Congressperson. I really think a person should have prior experience before becoming President. I really dislike the idea of starting at the very top.

In a perfect world that would be true but then there is Trump; your option is to go all out to get Trump out and reverse his damage after 4 or 8 years and plug the cabinet with competent knowledgeable people (unlike Trump) or go for a more technical candidate that is less likely to win and suffer Trump for another 4 years.

pitifulgod

Nody wrote: »

In a perfect world that would be true but then there is Trump; your option is to go all out to get Trump out and reverse his damage after 4 or 8 years and plug the cabinet with competent knowledgeable people (unlike Trump) or go for a more technical candidate that is less likely to win and suffer Trump for another 4 years.

Why is it necessary to use a celebrity candidate to go all out? The Democrats can literally search their own ranks, I have no doubt that there are people in the party who can match Obama in terms of inspirational speaking power. Going the route of another celebrity candidate is diminishing the role of the Presidency even more in my opinion.

I don't think Trump will even be there to run in 2020.

recedite

JRant wrote: »

Found this fascinating read, it's on the long side but well worth it.

http://quillette.com/2017/09/28/trump-voters-irrational/

It highlights voter behaviour and dives into the reasoning behind it.

Good article, thanks for that. The recognition of CC V GG mentality is spot on. As is the whole rationality/irrationality of "voting for a clown" ...

But what about temperament, character, and fitness for office? Surely it was irrational to vote for Trump if temperament is relevant, Democrats might say. But this argument is not a slam-dunk from the standpoint of rationality. It is simply not self-evident how people should trade off temperament versus worldview in their voting choices....

Clinton represented what I will term the Global and Groups perspective (GG) and Trump represented the Country and Citizen perspective (CC). Clinton signalled to the electorate that she represented the GG perspective by emphasizing global concerns (climate change and global climate agreements; increasing US refugee intake; rights and protections for noncitizens) and continually addressing groups in her speeches (the groups of Democratic identity politics: LGBT, African-Americans, Hispanics, etc.). Trump signalled to the electorate that he represented the CC perspective by continually emphasizing country in his speeches (“make America great again”) and addressing his audiences as citizens with nation-level interests rather than group interests (trade deals that disadvantaged American workers; securing the country’s borders; etc.).

These two candidates (Clinton and Trump) more sharply differentiated these worldviews than any other combination of candidates in 2016. Bernie Sanders would have watered down the GG perspective, because his criticism of some trade deals made him less of a globalist than Clinton, and Sanders placed less emphasis on the Democratic identity groups.

You can see the same kind of divison in Ireland whenever somebody brings up the idea of "the gender pay gap" or mandatory minimum quotas for female candidates in an election. The fact is that women as a group get paid less and have less TD's.
The GG mentality will see this as evidence of inequality between the groups that needs some kind of positive discrimination as redress.

On the other hand the CC mentality sees that all citizens have equal rights, and views positive discrimination as discrimination.

Hence the GG's will always view the CC's as being "obviously" misogynists and racists, which accusation the CC's will always shrug off.

pitifulgod

recedite wrote: »

Good article, thanks for that. The recognition of CC V GG mentality is spot on. As is the whole rationality/irrationality of "voting for a clown" ...
You can see the same kind of divison in Ireland whenever somebody brings up the idea of "the gender pay gap" or mandatory minimum quotas for female candidates in an election. The fact is that women as a group get paid less and have less TD's.
The GG mentality will see this as evidence of inequality between the groups that needs some kind of positive discrimination as redress.

On the other hand the CC mentality sees that all citizens have equal rights, and views positive discrimination as discrimination.

Hence the GG's will always view the CC's as being "obviously" misogynists and racists, which accusation the CC's will always shrug off.

