Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

derb12

Sebastian gorka is going to be on radio 1 shortly. No doubt he'll perform his usual steam roller of arrogance and delusion performance. I hope the rte presenters have done their homework.

DaniilKharms

InTheTrees wrote: »

Its going to effect all american residents but its going to hit the old the hardest.

Stripping medicaid is massive. 60% of nursing home residents depend on it. Whats going to happen to them? just to be clear to irish posters, there are NO other safety nets, when medicaid goes away those people will presumably be out on the street. Will they just pack these peoples suitcases and push them out the door?

And you dont remove 60% of nursing home residents and have those facilities stay in business.

Part of me thinks in an anarchistic way let them do it. Its going to finish the republican party.

It's a massive tax cut paid for by stripping healthcare from the old, the sick and the poor. What's not to like?



If you're a sociopath I mean.

Saying that, you only have to go back a few months to see the Dem candidate rejecting universal coverage.

Back in 1993, when we met with Hillary Clinton at the White House, she acknowledged that single-payer national health insurance was the best solution to America's health care mess, but dismissed it as politically impossible.

She kept singing much the same tune until Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) upstart campaign began rallying support for single-payer reform, and threatening Hillary's glide path to the nomination. Then she started echoing Republican rhetoric, claiming that “Medicare for All” would break the bank and disrupt care.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/271001-hillarys-newfound-disdain-for-single-payer

US politicians only give a **** about the poor and the sick and the elederly when it helps THEM.

Now admittedly ACTIVELY TARGETING the most vulnerable is much worse than simply ignoring them, and admittedly Hillary did eventually flop back to wanting universal coverage, but.. and this is the point... universal coverage will ONLY happen if people make it a cornerstone of their support, and don't vote for people that are against it. We're getting closer to that every day, but we're not there yet IMO.

DaniilKharms

derb12 wrote: »

Sebastian gorka is going to be on radio 1 shortly. No doubt he'll perform his usual steam roller of arrogance and delusion performance. I hope the rte presenters have done their homework.

they haven't...

Call me Al

derb12 wrote: »

Sebastian gorka is going to be on radio 1 shortly. No doubt he'll perform his usual steam roller of arrogance and delusion performance. I hope the rte presenters have done their homework.

In fairness while it wasn't a thrilling grilling I doubt Jeremy Paxman could've knocked Gorka from the rinse repeat cycle he was set to.
He parroted the now familiar (a) nothing to see here, (b) they were brought to a meeting under false pretences,(c) Trump jr'S transparency, (d) but but but DNC and Ukraine...
He seemed to actually not hear the question relating to the inappropriateness/potential illegality of the meeting in the first place and just went back to a,b,c,d and sometimes a combination of same.

But he did make some interesting points relating to Brexit and the Trump support.

Billy86

The Steele Dossier, something Trumpeteers tried to hold up as some form of definitive evidence of all da fake noozus back when it came out and something even most who are not fans of Trump expressed doubts about (myself included), really appears to be proving more and more accurate with each breaking scandal:

- Dossier claims Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov had a file on Hillary Clinton
- Dossier claims Paul Manafort & Carter Page were colluding w/Russians
- Dossier claims Wikileaks is a front for the Kremlin
- Dossier claims Carter Page met with CEO of Russian oil company Rosneft Igor Sechin & with Igor Diveykin-a Russian intelligence officer
- Dossier claims Kremlin funded trips for Michael Flynn, Dr. Jill Stein & Carter Page
- Dossier claims Kremlin underestimated liberal reaction to DNC Hack
- Dossier claims ex-Ukrainian President Yanukovych told Putin he paid Manafort money
- Dossier claims Russian diplomat was sent back to Russia because of his links to the US election hack by Russia
- Dossier claims Alpha Group/Bank is close w/Putin
- Dossier claims Mikhail Fridman & Petr Aven advise Putin on US
- Dossier claims Putin traveled with Oleg Govorun to Uzbekistan
- Dossier claims Alpha Group hasn’t given Russia the money it was supposed to after their TNK oil sale to Rosneft
- Dossier claims Russian Aras Agalarov is close to Trump
- Dossier claims Rosneft CEO offered Carter Page 19% of Rosneft sale if sanctions lifted
- Dossier claims Oleg Solodukhin runs Russian NGO in Prague

Also some interesting news has popped up on Peter W. Smith in the last few days - he was the guy who tried to recruit Matt Tait from GCHQ to work for/with Russian hackers, which Tait wrote an article about. In the article, Tait wrote that he was not sure if Smith knew exactly who he was getting the info from or the potential ramifications thereof, and that Smith (very close to Michael Flynn) seemed so obsessed with getting this info that he didn't seem to care. Smith passed away shortly before the article came out only a few days after an interview of his own, having previously and repeatedly claimed there was no 'nation-state involvement' and having conducted his own interview with the Wall Street Journal a little before Matt Tait's article came out.

