segnosaur

First of all, keep in mind that its not just those on the political left that are worried about Trump. Many moderates and even some that are on the political right also have concerns about him. Secondly, keep in mind that most of the 'fears' over what Trump will do are based on his actual statements, election promises and actions. We worry that there will be a mutually destructive trade war because Trump said he was going to end trade agreements. We worry that the deficit will be greatly increased because Trump has promised both tax cuts and spending increases. We worry that civil rights and abortion rights will be rolled back, because that's exactly what Trump promised to do in the election. We worry about an increase in racism in the country because Trump himself is a bigot (as illustrated by his words and actions) and has surrounded himself with a collection of racists. Its hardly fear-mongering if its based on something a person actually promises to do.

Yup, pro-trump supporters like to point to "the polls" as somehow Trump is wildly popular and the mainstream media is wrong. The fact is, on average the polls immediately before the election had Hilary up by ~3%. On election day, Hillary ended up winning the popular vote by ~2%. So, the polls here were within 1% of the final result, well within the margin of error. Pretty darn good if you ask me.

Ok, let me get this straight... Roger Stone, a guy who likes to appear on Infowars (a site pushing all sorts of bogus conspiracy theories like 9/11 being an inside job) claims he was poisoned (even though he has provided no evidence from reputable medical sources) by something "like" Pollonium (even though if he were really tested for poisoning they'd probably know what it was), in some sort of attempt to keep him from revealing something important (which, if he actually did have something important to say, would have had plenty of time from when he got sick until he might have 'died' to reveal the evidence), by assassins so incompetent they couldn't finish the job properly. And all this just happened right before he released a new book (which would probably sell more copies if the author was somehow in moral danger). And you actually consider all that credible?

But at least they'll have the wonderful health care system proposed by Trump and the Republicans. You know, the one they can't be bothered to tell us about because it really does exist and is just so great.

The term "derangement syndrome" is used when a leader is tied to all sorts of things with little or no evidence. When people are referring to Trump's flaws, we are basing our opinion on things he actually has said and done. (Or, in the case of Obamacare, what he hasn't said.)

Why? What have the republicans and/or Trump done to earn the patience of American voters? And just how long should we give them? A month? A year? At what point would you be willing to concede that Trump and the republicans can't do what they promised? Trump went through an entire election campaign (primaries and the election itself) claiming he had big plans. Why isn't he giving us those plans now?

I am not sure if that was directed at me or not. But in my defense, the main purpose of my post was not to discuss the credibility of any individual source; my point was to point out the rather disturbing trend among Trump and his supporters to both be more accepting of racists, and/or to minimize how detestable racism should be. The fact that some of the sources used by the poster in question were neo-nazi was just evidence to make a point. (I could have also pointed to things like the use of Confederate flags at Trump rallies.)

Health care is expensive, but it has always been expensive, even before Obamacare. Obama inherited a fiscal mess, with the banking collapse. rising unemployment and a deficit (due in part to Bush-era tax cuts and spending like TARP.) Under Obama, unemployment levels have returned to pre-2008 levels, and the deficit has been greatly reduced. (Obama may not be the sole reason for the turn-around; after all, the economy was likely going to rebound anyways, but he's still the one in charge, and there isn't that much "fiscal mess" to clean up.) Possible, but unlikely. If it were so easy to come up with a replacement, why haven't they? Trump keeps making boastful claims about how everyone will be covered/costs will be cheaper/etc., but we haven't seen any details about how he will actually accomplish that. And while there are a couple of proposals being floated around by the Republicans, many of them are flawed (don't cover everyone, etc.) All the republicans seem to have done is to say "repeal"; they've brought very little of value to the table. They can't even agree whether they want to repeal and replace simultaneously or repeal now and replace it in the future. The medical system is a minefield. People want it all.. cheap, full coverage for everyone, flexible, efficient. Many of these goals are contradictory (e.g. if you offer full coverage for everyone, some will see their costs go up).

