Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

2 Scoops

Sorry I misread what you said about appealing to those who'd consider voting for Trump too, I read it as the opposite.

Edited my post, apologies.

dr.fuzzenstein

aloyisious wrote: »

Listening to CNN now. Stormy, according to the latest info, claims to have had unprotected vaginal sex with Don. Now that could cover a variety, putting it mildly, but the imagination boggles and that makes for great headlines.

/plugs ears with fingers
AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHLALALALALALALALAAAAAAAA I'M NOT LISTENING!!!!!

everlast75

https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/976305349417426944?s=19

Daniels lawyer got some airtime on fox news. That is, in of itself something, but the comments below on the Twitter post tell you all you need to know... such as

What happened ten years ago between two consenting adults is nobody else's business. Why are you trying to hurt Melania?

It was years ago - drop it!

It wasn't with a young aid in the White House - move on!

This is extortion!

This is all fuelled by the left!

Now - the one thing I did notice is that there were very few endorsements/likes of the supportive comments. Whether that's because few people think it's a non issue ie. didn't agree with those comments, or that few of his supporters watched the clip at all because they didn't want to hear the details, it's hard to know.

robinph

everlast75 wrote: »

Now - the one thing I did notice is that there were very few endorsements/likes of the supportive comments. Whether that's because few people think it's a non issue ie. didn't agree with those comments, or that few of his supporters watched the clip at all because they didn't want to hear the details, it's hard to know.

Are the Twitter bots able to click likes on the other bots posts?

ancapailldorcha

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

/plugs ears with fingers
AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHLALALALALALALALAAAAAAAA I'M NOT LISTENING!!!!!

This isn't remotely constructive. No more please.

Leroy42

Surely Cohen is the next one in Trumps circle that needs to go. By any stretch, he has not only failed in his self declared job as enforcer (he calls himself Ray Donovan) but it would appear that he has added fuel to the fire by his lack of ability to deal with this.

For it even to get this far means that damage has been done. When the lawyer is appearing on Fox then this is a real issue. That Avenatti guy comes across very well (this in itself of course has no bearing on whether his client is right or wrong) but it adds to the perception.


The fact that others are starting to come forward (and of course these may be nothing more than opportunists) signals another problem. Once that 'fear' has been removed, when people are no longer worried about the implications of telling a story, then the likelihood of it going away is vastly reduced.

This spells real trouble for Trump. Maybe not in terms of impeachment, the GOP and Trump supporters have endless double standards to fall back on, but in terms of how he is perceived. HC failed because she was so disliked, had no trust with the voters. This could lead to the same feeling on Trump.

I also find it very hypocritical that one of the messages on HC was that she enabled Bill by going after the women that accused him. Why are people not saying the same about Mellania? Why is she not demanding that these woman be heard, surely she should be out decrying the existence of NDA's.

everlast75

So in the phone call to Vlad, Trump did not mention the interference with the election, he did not mention the assassination.

He did however do the opposite of 3 words written in capital letters in his brief.

"DO NOT CONGRATULATE"

aloyisious

everlast75 wrote: »

So in the phone call to Vlad, Trump did not mention the interference with the election, he did not mention the assassination.

He did however do the opposite of 3 words written in capital letters in his brief.

"DO NOT CONGRATULATE"

It makes for what I've thought about Don. If you want him to follow your train of control, you've got to suggest the opposite to him as he like's to kick over the traces. He does not like being "instructed".

aloyisious

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/976305349417426944?s=19

Daniels lawyer got some airtime on fox news. That is, in of itself something, but the comments below on the Twitter post tell you all you need to know... such as

What happened ten years ago between two consenting adults is nobody else's business. Why are you trying to hurt Melania?

It was years ago - drop it!

It wasn't with a young aid in the White House - move on!

This is extortion!

This is all fuelled by the left!