The thing is Trump literally engaged in misogyny and racism. He referred to Megyn Kelly's period which is clearly misogynistic for example. He has a long history of misogyny. His entirely campaign had racist catcalls and unfortunately this has continued this has continued into his presidency. The appointment of Miller, Gorka and Bannon to significant roles would also further back up the racism issue. Promising to provides lists of crimes committed by immigrants, it's all very creepy and xenophobic in every way. It's not even an undercurrent, it's at the fore of his presidency.

recedite

pitifulgod wrote: »

He has a long history of misogyny.

Certainly he is no gentleman, but its still that same trade-off between temperament versus worldview. He may be disgusting at times, but he's still better than Clinton.
In the "taking the knee" controversy he is exploiting that same advantage he has with the CC worldview. Black sportsmen find themselves forced to choose between loyalty to their racial group (a GG response) and loyalty to their flag (a CC response). The latter plays better with most Americans, hence it's a win for Trump to focus on those sportsmen who "insult the nation".
Latest strategy for the sportsmen is apparently to "take the knee" before the anthem, and then stand for the actual national anthem. As this seems to keep everybody happy, I suspect we have heard the last of that particular controversy. But of course there will be many more to keep us entertained....

Samaris

No president should be "exploiting" national tension for either fun ("it's really caught on") or for their own gain. That is just irresponsible "leadership".

recedite

Samaris wrote: »

No president should be "exploiting" national tension for either fun ("it's really caught on") or for their own gain. That is just irresponsible "leadership".

Every politician exploits their own comparative advantage. Obama pursued policies such as the the Paris climate agreement even though they were harmful to the USA and not necessarily beneficial to the planet.

Exiting the agreement means the U.S. can lead with strength in promoting energy and environmental policies, protecting U.S. jobs and easing the costly regulatory burden across the country.

Signing that executive order gained credit for Obama with his own GG followers, but alienated those with a CC worldview. He did not dare to present it to Congress as a whole for approval (which is why Trump was able to overturn it).
The notion that a politician will suddenly become a leader for all the people when he/she becomes the Leader is more idealistic than realistic. The best you can hope for is that they will carry on with the same kind of agenda that their campaign pledges focused on.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

[Trump] may be disgusting at times, but he's still better than Clinton.

recedite wrote: »

Obama pursued policies such as the the Paris climate agreement even though they were harmful to the USA and not necessarily beneficial to the planet.

Wow, you're quite the regurgitator of GOP talking points, aren't you?

Samaris

Oh for heaven's sake, the Paris agreement was non-binding and all parties could put forward their own conclusions as to what was acceptable. Which they did. That is not remotely similar to blowing up a racial issue to make it "really catch on".

I am not sure where your second quote came from, since it sure as heck wasn't from my post! It's also incorrect, or at the least highly unlikely to be related to pulling out of the NON-BINDING agreement that the US -stated its own terms for- to start with. Was that Trump's excuse?

Professor Moriarty

recedite wrote: »

Every politician exploits their own comparative advantage. Obama pursued policies such as the the Paris climate agreement even though they were harmful to the USA and not necessarily beneficial to the planet.
Signing that executive order gained credit for Obama with his own GG followers, but alienated those with a CC worldview. He did not dare to present it to Congress as a whole for approval (which is why Trump was able to overturn it).
The notion that a politician will suddenly become a leader for all the people when he/she becomes the Leader is more idealistic than realistic. The best you can hope for is that they will carry on with the same kind of agenda that their campaign pledges focused on.

Do you know who Christine Harbin is? Do you know that she is a mouthpiece for the Tea Party and the Kochs in particular? Do you know that the organisation she represents is an ultra conservative 'Think' tank? Did you know that her organisation doesn't believe in climate change? Doesn't believe in trade unions? Doesn't believe in a minimum wage? Doesn't believe that the internet should be uncensored? Believes that the very rich should pay less tax?

Harbin would like nothing better than to reduce your rights, healthcare and wages. Just like Trump, she and her ilk don't care about you.

recedite

Samaris wrote: »

It's also incorrect, or at the least highly unlikely to be related to pulling out of the NON-BINDING agreement that the US -stated its own terms for- to start with.