The facts point to Trump being quite incompetent. Multiple bankruptcies, his financial "success" mostly due to his father, and while he did win the election, he benefited from Russia and Comey.. (and still lost the popular vote). And rather than try to build any sort of bridges, he has engaged in petty twitter attacks, appointed people to his cabinet with significant conflicts of interests, and has made proposals that are expected to drive up the debt. No, not dubious at all. Perhaps to a hard-core Trump supporter, but to reasonable, rational people (even including some wiithin the Republican party) its certainly not dubious. You're right.. .the media did drop the ball. But not in the way you think. Trump lied constantly. The media should have been hammering him at every opportunity. Every question of Trump should have been along the lines of "You claim you were against the Iraq war but we have you on tape saying you support it. How can you justify your were against it from the start?" or "You claim that that a general used bullets dipped in pigs blood to stop terrorism. Evidence shows that is wrong. How do you justify making that false claim?" Instead, they let him get away with so much. Instead of pointing out Trump's lies and flaws, they kept coming back to Hillary's problems (which, although she wasn't perfect, she had far fewer flaws than Trump.) Thank you for demonstrating how Trump supporters don't actually understand facts. The truth is, the polls were not totally out of wack. The last set of polls before the election had Hillary winning by ~3%. On election day, she actually won the popular vote by ~2%. So polls were only out by 1%, well within the margin of error. (Trump won the electoral college, but many of the states were won with very thin margins.) The fact that Trump supporters keep pointing to "the incorrect polls" shows that they don't actually have the ability to actually think rationally. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/05/which-was-the-most-accurate-national-poll-in-the-2016-presidential-election/?utm_term=.c935c411db3a

I believe you have the cart before the horse. Your sources for the most part are silly blog sites, and have no real spotlight on them.Completely spin doctors. Actually, some of the sites he has listed are not just "silly blog sites"... some of them are actually spout racist neo-nazi idology. Let that sink in for a minute...perhaps one of the most vocal Trump supporters here reads neo-nazi material, and not just in a curiosity "what are they doing" sort of way... he actually considers them a valid source of information. I think that says huge things about Trump's political movement right there, first of all that someone supporting neo-nazis would find Trump such a compelling figure deserving of support, and secondly, that other Trump supporters here would look at someone like him and rather than condemn him as someone to be shunned or marginalized, actually embrace him. (In fact, bushcheney actually praised him in another thread.

Some of us have significant doubts whether you actually do understand. Perhaps if Lewis had done somethign worthy of criticism... kicked a puppy, stolen a baby's candy. But so far, all he's done is suggest that perhaps if a leader gets elected through the influence of an outside country, then that leader may not have a mandate. I don't exactly think that's a far-fetched attitude. Running for office - And winning, by 1) benefiting from a fractured Republican primary, 2) benefitting from the influence of Russia and Comey, not to mention years of republican attacks on the Clintons, 3) by running an extremely nasty campaign, full of lies and contradictory promises that managed to fool enough people into voting for him. (It would be like a con man thinking he deserves respect because he bilked many people; most people would not consider that something to respect, regardless of how good he was at it.) And despite all that, Trump still lost the popular vote. Trump is like the Forest Gump of politics... not really competent, but manages to find success not through ability or intelligence, but by dumb luck. Its only worthy of respect that he's doing the job without pay if he's not receiving any side benefits that exceed what his compensation would have been. Since he claims the president is immune from having conflicts of interest, that is questionable.

Maybe he means the type of tolerance that Trump showed Obama when he was elected president... you know, the whole 'Birther' nonsense, and his calls for widespread protests.