Now - the one thing I did notice is that there were very few endorsements/likes of the supportive comments. Whether that's because few people think it's a non issue ie. didn't agree with those comments, or that few of his supporters watched the clip at all because they didn't want to hear the details, it's hard to know.

The responses probably come from the view: [well, she's a porn star and that has to include bedroom activities] so that count's against her opinion-wise, regardless of the legal contract formulae and the reported effect of DT not signing the contract to validate his part of it and make it a binding contract.

aloyisious

Peregrinus wrote: »

Trump was wholly unelectable, and yet he was elected. The Dems can't afford tro run just anybody as candidates; they have to run candidates who will have greater appeal than the candidate of a party associated with Donald Trump. The Democratic candidate needs to appeal not just to voters who would never vote for a Trump-associated candidate in a fit, but to voters who would consider doing so.

That's not a terribly high bar to have to cross, but it is a bar. So, you're quite right. The Democrats need to appeal to the centre, not the margins, and they need to positions themselves so that it looks like the Republicans, not the Democrats, who flirt with extremism. The Republicans are doing all they can on their side, but with the best will in the world they can only do half the job.

It seem's to me the question/poser for the DNC is how to get/make Bernie Sanders [or some-one who might fit into his shoes popularity-wise] more appetizing to the middle ground Dem voters. Some-one with a position on popular issues, not divisive self promo issues, who could draw in middle-ground GOP and other voters more upset by Don & his cronies in the GOP swamp he's creating in DC than they were by HRC.

There isn't much of an age gap between Bernie & the other 2 2016 candidates [4/5 years] DOB's early/mid 1940's.

Is there any-one from a multi-racial or ethnicity background who isn't from a finishing or Ivy league college set who'd energise the different ethnicity voter districts wanting to get some of the cake?

Professor Moriarty

aloyisious wrote: »

It seem's to me the question/poser for the DNC is how to get/make Bernie Sanders [or some-one who might fit into his shoes popularity-wise] more appetizing to the middle ground Dem voters. Some-one with a position on popular issues, not divisive self promo issues, who could draw in middle-ground GOP and other voters more upset by Don & his cronies in the GOP swamp he's creating in DC than they were by HRC.

There isn't much of an age gap between Bernie & the other 2 2016 candidates [4/5 years] DOB's early/mid 1940's.

Is there any-one from a multi-racial or ethnicity background who isn't from a finishing or Ivy league college set who'd energise the different ethnicity voter districts wanting to get some of the cake?

They need a Tony Blair. And lots of little Tony Blairs for the Senate and House seats.

Water John

Goodness me, they don't need a Tony Blair. Someone people can trust and engage with. Someone with the traits of Biden or Carter. Others can add to the list.
Blair was pseudo LB. Nobody wants psuedo anything.

Professor Moriarty

Water John wrote: »

Goodness me, they don't need a Tony Blair. Someone people can trust and engage with. Someone with the traits of Biden or Carter. Others can add to the list.
Blair was pseudo LB. Nobody wants psuedo anything.

Carter yes, Biden I don't thinks so. Blair got Labour into power though because he was so media friendly and charismatic by comparison to Major. Plus many of his policies were centrist and appealed to a lot of moderate voters on the left and right. If the Dems go too radical, a la Corbyn in the UK (though 'radical' in the US is very different), they risk handing victory to the GOP by default. The priority above all other considerations must be to get elected and that requires voter friendly and electable candidates.

aloyisious

I tried the net to see if there was a graph showing the level of people who changed TV channels whenever Don came on screen. The papers and other media sources, and what might be called the net media, have graphs showing the level of voter support for the various Pols but not ones showing how Don might be seen as not otherwise relevant or as a turn-off to the viewing public.

Has his behaviour been a turn-off for FoxNews for example.... Is it still singing his praises or have viewing levels dropped off for it?

If there is/are graphs monitoring Don and people's viewing levels, they might be a better indicator than what's published in media sources as they are seen as being on one side or the other, or defined as such by Don.

demfad

robinph wrote: »

Are the Twitter bots able to click likes on the other bots posts?

