Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Christy42

Could you imagine the number of strokes in Fox news if Obama did something similar.

Obviously the converted will complain about demcrats not showing enough respect to vets while lapping up their sacrifice being used as a marketing ploy.

Hande hoche!

Speaking of merchandise, been a while since we have had a new Trump cap.

StringerBell

People keep talking about how bad something is or how wrong something is, it's true of course but it works. It has worked for him and continues to work, he still has his crowd with him and merely pointing out the latest in a long line of reprehensible actions does nothing.

At some point people who can fight back need to fight fire with fire. You lose press credentials for a press briefing ? Big deal. The press briefing is pointless anyway, he gets a second term and there will be none anyway I can guarantee as he will say he doesn't need them and the press are all just fake news out to get him anyway. Crying liberals etc.

The media need to wake up and realise they are actually in a fight for their future with this administration. Free press is not guaranteed.

Christy42

I am curious if the Korean summit is back on because he was simply lying before or because he was worried it might just happen without him after the surprise summit between Moon and Kim.

I agree with the above post. The media needs to stand up to him and call him out more on his constant lying.

jooksavage

Had to check Snopes there as I was pretty sure no one would be that crass and disrespectful. I was wrong.

Professor Moriarty

jooksavage wrote: »

Had to check Snopes there as I was pretty sure no one would be that crass and disrespectful. I was wrong.

I thought it must have been a joke too. If you think about it, it sums The Donald up beautifully and succinctly.

TRS30

Even his tweet that started off paying respects to those who serve and ended up being a me, me, me tweet......

MadYaker

Seems like the summit is potentially back on? https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/28/politics/north-korea-trump-summit/index.html

Igotadose

MadYaker wrote: »

Seems like the summit is potentially back on? https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/28/politics/north-korea-trump-summit/index.html

Tune in Friday for Apprentice: WH edition for the dramatic conclusion of "The summit? On, or not? Will there be catering?"

O.K. enough of that. On a serious note, the SCOTUS (written by Trump's appointee Gorsuch), just hosed pretty much every employee of any US company by allowing class action waivers in employment agreements across the board. So, if your employer doesn't pay your back pay, you can't take a class action against them. Justice Roberts (Citizens United guy) is another corporate SCOTUS tool in favor of such.

And, under Trump, corporations are doing great. Employees, not so much. Oh well, 'Murica.

https://www.employmentlawlandscape.com/2018/05/supreme-court-oks-class-action-waivers-in-employment-arbitration-agreements/

For more direct examples without the legalese, here's Fortune commenting on Chipotle being able to slither out from a lawsuit alleging theft of back pay: http://fortune.com/2018/05/27/chipotle-workers-supreme-court-ruling/

Professor Moriarty

Igotadose wrote: »

Tune in Friday for Apprentice: WH edition for the dramatic conclusion of "The summit? On, or not? Will there be catering?"

O.K. enough of that. On a serious note, the SCOTUS (written by Trump's appointee Gorsuch), just hosed pretty much every employee of any US company by allowing class action waivers in employment agreements across the board. So, if your employer doesn't pay your back pay, you can't take a class action against them. Justice Roberts (Citizens United guy) is another corporate SCOTUS tool in favor of such.

And, under Trump, corporations are doing great. Employees, not so much. Oh well, 'Murica.

https://www.employmentlawlandscape.com/2018/05/supreme-court-oks-class-action-waivers-in-employment-arbitration-agreements/

For more direct examples without the legalese, here's Fortune commenting on Chipotle being able to slither out from a lawsuit alleging theft of back pay: http://fortune.com/2018/05/27/chipotle-workers-supreme-court-ruling/

You've got to hand it to The Donald and his cronies. They've conditioned their base so well that most of them will think this is a good idea.

weisses

What is Giulinai doing ?