From the article:

Over the course of our conversations, one thing struck me as particularly disturbing. Smith and I talked several times about the DNC hack, and I expressed my view that the hack had likely been orchestrated by Russia and that the Kremlin was using the stolen documents as part of an influence campaign against the United States. I explained that if someone had contacted him via the “Dark Web” with Clinton’s personal emails, he should take very seriously the possibility that this may have been part of a wider Russian campaign against the United States. And I said he need not take my word for it, pointing to a number of occasions where US officials had made it clear that this was the view of the U.S. intelligence community as well.

Smith, however, didn’t seem to care. From his perspective it didn’t matter who had taken the emails, or their motives for doing so. He never expressed to me any discomfort with the possibility that the emails he was seeking were potentially from a Russian front, a likelihood he was happy to acknowledge. If they were genuine, they would hurt Clinton’s chances, and therefore help Trump.

Well it turns out Peter W. Smith checked into a hotel the day after his WSJ interview and committed suicide (his body being found 9 days later, no confirmation of the exact suicide date)...... http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-peter-smith-clinton-emails-dead-by-suicide/

InTheTrees

DaniilKharms wrote: »

Now admittedly ACTIVELY TARGETING the most vulnerable is much worse than simply ignoring them, .

It's an interesting strategy all right and pretty badly thought out if they think stripping old age benefits will somehow slip by unnoticed.

It seems like its the clash of the republican strategy of blatently lying coming up against the hard reality.

I mean it doesn't matter how fervently and blindly people support trump, when they experience their benefits being stripped they will notice.

DaniilKharms

InTheTrees wrote: »

It's an interesting strategy all right and pretty badly thought out if they think stripping old age benefits will somehow slip by unnoticed.

It seems like its the clash of the republican strategy of blatently lying coming up against the hard reality.

I mean it doesn't matter how fervently and blindly people support trump, when they experience their benefits being stripped they will notice.

You gotta remember that taxcuts for the wealthy on the backs of the poor has been Republican dogma for decades... they used to pretend it was good for business, but now it's just the prize for winning a game.

The thing that the GOP has badly misunderstood though is that their candidate ran a populist campaign of sticking it to the elites. This was a LIE, but the people who supported this populism didn't notice until the candidate started coming for their healthcare.

Now they're trying to square a circle.

eire4

DaniilKharms wrote: »

It's a massive tax cut paid for by stripping healthcare from the old, the sick and the poor. What's not to like?



If you're a sociopath I mean.

Saying that, you only have to go back a few months to see the Dem candidate rejecting universal coverage.



http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/271001-hillarys-newfound-disdain-for-single-payer

US politicians only give a **** about the poor and the sick and the elederly when it helps THEM.

Now admittedly ACTIVELY TARGETING the most vulnerable is much worse than simply ignoring them, and admittedly Hillary did eventually flop back to wanting universal coverage, but.. and this is the point... universal coverage will ONLY happen if people make it a cornerstone of their support, and don't vote for people that are against it. We're getting closer to that every day, but we're not there yet IMO.

In one way if somehow the Republicans pass this horrific plan it will kill so many Americans, kick so many off coverage and wreak such havoc on their current for profit health system that it might actually be the spark which could push enough people over the edge to forcing a medicare for all demand which gets enough ground swell to actually make it a real possibility after the next election in the US. Pure speculation on my part. But not fantasy land when you look at how bad this bill is that the Republicans want to pass.

DaniilKharms

eire4 wrote: »

In one way if somehow the Republicans pass this horrific plan it will kill so many Americans, kick so many off coverage and wreak such havoc on their current for profit health system that it might actually be the spark which could push enough people over the edge to forcing a medicare for all demand which gets enough ground swell to actually make it a real possibility after the next election in the US. Pure speculation on my part. But not fantasy land when you look at how bad this bill is that the Republicans want to pass.

You're not the only one to say that, several REPUBLICANS have said that if it passes (well, the House ver) that the eventual outcome will be single payer or medicaid for all.

That and the destruction of the GOP.

eire4

DaniilKharms wrote: »

You're not the only one to say that, several REPUBLICANS have said that if it passes (well, the House ver) that the eventual outcome will be single payer or medicaid for all.

That and the destruction of the GOP.

I had not seen that interesting. Given how dreadful this bill is and how badly it will affect so many millions of Americans never mind the tens of thousands it will kill it really is a possibility.

jobbridge4life

eire4 wrote: »

In one way if somehow the Republicans pass this horrific plan it will kill so many Americans, kick so many off coverage and wreak such havoc on their current for profit health system that it might actually be the spark which could push enough people over the edge to forcing a medicare for all demand which gets enough ground swell to actually make it a real possibility after the next election in the US. Pure speculation on my part. But not fantasy land when you look at how bad this bill is that the Republicans want to pass.

I don't know. I saw a report somewhere breaking down the disapproval of Trump, it seems that most people still support his 'policies', it is just his behaviour and the aura of scandal that is driving the negative feelings.