It wasn't the USA that agreed to it, it was Obama. That was my point. An executive order is not considered adequate for that kind of decision; it has to be ratified by the parliament of the country.

Whether binding or not is a different question. Trump has threatened to pull out of the Iran agreement which is supposed to be "binding", but at the same time there is no international policeman around who is going to enforce it. But pulling out of a binding agreement results in damage to reputation, so that would be unwise for both his own reputation and that of the USA.

My second quote earlier was from the link.

pitifulgod

recedite wrote: »

It wasn't the USA that agreed to it, it was Obama. That was my point. An executive order is not considered adequate for that kind of decision; it has to be ratified by the parliament of the country.

Whether binding or not is a different question. Trump has threatened to pull out of the Iran agreement which is supposed to be "binding", but at the same time there is no international policeman around who is going to enforce it. But pulling out of a binding agreement results in damage to reputation, so that would be unwise for both his own reputation and that of the USA.

My second quote earlier was from the link.

It does matter whether it was non binding. You're claiming that it would negatively hit the US, there's no reason it should because it's non binding. Now, the only reason Trump seems to do anything these days is because Obama wouldn't or he wants to reneg on something Obama already did. He's petty, that's what he is.

recedite

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Did you know that her organisation doesn't believe in climate change?

Climate change is a complex question. First there is the question of global warming, which almost everyone agrees is happening.

Next is the question of whether this is part of a natural cycle (and the geological and fossil evidence shows that Earth's climate has varied wildly over the aeons)

Next is the question of whether industrialised countries "owe" developing countries for all the carbon they have burned over the last few hundred years, and how much money they have to pay, if any.

Lastly is the question of whether citizens and countries can reduce their CO2 emissions without flying around the world to attend numerous climate conferences, and signing up for various mickey mouse "non binding" agreements and photo-ops.

recedite

pitifulgod wrote: »

It does matter whether it was non binding. You're claiming that it would negatively hit the US, there's no reason it should because it's non binding.

So Trump should have recommended the deal to Congress because its only BS anyway?
Despite the fact that its the kind of BS that plays well to Obama's support base and not to his own?
I think Trump has more than enough of his own BS to be getting on with. He has no need to borrow Obama's.

pitifulgod

recedite wrote: »

So Trump should have recommended the deal to Congress because its only BS anyway?
Despite the fact that its the kind of BS that plays well to Obama's support base and not to his own?
I think Trump has more than enough of his own BS to be getting on with. He has no need to borrow Obama's.

It's not bs, it's a concerted effort by the international community to reduce the effect of climate change. Something that will affect generations to come. If the US do not follow suit, they will fall behind and they will hit their own economy by doing so.

Professor Moriarty

recedite wrote: »

Climate change is a complex question

No it's not.

First there is the question of global warming, which almost everyone agrees is happening.

Everyone except for Trump and a few other selfish and stupid billionaires.

Next is the question of whether this is part of a natural cycle (and the geological and fossil evidence shows that Earth's climate has varied wildly over the aeons)

There is no question to be answered. Recent climate change is a man made phenomenon.

Next is the question of whether industrialised countries "owe" developing countries for all the carbon they have burned over the last few hundred years, and how much money they have to pay, if any.

I'm all for sharing wealth and resources more equitably across the globe. However, it's a moot point. The planet has been damaged beyond repair. The only question is how do we slow the process of inevitable catastrophic decline.

Lastly is the question of whether citizens and countries can reduce their CO2 emissions without flying around the world to attend numerous climate conferences, and signing up for various mickey mouse "non binding" agreements and photo-ops

And your alternative to these "mickey mouse non binding agreements" is?

Awesomeness

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/914497947517227008

Doing his best to keep the north korea issue going

PropJoe10

Awesomeness wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/914497947517227008

Doing his best to keep the north korea issue going

There's no need for toddlers to own mobile phones. Been saying it for years.