He seems to suggest that with spreading lies he is trying to influence public opinion to undermine the validity of the investigation ...... Mind boggling

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aoFNo_MXrk&t=217s

PopePalpatine

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You've got to hand it to The Donald and his cronies. They've conditioned their base so well that most of them will think this is a good idea.

You might be making $8/hour in terrible conditions for a boss who worms their way out of paying you overtime, but hey, it's all worth it so some androgynous social sciences graduate is screaming into their soy latte!

Professor Moriarty

PopePalpatine wrote: »

You might be making $8/hour in terrible conditions for a boss who worms their way out of paying you overtime, but hey, it's all worth it so some androgynous social sciences graduate is screaming into their soy latte!

"Yeah, but I got me muh MAGA baseball cap, got me muh gun and I got me muh 4x4 and we got them snowflakes and furriners by the balls." is essentially the political philosophy of his hard core support.

You'd think it would be obvious that this vile nonsense only helps Trump.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/29/is-ivanka-trump-worst-tweeted-portrait-border-agents

B0jangles

Deleted User wrote: »

You'd think it would be obvious that this vile nonsense only helps Trump.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/29/is-ivanka-trump-worst-tweeted-portrait-border-agents

Has there ever been a list of all the things people have claimed help Trump?

I mean the media have been told to call him out, to ignore everything he tweets, to take him seriously, not to take anything he says at face value, etc. etc. etc.

It's almost like there is some kind of intent behind this to create an atmosphere of chaos and confusion, and to undermine public trust in every institution that might have been able to stop what he's doing.

But what do I know? I probably cry myself to sleep every night because Hilary didn't win.

VonZan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You'd think it would be obvious that this vile nonsense only helps Trump.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/29/is-ivanka-trump-worst-tweeted-portrait-border-agents

In fairness, anyone basing their political outlook on a Guardian opinion piece shouldn't be allowed onto the internet.

These 'pieces of journlaism' only exist because people hate them. The Guardian generates most of its money trying desperately to be the opposite of the Daily Mail.

It's a shame as it used to be a very good paper but finance trumps good content. Baiting the right and left generates more clicks than actually doing your job. Unfortunate but it's driven by the consumer.

B0jangles

B0jangles wrote: »

Has there ever been a list of all the things people have claimed help Trump?

I mean the media have been told to call him out, to ignore everything he tweets, to take him seriously, not to take anything he says at face value, etc. etc. etc.

It's almost like there is some kind of intent behind this to create an atmosphere of chaos and confusion, and to undermine public trust in every institution that might have been able to stop what he's doing.

But what do I know? I probably cry myself to sleep every night because Hilary didn't win.

What on earth are you on about.

It's an awful hit piece written by one woman against another for political reasons. That stuff disgusts people in the middle.

If you agree with the author, just say so. Or if you think it helps the left, just say so. I think it helps the right.

VonZan

VonZan wrote: »

In fairness, anyone basing their political outlook on a Guardian opinion piece shouldn't be allowed onto the internet.

These 'pieces of journlaism' only exist because people hate them. The Guardian generates most of its money trying desperately to be the opposite of the Daily Mail.

It's a shame as it used to be a very good paper but finance trumps good content. Baiting the right and left generates more clicks than actually doing your job. Unfortunate but it's driven by the consumer.

That doesn't dispute what I'm saying. People see that headline and think "wtf is wrong with the left." and then disregard other negative stories about trump.

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

If you agree with the author, just say so. Or if you think it helps the left, just say so. I think it helps the right.

It's an opinion piece. You can disagree with it without claiming that it "helps the right".

I mean, come on. What sort of a stupid basis for self-censorship would that be? "I'd better not express my opinions in case the right decide to get offended by it, which would in some ill-defined way 'help' them."

The whole "the right wing only exists because some idiots are left-leaning - if everyone had the sense to avoid all leftist thinking like the plague, the right wouldn't exist" is an incredibly shallow, self-serving and transparently silly argument.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's an opinion piece. You can disagree with it without claiming that it "helps the right".