I am honestly beginning to believe that it maybe too late for America. Such vast swathes of their population are not only ignorant to the facts, but positively seduced by insane righty propaganda that I don't see a way out of this death spiral.

DaniilKharms

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I don't know. I saw a report somewhere breaking down the disapproval of Trump, it seems that most people still support his 'policies', it is just his behaviour and the aura of scandal that is driving the negative feelings.

I am honestly beginning to believe that it maybe too late for America. Such vast swathes of their population are not only ignorant to the facts, but positively seduced by insane righty propaganda that I don't see a way out of this death spiral.

I have said repeatedly that it's too late for America, because it has a delusional self-image, doesn't know it's own history, it's populous is fed endless propaganda, it's media is largely incompetent and partisan, and it's political system is BEYOND broken.

Americans are largely immune to facts that don't support their own notions of who they are, etc. And of course if you can't see the truth you can't fix problems. The same is true of Democrats btw. They don't have the ability to see the flaws in their own party and candidates either.

It's all bad!

Christy42

eire4 wrote: »

I had not seen that interesting. Given how dreadful this bill is and how badly it will affect so many millions of Americans never mind the tens of thousands it will kill it really is a possibility.

The bill is not a reversion to how the states used to be. They accepted that without much complaint and they will accept this.

People will take the punishment and then blame any more issues they have on rich people not having enough money.

I hope I am wrong and it may be different now that they have had something close to a serious health care system for a while.

Water John

With a 17% approval for GOP health bills, I'd say the people understand.
Wonder are there a few Senators who would save the GOP from itself and vote it down.

DaniilKharms

Water John wrote: »

With a 17% approval for GOP health bills, I'd say the people understand.
Wonder are there a few Senators who would save the GOP from itself and vote it down.

When you have to ask....

rossie1977

Water John wrote: »

With a 17% approval for GOP health bills, I'd say the people understand.
Wonder are there a few Senators who would save the GOP from itself and vote it down.

Highly unlikely Dean Heller of Nevada supports the bill. His seat is most at risk in 2018 and a yes vote would mean he is politically dead

Water John

Is Susan Collins going to support the bill?

DaniilKharms

Water John wrote: »

Is Susan Collins going to support the bill?

Maybe. Probably not.

Water John

If they give it a reading, McConnell will screw them over.

eire4

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I don't know. I saw a report somewhere breaking down the disapproval of Trump, it seems that most people still support his 'policies', it is just his behaviour and the aura of scandal that is driving the negative feelings.

I am honestly beginning to believe that it maybe too late for America. Such vast swathes of their population are not only ignorant to the facts, but positively seduced by insane righty propaganda that I don't see a way out of this death spiral.

Most Americans do not support Trump's policies that simply is not the case. Remember barely over half the country actually voted and of the 54% who did vote he won less votes then Clinton so the idea that the majority of Americans are on board with Trumps social hate fest and economic reverse robin hood is simply not the case.
The latest ABC poll from today I might add has his approval rating at 39% with 56% disapproval.
Also today gallups poll puts those numbers at 38% approval 59% disapprove.

eire4

Christy42 wrote: »

The bill is not a reversion to how the states used to be. They accepted that without much complaint and they will accept this.

People will take the punishment and then blame any more issues they have on rich people not having enough money.

I hope I am wrong and it may be different now that they have had something close to a serious health care system for a while.

You might be right. But when people actually have friends, relatives and family die or lose health care or have sub standard health care or face financial oblivion there will be no way to hide from that. This horrific bill will directly impact the lives of most Americans and not in a positive way.

aloyisious

Something an O/P said to me last Wed shook me about medicaid was the number of disabled persons and children that would be hit if the ACA was scrapped. He mentioned millions outside the regularly mentioned elderly and infirm reliant on medicaid.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjn7eOz8o7VAhXhCcAKHW9RDp4QFgglMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aap.org%2Fen-us%2FDocuments%2Ffederaladvocacy_medicaidfactsheet_michigan.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHcqs73VpA8D4P42CfpuFjFQszoDQ

This piece of official govt info has't gone away either..... The Congressional Budget Office estimated in March that 24 million people would lose health insurance if the AHCA were to pass. I don't know if that figure included children.

Susan Collins on FoxNews.... there are about 8 to 10 [republican] senators that I know of who have difficulties with the bill.

InTheTrees

eire4 wrote: »

You might be right. But when people actually have friends, relatives and family die or lose health care or have sub standard health care or face financial oblivion there will be no way to hide from that. This horrific bill will directly impact the lives of most Americans and not in a positive way.

I agree. I think republicans have fooled their supporters for so long they thought they could keep doing it but this time it's going too far.

Christy42

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/16/politics/donald-trump-jr-jay-sekulow-secret-service/index.html

In other news. Trump's team are liars. Shocking I know.

Basically a lawyer for Trump Jr. said that secret service would not have let dodgy people in for the attempted collusion with the Russians and therefore it is all fine.