They can. For example you might see a twitter user with 3000 ish followers who follows 3000 ish. This might be a bot in a botnet of 3000 ish.
The bot can follow/retweet specific people, or tweets containing certain phrases etc.

This guy is the expert https://twitter.com/conspirator0?lang=en

Memnoch

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Carter yes, Biden I don't thinks so. Blair got Labour into power though because he was so media friendly and charismatic by comparison to Major. Plus many of his policies were centrist and appealed to a lot of moderate voters on the left and right. If the Dems go too radical, a la Corbyn in the UK (though 'radical' in the US is very different), they risk handing victory to the GOP by default. The priority above all other considerations must be to get elected and that requires voter friendly and electable candidates.

Blair wasn't media friendly(more like media owned). He simply prostituted himself to Rupert Murdoch. And I'm sure Murdoch collected 'Bigly' on their deal, time and time again throughout Tony's premiership. Just as Putin is collecting on Trump.

Professor Moriarty

Memnoch wrote: »

Blair wasn't media friendly(more like media owned). He simply prostituted himself to Rupert Murdoch. And I'm sure Murdoch collected 'Bigly' on their deal, time and time again throughout Tony's premiership. Just as Putin is collecting on Trump.

I'm not debating the pros and cons of Blair's suitability for office - that's a whole different discussion. My point is that he was very charismatic and media friendly especially in comparison to Major. Blair was extremely media friendly unless I'm misunderstanding the meaning of the term. The Dems need a similar media friendly and charismatic 'centrist' candidate/candidates.

aloyisious

Does anyone know if the media source titled the Washington Press is a genuine reputable news story source. I see from checking on the net that it's offices are in NJ, not the district or state bearing it's name. It's running a story I saw mentioned on F/B and searched for the paper on the net. I won't mention the story until I know if the Washington Press is a reasonably reliable source and not one likely to publish stories to raise the ire.

RobertKK

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2018/03/19/why-are-we-only-now-talking-about-facebook-and-elections/#52e551704838

People who go on about Trump, Cambridge Analytica and Facebook.
Obama was doing similar stuff...but it was viewed as being good at the time.

Carol Davidsen, former Director of Integration of Media Analytics for Obama for America put it last night in a series of tweets reflecting back on the 2012 campaign: “Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn’t stop us once they realized that was what we were doing. They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.” Yet, she caveated the campaign’s use of the data noting that the project “felt creepy” but that they “played by the rules.”

spacecoyote

RobertKK wrote: »

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2018/03/19/why-are-we-only-now-talking-about-facebook-and-elections/#52e551704838

People who go on about Trump, Cambridge Analytica and Facebook.
Obama was doing similar stuff...but it was viewed as being good at the time.

Has this not been addressed already by a number of people in this thread in the last 2 days. There appears to be a fundamental difference between the two.

The Obama campaign were upfront & told people they were doing the FB data collecting

CA/Trump campaign were not telling people they were taking their data. And when asked by FB to delete the data, they lied & said they had, but had actually kept it.

If you don't see a difference between those two practices, you're just showing your own bias

aloyisious

RobertKK wrote: »

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2018/03/19/why-are-we-only-now-talking-about-facebook-and-elections/#52e551704838

People who go on about Trump, Cambridge Analytica and Facebook.
Obama was doing similar stuff...but it was viewed as being good at the time.

An important point would be in who's interest the activity was carried out: a US citizen who is still described by some as a Non-US citizen or a different person of definite NON-US citizenship filling the president's seat in another country. Plus whether the intent and purpose the activity was carried out for was malign or amicable to the interests of the US.

Professor Moriarty

RobertKK wrote: »

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2018/03/19/why-are-we-only-now-talking-about-facebook-and-elections/#52e551704838

People who go on about Trump, Cambridge Analytica and Facebook.
Obama was doing similar stuff...but it was viewed as being good at the time.

