What Did President Trump Do Now?

Chula Vista · 01-06-2017, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

We have a lot of people living in isolated rural areas spread across the country who watch Fox news.

And swallow it whole.

**Goofle** · 01-06-2017, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

Yes the "Americans are stupid" meme is only partly true as I've already pointed out Trump lost the popular vote

We have a lot of people living in isolated rural areas spread across the country

I think Trump would have won the popular vote if that was the deciding factor at the outset.

**Frownland** · 01-06-2017, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

And swallow it whole.

Almost as bad as those Huffpost disciples.

Chula Vista · 01-06-2017, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goofle

I think Trump would have won the popular vote if that was the deciding factor at the outset.

Splain Luzee. As of today she beat him by nearly 3 million votes and a full 2 percentage points.

And there's this just released today:

Quote:

The US intelligence community concluded in a declassified report released Friday that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an "influence campaign" aimed at hurting Hillary Clinton and helping Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election.

The campaign -- which consisted of hacking Democratic groups and individuals, including Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, and releasing that information via third-party websites, including WikiLeaks -- amounted to what the intelligence report called "a significant escalation" in longtime Russian efforts to undermine "the US-led liberal democratic order."

The report was the first official, full and public accounting by the US intelligence community of its assessment of Russian cyberhacking activities during the 2016 campaign and the motivations behind that hacking.

"We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump," the report said.

Full report here:

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...ng-report.html

Tristan_Geoff · 01-06-2017, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

wanted to embed a tweet here

Just screencap it you lazy ****

Chula Vista · 01-06-2017, 10:54 PM

Neapolitan · 01-06-2017, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riseagainstrocks

Yay, political threads!

As a left-leaning centrist, Trump's election was shocking and disappointing. Personality flaws aside, I was bothered by his campaign's unwillingness to discuss issues or policy, outside of purposefully inflammatory anti-immigrant rhetoric and heavily distorted allegations against Hilary Clinton. There was a lot of "I will do" not "I will lead us to" or "I will work with" - I think he fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the job. Trumo voters effectively elected Mike Pence as president. I hope they knew that going in to the voting booth.

Trying to maintain a positive attitude on this whole thing, I think Trump's election will force discussion on many issues that have been deemed political third rails. Social Security and the retirement age, our relationships with other countries (Russia has been a political enemy, but not engaging out of "tradition" is just as stupid as not engaging with Cuba for 70 years), and First Amendment issues surrounding Speech, the Press, and Public Religion. Trump causes friction on all these issues. It forces all sides to sharpen arguments and work to convince the public. For instance, I'd like to see UK-style libel laws implemented here. Intentional falsehoods, disguised as fact are poison to a republic. How this would look or work or if it's even desirable, I don't know. But the 'fake news' issues that dogged this election will force some kind of reaction and, in the aggregate, I think that's a good thing.

We're not as stupid as our comedians and the world at large things we are. Just over 50% of eligible voters participated in the 2016 race. Apathy is not the same as stupidity. Trump's outrages will inspire greater political participation. As others have said in this thread, he's not a dictator, he's not a king, the Constitution has not been supplanted. This will likely be a test of our system, but the what became the Imperial Presidency began under a Progressive (FDR) and was expanded by Obama (somewhat due to congressional intransigence, but that's another story), so liberals have little moral high ground to protest against executive orders.

I do have to say to whoever put the 'milo <3' tag in this thread, you should really re-evaluate this sentiment. He hides behind the mantle of 'free speech' when he rants about feminism and Islam, but he's inciting hatred through misinformation, hyperbole, and what can only be called 'memeism'. The dumb-ing down of culture starts when guys like him.

People being weary of drug gang members or islamic terrorists entering the country is not "anti-immigrant" nor "anti-islamic." But that is how they are portrayed by the left-wing media as "anti-immigrant" and "anti-islamic."

What Trump said on the campaign trail is nothing that hasn't been brought up before within Conservative talk shows dynamic about real issues, real events. There is a whole backstory to them. Trump blurts fragments of those issues and gets picked up by the media twisted. And maybe he can be faulted for not articulating his position more clearly. But I am certain the media will demonize him on soundbites anyway.

Quote:

but he's inciting hatred through misinformation, hyperbole,

That goes both ways. If Trump said "beware of wolves in sheep's clothing" he would be accused of being "anti-sheep" by CNN.

Whoever tagged "milo <3" kudos to you for having a mind of your own, and for not being stuck in the far-left's "echo chamber."

Anteater · 01-06-2017, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

People being weary of drug gang members or islamic terrorists entering the country is not "anti-immigrant" nor "anti-islamic." But that is how they are portrayed by the left-wing media as "anti-immigrant" and "anti-islamic."

What Trump said on the campaign trail is nothing that hasn't been brought up before within Conservative talk shows dynamic about real issues, real events. There is a whole backstory to them. Trump blurts fragments of those issues and gets picked up by the media twisted. And maybe he can be faulted for not articulating his position more clearly. But I am certain the media will demonize him on soundbites anyway.

That goes both ways. If Trump said "beware of wolves in sheep's clothing" he would be accused of being "anti-sheep" by CNN.

Whoever tagged "milo <3" kudos to you for having a mind of your own, and for not being stuck in the far-left's "echo chamber."

Absolutely correct. The left don't seem to understand that despite the problems on the right, THEY are the ones who played into Trump's hands, fueled perceptions that got him elected, plus they won't take responsibility for the last eight years' underlying issues (the failure of the ACA, the fact most of the jobs Obama created are low end service jobs, the Obama administration's various foreign policy failures, etc.)

I'd like to hope that at some point the real liberals in the the U.S. will stand up and constructively try to better the country instead of writing stupid half-assed hit pieces in the Huffington Post that only contribute to the noise and uncertainty of the coming four years. We used to have media in the U.S. that provided balanced viewpoints and that analyzed events from multiple angles: now everything both online and offline is so blatantly biased / polarized and ratings hungry that you can't take any of it at face value.

djchameleon · 01-07-2017, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

We used to have media in the U.S. that provided balanced viewpoints and that analyzed events from multiple angles: now everything both online and offline is so blatantly biased / polarized and ratings hungry that you can't take any of it at face value.

When was this exactly? In the 50s? Please, I'm so tired of hearing about how the big bad media is twisting things. People are acting like this is a new thing and even when facts are presented in a balanced manner, if it says something negative that they don't agree with. The whines continue about the media.

**Frownland** · 01-07-2017, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon

When was this exactly? In the 50s? Please, I'm so tired of hearing about how the big bad media is twisting things. People are acting like this is a new thing and even when facts are presented in a balanced manner, if it says something negative that they don't agree with. The whines continue about the media.

You have to be incredibly naive to believe that journalism hasn't gone downhill when it began focusing on (1) entertainment and (2) internet grade timeliness (publishing doesn't have to wait until the morning anymore) as opposed to actual reporting. That's also not to mention that objective, sensible reporting does not garner as high of a click rate than National Enquirer rate ridiculous headlines.

Bias in the media has always been present, obviously. Actually, early American journalism was even more biased then today. However, it has become infinitely more prevalent and easier to spot (due to resources and such). It is true that people shout bias where there is one, but come on dude.

01-06-2017, 10:54 PM	#516 (permalink)
Chula Vista Toasted Poster Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: SoCal by way of Boston Posts: 11,332	__________________ “The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”