Secret service have pointed out this is bull because the Trump's were not under secret service protection at that point.

Quin_Dub

Christy42 wrote: »

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/16/politics/donald-trump-jr-jay-sekulow-secret-service/index.html

In other news. Trump's team are liars. Shocking I know.

Basically a lawyer for Trump Jr. said that secret service would not have let dodgy people in for the attempted collusion with the Russians and therefore it is all fine.

Secret service have pointed out this is bull because the Trump's were not under secret service protection at that point.

Yes another example of lying about something that is so readily and easily verifiable.

Even if the Secret Service hadn't proactively denied the statement (that fact that they did is interesting in and of itself) , the information would have been uncovered very quickly with a simple FOI request.

DaniilKharms

This sort of this has been floating around for a while... might be fun to keep it up to date... might not be




"I must admit that it’s hard for me to see any U.S. ties to Russia; except for the Reality Leigh Winner thing, and the Flynn thing and the Manafort thing. And the Tillerson thing. And the Sessions thing. And the Kushner thing. And the Carter Page thing. And the Roger Stone thing. And the Felix Sater thing. And the Boris Ephsteyn thing. And the Rosneft thing. And the Gazprom thing. And the Sergey Gorkov banker thing. And the Azerbajain thing. And the “I love Putin” thing. And the Donald Trump, Jr. thing. And the Sergey Kislyak thing. And the Russian Affiliated Interests thing. And the Russian Business Interests thing. And the Emoluments Clause thing. And the Alex Schnaider thing. And the hack of the DNC thing. And the Guccifer 2.0 thing. And the Mike Pence “I don’t know anything” thing. And the Russians mysteriously dying thing. And Trump’s public request to Russia to hack Hillary’s email thing. And the Trump house sale for $100 million at the bottom of the housing bust to the Russian fertilizer king thing. And the Russian fertilizer king’s plane showing up in Concord, NC during Trump rally campaign thing. And the Nunes sudden flight to the White House in the night thing. And the Nunes personal investments in the Russian winery thing. And the Cyprus bank thing. And Trump not releasing his tax returns thing. And the Republican Party’s rejection of an amendment to require Trump to show his taxes thing. And the election hacking thing. And the GOP platform change to the Ukraine thing. And the Steele Dossier thing. And the Leninist Bannon thing. And the Sally Yates can’t testify thing. And the intelligence community’s investigative reports thing. And the Trump reassurance that the Russian connection is all “fake news” thing. And the Spicer’s Russian Dressing “nothing’s wrong” thing. And the Chaffetz not willing to start an investigation thing. And the Chaffetz suddenly deciding to go back to private life in the middle of an investigation thing. And the The Lead DOJ Investigator Mary McCord suddenly in the middle of the investigation decides to resign thing. And the appointment of Pam Bondi who was bribed by Trump in the Trump University scandal appointed to head the investigation thing. And the The White House going into full-on cover-up mode, refusing to turn over the documents related to the hiring and subsequent firing of Flynn thing. And the Chaffetz and White House blaming the poor vetting of Flynn on Obama thing. And the Poland and British intelligence gave information regarding the hacking back in 2015 to Paul Ryan and he didn't do anything thing. And the Agent M16 following the money thing. And now the Trump team knew about Flynn's involvement but hired him anyway thing. And the Corey Lewendowski thing. And the Preet Bharara firing thing but before he left he transferred evidence against Trump to a state level Schneiderman thing. And the Betsy Devos' brother thing. And the Sebastian Gorka thing. And the Greg Gianforte from Montana thing. And the Pence actually was warned about Flynn before he was hired thing. And the Pence and Manafort connection thing. And the seven Allies coming forward with audio where Trump was picked up in incidental wire tapping thing. And the Carter Page defying the Senate's order to hand over his Russian contact list thing. And the Trump wanted to veto Sally Yates' testimony thing. And the Trump fired Comey to cover up the Russian collusion thing. And now the Jared Kushner secret phone line with Russia thing. So yeah, there’s probably nothing there!"

DaniilKharms

New poll puts Obamacare as twice as popular as the new GOP plan.

Literally the most popular Obamacare has ever been.

82% of Republicans support Trump, but only 24% of the country supports GOP plan.

This thing looks DOA - again.

We hope.

Leroy42

I go back to the question of the media coverage of Trump.

IMO, he is getting far too much coverage. There are stories about him everyday on every news outlet. WHy are we (Ireland) so interested in his trip to Paris? We seem (and I include myself) fascinated in every thing he does. From how he shakes hands to how to doesn't hold hands.

The same is true X1000 for the US media. Everything is a crisis, a breaking News story. They seem on constant alert of for the impeachment, the resignation etc.

I think this over coverage actually has a negative effect. It turns many off and when things like the Trump Jr e-mails emerge people simply see it as the next installment of the overzealous coverage.