I mean, come on. What sort of a stupid basis for self-censorship would that be? "I'd better not express my opinions in case the right decide to get offended by it, which would in some ill-defined way 'help' them."

The whole "the right wing only exists because some idiots are left-leaning - if everyone had the sense to avoid all leftist thinking like the plague, the right wouldn't exist" is an incredibly shallow, self-serving and transparently silly argument.

I said it would impact people in the middle, who don't love or hate Trump.

Anyways, it doesn't matter. We're all for defending women until it suits us. Carry on.

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

We're all for defending women until it suits us.

Yup. If we don't defend Gina Haspel to the hilt, we're all hypocrites.

Life must be very simple, when everything is black and white.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yup. If we don't defend Gina Haspel to the hilt, we're all hypocrites.

Life must be very simple, when everything is black and white.

Hah, the absolute cheek.

Most of you here are the definition of black and white, I hate the man and manage to hate the irrationality of his haters as well. That's a lot more gray than you'll ever manage.

Tell me what you think of that hit piece. I'm interested in your non black and white opinions.

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Hah, the absolute cheek.

Most of you here are the definition of black and white, I hate the man and manage to hate the irrationality of his haters as well. That's a lot more gray than you'll ever manage.

Tell me what you think of that hit piece. I'm interested in your non black and white opinions.

Sorry but you seem to search the internet for things to get outraged by this is another in a litany of the same.then try to claim some higher ground and point at this invisible 'left' as having all the control

Itssoeasy

So trump supporter Rosanne Barr has had her revival of her show cancelled after she went on a trumpian like twitter rant and called former obama administration member Valerie Jarrett "an ape." Maybe trump will give her a position in his administration as outreach director for racial tension.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Sorry but you seem to search the internet for things to get outraged by this is another in a litany of the same.then try to claim some higher ground and point at this invisible 'left' as having all the control

On my phone scrolling down the guardian, that story and pic take up around 75% of my screen. How could I not notice that headline under a nice picture.

Every single person on the guardian today saw it. After our referendum, it's just so incredibly out of place to attack a mother like that because of a photo, as if bad things have only been happening since 2017.

Yes, it was written to get a response, yet apparently I'm totally wrong in saying that it inspires the wrong one. Amongst folks like yourselves, attacking that woman is fine, clearly, since no one has said a bad word about it, but for regular voters, it is simply vile.

Pretty ironic that someone here would accuse me of looking for things to get outraged by considering the links that get posted regularly.

I am waiting for someone to point out the irrelevance of that woman and her tweet, similar to how to my link to an opinion piece was said to be irrelevant.

Christy42

Deleted User wrote: »

I am waiting for someone to point out the irrelevance of that woman and her tweet, similar to how to my link to an opinion piece was said to be irrelevant.

Which woman? What tweet am I meant to consider irrelevant?

Meh the article reads a lot in. I can see how someone would consider Ivanka hypocritical given the actions she seems to support on the border. If a dad was celebrating family online while supporting to policies that go out of their way to separate families I would expect a similar reaction.

Yeah the article is reading a bit too much into the Ivanka message which was simply for PR. However I see little reason to get that annoyed with it.

I can also see people's annoyance of the you are only driving people to the right bullcrap. We had the same in the marriage referendum and in the abortion one (I agreed with you but will vote against you just to spite you is a tired trope and no one believes voters are that horrifically petty to avoid doing what they feel is right to spite a campaigner. Similarly it always seems to be the left that is blamed for the president endorsed, supported, cheered and financed by the right).

everlast75

Atta boy Shep!!!! He must have F U money stored at this stage to enable him to say what he wants on TV Trump without fear of being fired...

https://twitter.com/LisPower1/status/1001551623938805763?s=19

Itssoeasy

Shep's contract with Fox must be Ironclad. It must have an anti Sean Hannity clause in it.

Itssoeasy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5k223U5SDY

Shep decided to take a shot at ABC and Rosanne.