From your own quote: "...they played by the rules.". That's the crucial difference.

mcmoustache

RobertKK wrote: »

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2018/03/19/why-are-we-only-now-talking-about-facebook-and-elections/#52e551704838

People who go on about Trump, Cambridge Analytica and Facebook.
Obama was doing similar stuff...but it was viewed as being good at the time.

You should really get your talking points out before they've debunked. Surely you know how it looks when you do it after.

Leroy42

But even if they didn't so what? People were not aware of the implications at the time, failed to see the issues?

In much the same way cigarettes are viewed far different now than when they first came in. Just because Obama 'got away with it' (which seems to be the implication) doesn't mean that we need to accept it.

FB, data mining etc, were new and not understood by many at the time. In much the same way that, I believe, people will look back on peoples reliance and use of the likes of FB in years to come and wonder what the hell people were thinking.

So forget about Obama, what should we be doing now to stop this

Water John

Obama simply got people who supported him to log in. This helped them link you to other Obama supports in your neighbourhood. You could go canvassing together etc. They could organise a bus to collect the supporters in an area, to canvass in another area.
They could ring you and ask you to approach your friends to vote Obama. They could use the FB list to ask for another round of funding.
That's straight up stuff. Totally diff from what CA did and how they got the list in the first place.

This is all, look over there, from DT supporters, no matter what he has done and what has been done, in his name.

Igotadose

aloyisious wrote: »

Does anyone know if the media source titled the Washington Press is a genuine reputable news story source. I see from checking on the net that it's offices are in NJ, not the district or state bearing it's name. It's running a story I saw mentioned on F/B and searched for the paper on the net. I won't mention the story until I know if the Washington Press is a reasonably reliable source and not one likely to publish stories to raise the ire.

Something called 'media bias fact check' marked them as middling. Seems like it's a really small outfit with a catchy name (there are some right-wing sites like it, the washingtontimes and others, all piggy backing on WaPO). A quick look at some of their headlines seem to show a left-wing bias. Looks like a couple uni grads doing some minimal journalism for clicks. I'd skip 'em personally, don't seem to have the resources to do a lot of fact-checking/cross-referencing.

Catchy name though.

weisses

Even at FOX news some people cannot deal with the way they present news in regards to Trump etc

Ralph Peters had enough

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomnamako/ralph-peters?utm_term=.ytwYzNV4R#.xfp1xWo56

Last words in the e-mail

So, to all of you: Thanks, and, as our president's favorite world leader would say, "Das vidanya."

Skedaddle

weisses wrote: »

Even at FOX news some people cannot deal with the way they present news in regards to Trump etc

Ralph Peters had enough

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomnamako/ralph-peters?utm_term=.ytwYzNV4R#.xfp1xWo56

Last words in the e-mail

He only noticed this now?!
Fox News has been pushing the fear buttons for well over a decade. Trump is just the crescendo of all of this stuff.

BabyCheeses

RobertKK wrote: »

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2018/03/19/why-are-we-only-now-talking-about-facebook-and-elections/#52e551704838

People who go on about Trump, Cambridge Analytica and Facebook.
Obama was doing similar stuff...but it was viewed as being good at the time.

Yet again, for those in the back

once permission was granted

You don't even understand the problem with Facebook and CA, how do you know it was the same as what Obama did? Consent, consent, consent, consent. Once again CONSENT.

Consent - noun. permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.

verb. give permission for something to happen.

The word of the day is consent. People did not consent for their data to be used in one case but did in the other. If I didnt have to do lots of paperwork over this kind of stuff I wouldn't.

Professor Moriarty

weisses wrote: »

Even at FOX news some people cannot deal with the way they present news in regards to Trump etc

Ralph Peters had enough

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomnamako/ralph-peters?utm_term=.ytwYzNV4R#.xfp1xWo56

Last words in the e-mail

He's obviously not a Russian spy himself. It's 'Do svidaniya'.