There is a lot to report on, and Trump Jr e-mails are a massive story, but I sometimes think that they are playing right into Trumps hands. They shout and sneer and whine, and he simply posts a 140 character tweet to dismiss it all and moves on.

Do Americans really care that Trump seems totally unable to shake hands in a 'normal' fashion? They put up with W Bush for 8 years for I would think that they don't really.

Should the MSM not take a different tack. Simply report on the news. No opinion pieces, no "This is surely the death of democracy" pieces and let the American people work it out for themselves. Or, let the DNC provide their side of the argument. So it appears that this ACHA is a bad. Well then its up the Americans to get involved, get onto their Senators to stop it. Is it the MSM job to be the moral guardian?

Let the investigators do their thing, and report and the findings when they come out. I fear is that by bigging the outcomes so much then when the investigations (as they normally do) result in less that the total wipeout they can be downplayed by Trump and GOP than much less then people were thinking.

DaniilKharms

Leroy42 wrote: »

I go back to the question of the media coverage of Trump.

IMO, he is getting far too much coverage. There are stories about him everyday on every news outlet. WHy are we (Ireland) so interested in his trip to Paris? We seem (and I include myself) fascinated in every thing he does. From how he shakes hands to how to doesn't hold hands.

The same is true X1000 for the US media. Everything is a crisis, a breaking News story. They seem on constant alert of for the impeachment, the resignation etc.

I think this over coverage actually has a negative effect. It turns many off and when things like the Trump Jr e-mails emerge people simply see it as the next installment of the overzealous coverage.

There is a lot to report on, and Trump Jr e-mails are a massive story, but I sometimes think that they are playing right into Trumps hands. They shout and sneer and whine, and he simply posts a 140 character tweet to dismiss it all and moves on.

Do Americans really care that Trump seems totally unable to shake hands in a 'normal' fashion? They put up with W Bush for 8 years for I would think that they don't really.

Should the MSM not take a different tack. Simply report on the news. No opinion pieces, no "This is surely the death of democracy" pieces and let the American people work it out for themselves. Or, let the DNC provide their side of the argument. So it appears that this ACHA is a bad. Well then its up the Americans to get involved, get onto their Senators to stop it. Is it the MSM job to be the moral guardian?

Let the investigators do their thing, and report and the findings when they come out. I fear is that by bigging the outcomes so much then when the investigations (as they normally do) result in less that the total wipeout they can be downplayed by Trump and GOP than much less then people were thinking.

There's two things at play here:

- Trump is unlike anything else, even if he was amazing he'd be getting endless coverage. He's basically a TV star turned President.
- 24 hour news has to fill it's 24 hours with something. Negative Trump coverage is EXTREMELY popular, and who are they to not give the people what makes them loads of advertising revenue they want?

Leroy42

I understand the dynamics of it, but it doesn't make it right.

Yes Trump is a TV star turned President, but he is now President and needs to be treated as such. They are treating him like a TV star rather than POTUS.
There is plenty of things to fill up 24 news with. Now whether that is want people want is an open question. Should the media only report on the things that people are interested in (Leo's socks) or the substantive point of the meeting (proposed Trade deal).

At what point does it stop being a MSM problem and start to become the responsibility of the citizens?

DaniilKharms

Leroy42 wrote: »

I understand the dynamics of it, but it doesn't make it right.

Yes Trump is a TV star turned President, but he is now President and needs to be treated as such. They are treating him like a TV star rather than POTUS.
There is plenty of things to fill up 24 news with. Now whether that is want people want is an open question. Should the media only report on the things that people are interested in (Leo's socks) or the substantive point of the meeting (proposed Trade deal).

At what point does it stop being a MSM problem and start to become the responsibility of the citizens?

Why? Because the US media is awful and unserious; the TV media doubly so. There's NOT plenty of things to fill up 24 hours with, btw., which is why all of the 24h news channels run these **** shows like MSNBC's prison reality TV and CNN's Parts Unknown. And the rating of those PALE in comparison to their rolling Trump coverage.

That coverage BTW has given MSNBC the best ratings it's EVER had.

I know it would be nice if the media was good, but it's not, so expecting garbage to be treasure is kinda on you, once you know better.

And hey, and this is the crucial bit, good reportage is not very popular, and has trouble staying afloat. Compare that to endless Breaking News and the corporate bosses are simply doing their jobs by choosing what's popular.

I don't LIKE it, but it's utterly unsurprising, and won't be changing.

As for the citizens - they're the problem, as they don't support anything serious in large numbers. Fixing that is a generational problem, and no one is even trying.

InTheTrees

DaniilKharms wrote: »

New poll puts Obamacare as twice as popular as the new GOP plan.

Literally the most popular Obamacare has ever been.

82% of Republicans support Trump, but only 24% of the country supports GOP plan.

This thing looks DOA - again.

We hope.

Faced with the absolute train wreck of a trump presidency its easy to miss the utter incompetence of paul ryan and mitch mcconnell.