MadYaker

Why the **** would he post childish nonsense like that on twitter, undermining his secretary of state, who is clearing working hard to try and diffuse a volatile situation? It must be annoying for Tillerson and all his staff who have probably been working around the clock on this and the Trump goes on twitter and sh!ts all over their efforts. "Don't bother guys, it's fine I'll just bomb them" Does he think this is some kind of game? Someone needs to tell him he isn't running a reality TV show anymore.

ECO_Mental

This kind of stuff you would expect from a young lad at 2am in the morning after being out on the piss all night..... but these texts are from a tea total adult man scary stuff!

Water John

It's the one time you'd hope it was a fake tweet.

BabyCheeses

Remember the days when Trump supporters, sorry, I mean totally not Trump supporters, but he is totally doing a great job, the best job, used how Trump wouldn't go around starting wars as a plus? Where have they gone now?

Inquitus

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Remember the days when Trump supporters, sorry, I mean totally not Trump supporters, but he is totally doing a great job, the best job, used how Trump wouldn't go around starting wars as a plus? Where have they gone now?

Back to Moscow!

PropJoe10

It must be pretty demoralising for Tillerson to read those tweets. At least the guy is trying to act like a statesman and open communications, and then Trump comes out and posts that on social media. Not sure how you could continue in the job when you're constantly being undermined by a dimwit.

JRant

Samaris wrote: »

No president should be "exploiting" national tension for either fun ("it's really caught on") or for their own gain. That is just irresponsible "leadership".

You are quite correct, no president should do. Unfortunately all president's do it to a certain degree.

Celticfire

So it seems that when San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz has been busy spending her time getting t shirts and hats printed up (a remarkable feat considering the lack of power on the island) she hasn't bothered participating in any meeting with FEMA or other federal agencies.

The mayor of Guaynabo, Puerto Rico cast serious doubt Saturday on the claims made by San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz, who has repeatedly attacked President Trump and accused him of abandoning Puerto Rico in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria.

Guaynabo’s mayor, Angel Perez, said in an interview with The Daily Caller that his experience with the federal government has been different from Cruz’s, in part because — unlike Cruz — he has been participating in meetings with officials from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other federal agencies.

Mayor Perez told TheDC that the story Cruz is telling the media doesn’t mesh with what he has seen from the federal government.

“My experience is different. I have been participating in different meetings at the headquarters of FEMA and our government and the help is coming in and right now my experience is different from hers. I’m receiving help from the government, we are receiving assistance from FEMA

But it also seems that she's not the only democratic politician using the hardship that Puerto Ricans are going through to try to make Trump look bad. A police officer has called into a radio station to expose how aid is being held back. If this is found out to be true this is an absolute disgrace.

Manic Moran

Nody wrote: »

Now here's an interesting twist for 2020 election; how about Trump vs. Oprah? Now it sounds outlandish as a starting point but thinking about it from a Democrat point of view it would make sense; you have a woman of color who's got a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge network already who's very popular. Will help engage the base and non whites alike and someone who can easily handle Trump in a debate or showdown.

Dear, God, no.

I'll be as happy as the next man if Trump is pushed out in three and a quarter years by someone who actually acts vaguely presidential, but look at what you have proposed.

Criterion #1. Woman of Colour. I thought we were supposed to be beyond categorizing people by race or gender, especially on the left,
Criterion #2. Popular/famous. Oh, fantastic. Let's nominate Kim Kardashian or Taylor Swift for her running mate. Even more famousness.
Criterion#3. Can handle Trump in a debate. Well, there's a high standard to set.

Anything in there about policies? Working methodology? Legislative or governmental goals or priorities? Or just "can beat Trump", which I would state any good candidate can do. You are swinging too far the other direction from "political elite."

Kamela Harris is unlikely to make it. A San Francisco liberal? I don't see it happening on the national level.

MadYaker

Celticfire wrote: »

So it seems that when San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz has been busy spending her time getting t shirts and hats printed up (a remarkable feat considering the lack of power on the island) she hasn't bothered participating in any meeting with FEMA or other federal agencies.