Now that's not fair. Trump has created many jobs in the United states... His repeated lawsuits and bankruptcies have certainly helped employ many in the legal business. And even now, people are actually getting paid to fill seats at his inauguration! http://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/16/donald-trump-reduced-paying-seat-fillers-inauguration.html

Well, he did inherit millions of dollars from his father. Isn't that worthy of respect? And in the long run he may just end up reuniting Americans. Of course, it will probably be a case of uniting Americans against him, after his failed policies cause all sorts of problems with the economy and foreign policy. (He will unite those who hated him during the election with the ones who supported him but found out all his promises were broken.) ETA: And its already happening. From: http://www.npr.org/2017/01/17/510256862/trump-polls-tweet-favorability-popular a new ABC News-Washington Post poll shows, with only 40 percent of Americans currently viewing Donald Trump favorably and 54 percent unfavorably. That's the lowest favorability for any incoming president since at least Jimmy Carter... A new CNN/ORC poll bolsters this finding, showing Trump with 44 percent favorability (along with 53 percent unfavorability). (A Pew poll from last month had him at an even lower 37 percent.) ... The tweeting itself hasn't endeared Trump to many Americans. A recent Quinnipiac poll found that almost two-thirds of American voters believed that "Trump should close his personal Twitter account."

First of all, if Trump truly did gain power in part through the actions of a foreign government, then it is far from "un-American" to deligitimize trump... in fact, the patriotic thing to do would be to actually point out the fact that he was put in place through outside interference. Secondly, I think you don't quite know what the word "Hypocrite" means. Trump was the one who was calling for widespread protests after Obama's victory. And now Trump wants everyone to unite? That is pretty much the dictionary definition of hypocrite. If there was evidence Obama got into power through the influence of North Korea or Iran, and Lewis said "we must unite around Obama" then that would be hypocritical. But that's not what happened. Why, because you don't know enough about christianity to respond? And neither do you. But we know that Lewis was willing to risk his life in order to fight for civil rights. And we know that Trump made racial slurs and tried to avoid having black people live in his buildings. Those are both proven facts. Given the fact that I've pointed out facts that show Lewis is an honorable person, and Trump is a racist scuz-bag, and you have done nothing to provide any information to suggest Trump is an honorable individual, I'd say you pretty much lost this argument. Yes it would be tarnished, if he actually did stupid things. The problem is, what Lewis did may not have been stupid at all.

Yes indeed, Lincoln was a republican, and at one point it was the republicans who were the ones who pushed for greater equality while the democrats were the ones who wanted to maintain slavery. But, somewhere in the mid-20th century that all changed. Eventually, it ended up being the Democrats who were the ones pushing for civil rights, and it was the republicans who were quite content to see minorities treated as second class citizens. (Ok, perhaps not all republicans feel that way, but the republicans are the ones who have attempted to disenfranchise minority voters with things like voter ID laws. And Trump was pushing for more use of Stop and Frisk, a policy that tends to target minorities.)

And Trump couldn't even stick to the issue at hand. Ok, Lewis pointed out that Trump's victory was tainted by Russian influence. (Not exactly a unique argument.) There are many ways Trump could have dealt with that... he could have taken the high road and suggested "I think the American people are smarter than to be fooled by Russian influence". Puts Lewis and Trump's other critics on the defensive. Or he could have turned the other cheek and said something like "Sorry Lewis feels that way. He's done great things. Hopefully I'll eventually earn his trust". Shows willingness to mend fences with others. Instead, what do we get? A petty attack on Lewis about how his district is "falling apart" (which may not necessarily be correct... its average income is pretty close to the national average, and its crime rate has been falling over the past few years, just like in the rest of the country.) And not only does it highlight Trump's petty, vindictive nature, it also illustrates how hypocritical he is, considering Trump was willing to label past elections as 'flawed' when they went against the Republicans. Ignorant, petty and hypocritical... A Trump hat trick.

Ok, latest Trumpism.... Now he wants to come up a new arms deal with Russia to limit nuclear weapons, in exchange for lifting sanctions. Al right, lets take a look at what's wrong with that particular proposal, shall we? - Trump said he wants to limit arms, but it was only a short time ago that he wanted to increase American nuclear capability. Someone should explain to him that such rapid shifts in policy can be detrimental to American foreign policy - So he wants to limit nuclear weapons... why exactly should he offer the lifting of sanctions as part of that? The sanctions were implemented in response to Russia's actions against Crimea and Ukraine... they had nothing to do with Russia's nuclear stockpile. And limiting the number of nuclear weapons should be reward enough by itself. I think its pretty clear what's happening here... Trump is Putin's patsy. He wants to do something nice for his Master, so he makes up a fake excuse (negotiating a nuclear treaty) in order to justify the lifting of sanctions. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-arms-deal-idUSKBN14Z0YE http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-nuclear-arms-race-russia-232944