These are the people who actually came up with the idea of closing down the old folks homes and giving the cash to their friends.

DaniilKharms

InTheTrees wrote: »

Faced with the absolute train wreck of a trump presidency its easy to miss the utter incompetence of paul ryan and mitch mcconnell.

These are the people who actually came up with the idea of closing down the old folks homes and giving the cash to their friends.

Unless you're a Republican! McConnell is the least popular in his own state Senator in America, and Ryan is the main target of criticism online, on right-wing forums.

These people know they're getting played... They think Trump is trying and being stopped by the GOP pols in DC.

They also have been loudly saying - at least I've seen this repeatedly - that if Healthcare fails to pass they'll become independents and vote for independents.

We'll see.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

I understand the dynamics of it, but it doesn't make it right.

Yes Trump is a TV star turned President, but he is now President and needs to be treated as such. They are treating him like a TV star rather than POTUS.
There is plenty of things to fill up 24 news with. Now whether that is want people want is an open question. Should the media only report on the things that people are interested in (Leo's socks) or the substantive point of the meeting (proposed Trade deal).

At what point does it stop being a MSM problem and start to become the responsibility of the citizens?

His treatment by the media is fair. The coverage he gets is a result of his own behaviour. He is a nasty, lying narcissist who has taken a massive dump on the office of POTUS. If you behave like a clown you should expect to be treated like a clown.

derb12

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

His treatment by the media is fair. The coverage he gets is a result of his own behaviour. He is a nasty, lying narcissist who has taken a massive dump on the office of POTUS. If you behave like a clown you should expect to be treated like a clown.

A nasty lying narcissist yes absolutely.
But I think the point being made is that with so much blanket coverage the really serious misdemeanours (like knowingly meeting with Russian govt agents to influence an election) get mixed up with the inconsequential misdemeanours (like telling macron that his wife is in great shape) and the result is just an information overload that the "tldr;" public find it easier to brand as all fake news.

I don't see a way around it in the 24 hour news world we live in - he's the president so it is news. Where the mistake was made was giving him so much coverage during the election. Rally after rally was covered live by cnn - they should have just reported a highlight or two and left it at that. Hillary was stupid enough to not do so much campaigning so she basically handed all that airtime to trump.

Professor Moriarty

derb12 wrote: »

A nasty lying narcissist yes absolutely.
But I think the point being made is that with so much blanket coverage the really serious misdemeanours (like knowingly meeting with Russian govt agents to influence an election) get mixed up with the inconsequential misdemeanours (like telling macron that his wife is in great shape) and the result is just an information overload that the "tldr;" public find it easier to brand as all fake news.

I don't see a way around it in the 24 hour news world we live in - he's the president so it is news. Where the mistake was made was giving him so much coverage during the election. Rally after rally was covered live by cnn - they should have just reported a highlight or two and left it at that. Hillary was stupid enough to not do so much campaigning so she basically handed all that airtime to trump.

Fair enough - I missed that. Should have read further up the thread!

As The Jam said, the public gets what the public wants. Especially in the media. If I choose to inform myself using Twatter, or Fakebook or 'edgy' sites full of real fake news then I'm going to get the President I deserve. It's what I choose to read is what the media will ultimately report.

Regarding the rallies and airtime, the media misjudged the American public. They thought by constantly showing Trump being a misogynist, racist, buffoon etc. then the American public would be repulsed. Sadly, enough of them liked what they saw.

DaniilKharms

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Fair enough - I missed that. Should have read further up the thread!

As The Jam said, the public gets what the public wants. Especially in the media. If I choose to inform myself using Twatter, or Fakebook or 'edgy' sites full of real fake news then I'm going to get the President I deserve. It's what I choose to read is what the media will ultimately report.

Regarding the rallies and airtime, the media misjudged the American public. They thought by constantly showing Trump being a misogynist, racist, buffoon etc. then the American public would be repulsed. Sadly, enough of them liked what they saw.

ehhhh....

That's a bit of conflation.

No one voted for Trump BECAUSE he grabbed pussy. They voted for him, because they wanted to say FU to DC, because they'd been ignored - and they had - for decades.

The Flint water crisis, and the endless violence in Chicago - to list but two examples - weren't caused by Trump, but they also weren't important to national Democrats.

Trump is again a symptom. People that voted for him hoped he'd be a cure, but many of them voted knowing it was not THAT likely, but you know **** DC, etc.

Professor Moriarty

DaniilKharms wrote: »

ehhhh....

That's a bit of conflation.

No one voted for Trump BECAUSE he grabbed pussy. They voted for him, because they wanted to say FU to DC, because they'd been ignored - and they had - for decades.

The Flint water crisis, and the endless violence in Chicago - to list but two examples - weren't caused by Trump, but they also weren't important to national Democrats.

Trump is again a symptom. People that voted for him hoped he'd be a cure, but many of them voted knowing it was not THAT likely, but you know **** DC, etc.