But it also seems that she's not the only democratic politician using the hardship that Puerto Ricans are going through to try to make Trump look bad. A police officer has called into a radio station to expose how aid is being held back. If this is found out to be true this is an absolute disgrace.

Please don't just regurgitate unsubstantiated rubbish from r/thedonald.

Rjd2

Celticfire wrote: »

So it seems that when San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz has been busy spending her time getting t shirts and hats printed up (a remarkable feat considering the lack of power on the island) she hasn't bothered participating in any meeting with FEMA or other federal agencies.



But it also seems that she's not the only democratic politician using the hardship that Puerto Ricans are going through to try to make Trump look bad. A police officer has called into a radio station to expose how aid is being held back. If this is found out to be true this is an absolute disgrace.

https://twitter.com/charlescwcooke/status/914096235224686592

I thought that was a pretty fair tweet tbh.

Its a tough one really, as he is so reliant on twitter, if he is not talking about it, people assume he is doing nothing with that issue, he probably does have some blame there tbf.

The other issue is its tough to get an unbiased source these days, the instant reaction from everyone to compare this to Katrina was a very obvious political play.

https://twitter.com/JoePerticone/status/914485606591483904

Another good point, that's just playing to the masses, although as he does point out not as if Trump supporters are exactly angels either.

Inquitus

Celticfire wrote: »

So it seems that when San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz has been busy spending her time getting t shirts and hats printed up (a remarkable feat considering the lack of power on the island) she hasn't bothered participating in any meeting with FEMA or other federal agencies.



But it also seems that she's not the only democratic politician using the hardship that Puerto Ricans are going through to try to make Trump look bad. A police officer has called into a radio station to expose how aid is being held back. If this is found out to be true this is an absolute disgrace.]

She's living in a cot in a shelter with 300 other people as her home is unliveable, please take your BS back the /r/the_donald and stay there.

Nate--IRL--

Manic Moran wrote: »

Dear, God, no.

I'll be as happy as the next man if Trump is pushed out in three and a quarter years by someone who actually acts vaguely presidential, but look at what you have proposed.

Criterion #1. Woman of Colour. I thought we were supposed to be beyond categorizing people by race or gender, especially on the left,
Criterion #2. Popular/famous. Oh, fantastic. Let's nominate Kim Kardashian or Taylor Swift for her running mate. Even more famousness.
Criterion#3. Can handle Trump in a debate. Well, there's a high standard to set.

Anything in there about policies? Working methodology? Legislative or governmental goals or priorities? Or just "can beat Trump", which I would state any good candidate can do. You are swinging too far the other direction from "political elite."

Kamela Harris is unlikely to make it. A San Francisco liberal? I don't see it happening on the national level.

Hang on, those 3 Criterion are all that modern politics demands. Policies? LOL!

Both Sides are a Joke.

Nate

Celticfire

Inquitus wrote: »

She's living in a cot in a shelter with 300 other people as her home is unliveable, please take your BS back the /r/the_donald and stay there.

So why as Mayor has she not participated in any meeting with FEMA?

MadYaker

Celticfire wrote: »

So why as Mayor has she not participated in any meeting with FEMA?

How do you know she hasn't? I would imagine it's pretty difficult for her to get around Puerto Rico considering the state of the place. Looking at her twitter she seems to be spending most of her time in hospitals and aid shelters. She isn't a doctor, the best thing she can do to help is try and use her position to draw as much attention to the situation as she can.

Manic Moran

In fairness, in an interview she has said that she has spoken to FEMA on the 'phone, and has sent delegates to the in-person meetings. She did not say that she ever attended one, though one must ask if it is necessary for her to do so if her staffers are competent.