Answer: More than Trump did. Lewis and the rest of the civil rights protesters at Selma engaged in a march knowing full well that they were risking significant injury. And they did so not for some guaranteed financial windfall, but because they felt that all Americans should be treated equally under the law and were willing to risk their lives to try to make that happen (something that was not guaranteed). Risking your life in the pursuit of a noble cause is something that should be celebrated. Meanwhile, while Lewis was risking his life over the basic principle that discrimination is bad, the Trump family was actively working to prevent black people from inhabiting their buildings. And today, Trump continues that proud legacy by selecting Jeff Sessions, a man who actually said that he thought the KKK was OK (until he learned that they smoked pot.) Hmmm... I wonder if jebus actually existed, which of the 2 he would side with... a man who thought "all men should be treated equally" or the man who thought "I don't want black people around".

Darnit, you just spoiled the joke. Next thing you'll telling people is that there is no Santa Clause.

But, but... Trump sacrificed so much in order to help America! Much more than fake war heroes like McCain and the Kahn family. He said so himself when he talked about how hard he worked to become rich! And don't forget, Trump also has a purple heart! You don't get one of those unless you're a real hero. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-purple-heart-226565

First of all, I'm not sure why you think OPEC would actually listen to what Trump says. Not like he has much to offer countries like Saudi Arabia or Venezuela. And while his secretary of state was an ex-oil executive, I doubt that will carry much weight (espeicially considering he was more interested in Russia, a country that is a competitor in oil sales to Opec.) In fact, there's a good chance that the Trump presidency will see a rise in Oil prices, since he seems to be against the Iran deal (and re-establishing sanctions will cause a reduction in available Iranian oil, reducing global supply and driving up prices.)

First of all, Putin didn't accuse Clinton of interfering in the election. (At least not according to the article you posted.) He was complaining because Clinton suggested afterwards that the vote wasn't fair. So, you fail at basic reading comprehension. As for the election itself, from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_presidential_election,_2012#Claims_of_electoral_irregularities International observers from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) found that although all competitors had access to the media, Putin was given clear prominence. Strict candidate registration requirements also limited "genuine competition"....Allegations were made that Putin supporters had been driven around in coaches in order to vote for him in multiple constituencies (which is known as carousel voting). These practices were documented by video monitoring systems installed on most voting stations So the problem was not that the U.S. interfered in the Russian election, its that the Russian election was flawed, and Clinton pointed that out.

Yes, the man making those comments should definitely retire. Or get thrown in jail for being a dumbass. For once I agree... the person making those comments probably has brain damage.

No, ,not really. That seems to be the raison d'etre fo Fox News (at least when it comes to the main stream media). But thanks for playing. And even more unfortunate is the fact that people have to shout "racism" when a person is actually exhibiting bigoted behavior. Like claiming an American-born judge can't be impartial because of Mexican heritage. Not every accusation of racism is due to political correctness or an attempt to stifle debate. Sometimes its due to actual racism. 2 major problems with your argument: First of all, the problem is that those who are getting the rewards are not always the same people dealing with the risks. For example, in the financial meltdown of 2008, it wasn't the high-paid bankers that were suffering, Many of those who suffered were small-time people who may have lost their jobs because of the financial collapse (even though they didn't engage in any of the questionable banking practices). Or you also have the tax payers, many of whom had no money in the housing market, but ended up seeing their tax money going to clean up the financial mess (through TARP). Or when it comes to the environment, environmental disasters are not always paid for by the ones who cause the damage. Secondly, even if it were possible to guarantee that only those receiving rewards would be risking things, you also require the risk to be properly quantified. One of the major issues with the 2008 meltdown was the fact that Deriviatives did not have proper ratings from the credit agencies. In other words, people were under more risk than they were let on to believe. Regulations preventing people from being lied to seem like something we should have.