Fair point. It was indeed many things; a protest vote, a non-viable alternative, an incoherent cry of rage etc. However, he did appeal to many people (e.g. cohorts of working class white males) who liked what he said and how he said it.

Also, whatever about the reasons why people voted for him, they still voted for him in full knowledge of the type of person he is. Personally, I don't buy the 'hold your nose and vote' line because you are then endorsing a dangerous and abhorrent candidate. IMO that should have taken precedence over other considerations.

DaniilKharms

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Fair point. It was indeed many things; a protest vote, a non-viable alternative, an incoherent cry of rage etc. However, he did appeal to many people (e.g. cohorts of working class white males) who liked what he said and how he said it.

Also, whatever about the reasons why people voted for him, they still voted for him in full knowledge of the type of person he is. Personally, I don't buy the 'hold your nose and vote' line because you are then endorsing a dangerous and abhorrent candidate. IMO that should have taken precedence over other considerations.

I think it's hard to express to people that haven't been to places like WV or OH just how much these places have collapsed economically over the decades.

Actually, it's not, things are so bad that they were willing to vote for the least popular, least trusted Presidential candidate in modern times, in the hope that that would somehow be a big enough shock to the system to maybe make their situation a bit better.

It's REALLY hard to overstate just how much Trump was/is the symptom.

Leroy42

I agree DaniilKharms. I still think that the MSM don't get it. They thought by total coverage they could show him up for the candidate he was, but people were so fed up with DC, DNC, HC or whatever their pet hate was that they allowed themselves to convince themselves to ignore all that. It would all be alright on the night. Trump would pivot, Trump would step up to the role.

This was despite their being no evidence to suggest this and as he got the GOP nomination, as he went into the debates, as the campaign continued, there was more and more evidence that he had no intention of pivoting.

But the MSM, despite being shown to be out of step with the country, continue to operate on the basis that they know what is best. Al was pointed out above, they cover ACHA, Russian meetings, Flynn etc and the next story up is Ivanka's handbags, or Trump JR hunting picture, or Trumps weird handshake.

Under normal circumstances these would probably all be important, but all they are doing is to deflect from the real stories. Let the investigators do their job, Mueller etc, and focus on ACHA and the 23 million. Take Pence to task on why he thinks it is good and christian to kick people of medicaid?

Why Trump, the great businessman, had seemingly been unable to find any real savings in the bloated federal budget save for cutting welfare programs and education?

Why Trump JR is meeting with Russians? Instead, by making every little thing out to be a crisis, they have allowed Trump to paint them as Fake news and the interviews that should be about the above end up arguing of CNN ratings etc.

Professor Moriarty

DaniilKharms wrote: »

I think it's hard to express to people that haven't been to places like WV or OH just how much these places have collapsed economically over the decades.

Actually, it's not, things are so bad that they were willing to vote for the least popular, least trusted Presidential candidate in modern times, in the hope that that would somehow be a big enough shock to the system to maybe make their situation a bit better.

It's REALLY hard to overstate just how much Trump was/is the symptom.

There are some very good charts here. In particular, the age chart is very revealing and so symmetrical. Surprisingly (for me anyway) poorer people voted Clinton whereas (unsurprisingly perhaps) richer people tended to vote Trump.

Of course all of this ignores party affiliation. Some would vote Dem/Rep if they put Bozo the Clown forward. Well the GOP did just that but you know what I mean...

Quin_Dub

Some interesting in-depth analysis from the recent opinion polls.

There are two ways to view our new NBC/WSJ “Trump Counties” poll — measuring the counties that fueled Donald Trump’s 2016 win — we initially unveiled on Sunday.

Way #1: President Trump’s approval rating in these counties stands at 50%, which is higher than his 40% overall job rating from our June NBC/WSJ poll, or the 36% that WaPo/ABC had yesterday.

Way #2: His approval rating in these counties is down from his winning percentage in these areas in November 2016. In the Trump "Surge Counties" — think places like Carbon, Pa., which Trump won, 65%-31% (versus Mitt Romney's 53%-45% margin) — 56% of residents approve of the president's job performance. But in 2016, Trump won these “Surge Counties” by a combined 65%-29%. And in the "Flip Counties" — think places like Luzerne, Pa., which Obama carried 52%-47%, but which Trump won, 58%-39% — Trump's job rating stands at just 44%. Trump won these “Flip Counties” by a combined 51%-43% margin a year ago. Bottom line: Even in the places that he won in 2016, he’s taken a hit when it comes to his approval rating.

Basically the drop in support is fairly universal , even places where he won by fairly large margins are showing strong declines in support

Leroy42

It still staggers me that his approval ratings are so high (I would have thought much less). Is there an element of undecided being placed into approval in these polls?

I get that many people want be willing to give him more time, but to actually approve of his performance thus far?

Even taking away from the "Fake News Scandals", he has achieved nothing that he said he would?