ABC reporter asked the White House about it. https://mobile.twitter.com/KFaulders/status/914115959874572288

The military head of the operation comments on the status: The issue is they have to get the roads open to get to the truck drivers, so they can get to the ports and distribute everything:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/us-military-on-puerto-rico-the-problem-is-distribution_us_59ce5906e4b0f3c468060dee

SkepticQuark

So since a certain someone thinks The Daily Caller is now a totally acceptable source of honest news and sources here is an apparently leaked memo leaked to an outlet called Axios (haven't heard of them personally) updating members of Trump's administration on Puerto Rico.

https://www.axios.com/full-text-white-houses-tom-bossert-update-on-puerto-rico-2491599603.html

The best part of it for me if it's true: "The storm caused these problems, not our response to it."

Leroy42

So yet again we are back to blaming the mayor of a small city for the entire problems in PR. Even if she was at her private gold course all weekend, only taking time to make some attacking tweets, so what?

Are you really suggesting that she is lying? Are you saying that enough aid is being sent? Remember that even Trump has acknowledged that enough hasn't been done, except of course that its not his fault but rather that PR is an Island in a big ocean and that there are no roads to it?

Are you really suggesting that i the midst of the worst hurricane to hit the island in 90 years, and despite the positive view of how both Texas and Florida were handled, that the democrat took this woman aside and told her to lie in order to make a president, for which she cannot vote, look bad? And that all the other commentators that have made similar comments are also lying.

And remember, even Trump has acknowledged that there is problems with getting aid there, so at the very least the aid cannot, per Trump, be the level they wished it would be at.

Christy42

I like as soon as Trump criticises someone randomly a hoard of people obviously start trying to dig/make something up to try and retroactively justify Trump being such a horrific person.

backspin.

Trump is getting a great reception at the Presidents Cup golf in New York. Loads of cheers, all the players queuing to shake his hand. No booing. Maybe he isn't as unpopular among ordinary people after all. You'd be forgiven for thinking he was universally despised in America by the media. We don't really get many chances to gauge what people really think of him. This was one.

frag420

Probably because he is surrounded by rich white men(now that Tiger Woods has gone to shît), they are not really ordinary folk now are they!?

Let's see how many shake his hands at the next basketball or football game

backspin. wrote: »

Trump is getting a great reception at the Presidents Cup golf in New York. Loads of cheers, all the players queuing to shake his hand. No booing. Maybe he isn't as unpopular among ordinary people after all. You'd be forgiven for thinking he was universally despised in America by the media. We don't really get many chances to gauge what people really think of him. This was one.

SkepticQuark

backspin. wrote: »

Trump is getting a great reception at the Presidents Cup golf in New York. Loads of cheers, all the players queuing to shake his hand. No booing. Maybe he isn't as unpopular among ordinary people after all. You'd be forgiven for thinking he was universally despised in America by the media. We don't really get many chances to gauge what people really think of him. This was one.

The small crowds at rallies are one, opinion polling is another. Let's not forget this is also someone who got his supporters in Poland sent on buses to his speech and seems to refuse to go to places where he won't be fawned over.

It all looks great if you look through the lens they want you to see it through, David Cameron and his talk in a big empty shed is a perfect example.

Also if he was so universally popular, where were the people on January 20th?

Manic Moran

Are you saying that enough aid is being sent?

Apparently, yes.

Everyone is saying that the stuff which is required is getting to PR. The problem is getting it from the ports and airports to the rest of the island. For that, they are dependent on the island's internal distribution system, which is still broken until all those roads get opened, presumably one roadblock at a time. See the military interview I just linked to above, or http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/27/us/puerto-rico-aid-problem/index.html

backspin.

frag420 wrote: »

Probably because he is surrounded by rich white men(now that Tiger Woods has gone to shît), they are not really ordinary folk now are they!?

Let's see how many shake his hands at the next basketball or football game

The people at that event would be everything from working class pay as you play golfers right up to rich exclusive club golfers. Yes it was a fairly white crowd. But there were no boos at all. Plenty of cheering. I expected him to be snubbed by players and booed by the crowd. He wasn't. He is not as hated as the media would like you to believe.