InTheTrees

Leroy42 wrote: »

It still staggers me that his approval ratings are so high (I would have thought much less). Is there an element of undecided being placed into approval in these polls?

I get that many people want be willing to give him more time, but to actually approve of his performance thus far?

A very very very large proportion of the us electorate that pay no attention at all to news. None. They'll vote R and then forget about it until next time.

Witness the posters on this thread who say "just let him do his job". They have no interest or critical facilities to judge his performance.

Which is why a sadistic part of me wishes the healthcare repeal does take place, it might jolt these people into consciousness.

DaniilKharms

Leroy42 wrote: »

I agree DaniilKharms. I still think that the MSM don't get it. They thought by total coverage they could show him up for the candidate he was, but people were so fed up with DC, DNC, HC or whatever their pet hate was that they allowed themselves to convince themselves to ignore all that. It would all be alright on the night. Trump would pivot, Trump would step up to the role.

This was despite their being no evidence to suggest this and as he got the GOP nomination, as he went into the debates, as the campaign continued, there was more and more evidence that he had no intention of pivoting.

But the MSM, despite being shown to be out of step with the country, continue to operate on the basis that they know what is best. Al was pointed out above, they cover ACHA, Russian meetings, Flynn etc and the next story up is Ivanka's handbags, or Trump JR hunting picture, or Trumps weird handshake.

Under normal circumstances these would probably all be important, but all they are doing is to deflect from the real stories. Let the investigators do their job, Mueller etc, and focus on ACHA and the 23 million. Take Pence to task on why he thinks it is good and christian to kick people of medicaid?

Why Trump, the great businessman, had seemingly been unable to find any real savings in the bloated federal budget save for cutting welfare programs and education?

Why Trump JR is meeting with Russians? Instead, by making every little thing out to be a crisis, they have allowed Trump to paint them as Fake news and the interviews that should be about the above end up arguing of CNN ratings etc.

I think you need to take this one step further though...

Why, if none of those people care about Russia - which seems to be largely true - is MSNBC experiencing a MASSIVE ratings boost thanks to Russia coverage?

Why is Colbert likewise, because of his anti-Trump coverage?

Why did Fallon take a hit, to the point where he had to basically apologise and grow a beard, for his non-negative coverage of Trump?

...


...


...


Because the people that the mainstream media are ignoring are also ignoring the MSM.

CNN's demo is not people that don't watch CNN, and MSNBC's demo is not people that love Trump.

So - while it might be "right" to be less obsessed, it doesn't reflect what their viewers want, and the ratings back that up completely.

What is MORE interesting is that Fox is not seeing a huge boost in its numbers, despite it ignoring Russia and focusing on Trump's policies?

THAT is interesting.

Itssoeasy

Leroy, to a point I agree with your post about the fact that there are stories all the time about trump and his administration. But I don't think the media is to blame. A us administration has the power to control the narrative about itself, it's just that the person currently occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is unwilling or incapable of helping himself.

He has been proven to be a lier and a pathological one at that.

I think the NYT and WaPo have done Trojan work in exposing the con man way in which he is running his campaign.

The fact that we have kellyann Conway and the dougal McGuire of lawyers in jay sekulow trying to defend what the presidents son did and saying it with some kind of straight face is mind numbing to watch.

Edit: I do think a very small percentage of online media are overselling the Russia fever a bit but when you have two big names at Fox News in Chris Wallace and Shepard smith basically saying **** it I'm calling out this administrations bull crap it's a telling sign.

Ipse dixit

InTheTrees wrote: »

A very very very large proportion of the us electorate that pay no attention at all to news. None. They'll vote R and then forget about it until next time.

Witness the posters on this thread who say "just let him do his job". They have no interest or critical facilities to judge his performance.

Which is why a sadistic part of me wishes the healthcare repeal does take place, it might jolt these people into consciousness.

That's a very simplistic view to take. These people have made a conscious choice. It's idiotic to attempt to generalise a whole portion of voters simply based on an arrogant egotistical assumption that these people are essentially less intelligent than a Hilary voter or a Trump protestor. It's stupid to try and attempt to categorise people such as the lazy label the alt-right. Instead of attempting to correct the obvious problems in Washington we have gone down the road of attempting to demonise Trump's voters.

You have a go at the 'critical facilities' of Trump voters yet all you can offer is a lazy generalisation?

For Reals

They are looking into visitors to Mar-a-lago. The idea being, it may be Trump's Galway tent.

volchitsa

For Reals wrote: »

They are looking into visitors to Mar-a-lago. The idea being, it may be Trump's Galway tent.

Linky? And who's "they"?

DaniilKharms

volchitsa wrote: »

Linky? And who's "they"?

We'll soon have records of who Trump has been meeting with at his Mar-a-Lago resort

http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-mar-a-lago-visitor-logs-crew-2017-7?r=US&IR=T

CREW is lefty, but they also sued and got the Obama WH visitor logs...