America under President Trump

[segnosaur]

13 minutes ago, blueblood said:

But generally all media has some kind of bias due to the fact a person with feelings and emotions are the editors who send out the message.  That's just human nature and all media outlets have that in common.

First of all,, prior to the rise of Fox news, I think it would be fair to say that while individual media outlets may have had biases, overall there was a pretty fair balance. Yes, some sources (e.g. many prominant satirists) were more often on the political left, while talk radio was skewed to the right. And generally newspapers were often split roughly down the middle, with rougly half of them endorsing Democrats and the other half endorsing Repulican candidates. 

Secondly, some people may think there is a world of difference between the type of bias exhibited by a source like (for example) CNN or the New York Times (media sources that may have biases in their editorials but stick close to facts with their news reporting) and sources like Fox news (or the even more extreme sites like Brietbart) that do more than just exhibit editorial preferences, but attempt to actually manufacture news for political effect.

I would say there is a march of progress on excessive political correctness that enough people either saw it as a threat (brexit) or had enough of it and wanted change (USA).

Some may say there is a line between opposition to political correctness and outright racism. Trump crossed that line. 

There are lots of things I disagree with trump on and things I agree with such as slashing taxes and cutting the excessive regulations.

And what regulations would those be? The environmental ones that help control pollution? The financial ones put in place to prevent another 2008-style financial melt down?

However I do enjoy watching the middle finger being given at the so-called establishment and leftists being twisted in knots over it.

Yes, because nothing says "good citizen" like a willingness to put an incompetent racist orangutan with proposals that might crash the economy (as well as having a huge number of potential scandals much bigger than any that might have occurred under the "establishment") , all in response to some perceived slights against you.

 

[blueblood]

4 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

First of all,, prior to the rise of Fox news, I think it would be fair to say that while individual media outlets may have had biases, overall there was a pretty fair balance. Yes, some sources (e.g. many prominant satirists) were more often on the political left, while talk radio was skewed to the right. And generally newspapers were often split roughly down the middle, with rougly half of them endorsing Democrats and the other half endorsing Repulican candidates. 

Secondly, some people may think there is a world of difference between the type of bias exhibited by a source like (for example) CNN or the New York Times (media sources that may have biases in their editorials but stick close to facts with their news reporting) and sources like Fox news (or the even more extreme sites like Brietbart) that do more than just exhibit editorial preferences, but attempt to actually manufacture news for political effect.

They all manufacture news now.  Fox News is basically an editorial on an endless loop and unfortunately CNN and MSNBC decided to play the game too.

4 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

 

 

Some may say there is a line between opposition to political correctness and outright racism. Trump crossed that line. 

Because trump doesn't want illegal immigrants coming in, especially criminals, along with making sure immigrants from war areas are properly vetted like our immigration policy?  

Unfortunately in this day and age people shout racism to stifle debate on solutions to problems which is a bad thing.

 

4 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

 

And what regulations would those be? The environmental ones that help control pollution? The financial ones put in place to prevent another 2008-style financial melt down?

Yeah those regulations, if they are at the point of stifling growth then they get tossed.  No risk no reward.

4 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

 

 

Yes, because nothing says "good citizen" like a willingness to put an incompetent racist orangutan with proposals that might crash the economy (as well as having a huge number of potential scandals much bigger than any that might have occurred under the "establishment") , all in response to some perceived slights against you.

Like I said it's a sad state of affairs when Americans have had enough to put someone like Donald trump running the show.  I was more of a Rubio or walker fan myself but a lot of Americans weren't.  

[segnosaur]

17 minutes ago, blueblood said:

That's one of the things that only those with much more power and influence than either of us will know for sure.  

Actually there are ways for people to know "for sure"... one of the Clinton donors (or executives of the foundation) could turn on the Clintons and say "I saw these exact favors being given in exchange for this donation". There could be emails uncovered between foundation executives that explicitly lay out "Donation received... Hillary will now do X". Yet we don't have any of that. 

There is a connect the dots out there and I wonder how much money will be put into the clinton foundation when the clintons are now essentially powerless

The Clinton foundation continued to function pretty well even after Hillary left the state department.

Now, eventually you'll probably see their work drop off, but that's probably because the Clintons are getting fairly old, and much of the Foundation's work was enhanced by their presence. As they get older, they won't be able to keep up the pace. 

But don't worry... who needs to save the lives of those with Malaria or prevent elephant poaching (like the Clinton foundation was doing) when you always have the Trump foundation to purchase portraits of Trump? The 2 of them sound like they're both doing good work!

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

It's quite plausible that money for favours was going on and people shouldnt let the anti-trump narrative bamboozle them.

Again, its a case of balance... even if the Clinton foundation was flawed, those flaws pale in comparison to Trump's foundation. If anyone based their vote in any way on "who ran the better charity", Clinton should have been the clear winner.

Except of course anyone who was bamboozled into thinking "Clinton foundation is bad!" while ignoring the Trump foundation.

 

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, kimmy said:

Ultimately, millions of people are going to lose their health insurance when Obamacare gets repealed, and the Republicans have no plan to replace it.  Some Republicans urge that the repeal of Obamacare be delayed until they have a plan to replace it, but the leaders like Paul Ryan want it done ASAP regardless of the effect on people's lives.

 

Their "lives" will be the same as they were before the ACA.   Far more millions of Americans were satisfied with their plans/provider networks.   Obamacare has purposely destroyed the market for individual insurance products and choices, replacing it with a patchwork of exchanges and subsidies that blew up in the Democrat's face at the worst possible time....the 2016 election.   Millions of people/families who were able to afford private policies before Obamacare could no longer pay the exploding premiums, even with the half-ass government offsets and red tape.

The government should have placed the uninsured on existing government healthcare insurance programs (Medicaid) instead of changing and damaging the existing market.  Health care and health care insurance are products for sale, not a constitutional right.   They are not even a right in Canada.

 

Quote

The biggest problem in healthcare in the US (and elsewhere) is extremely high costs, and nobody-- Republican or Democrat-- has a plan to reduce costs either.

 

The ACA did not lower the costs of healthcare in the U.S.....it only helped to reduce the rate of rising costs....minimally.

Edited January 14, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

12 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

....Now, eventually you'll probably see their work drop off, but that's probably because the Clintons are getting fairly old, and much of the Foundation's work was enhanced by their presence. As they get older, they won't be able to keep up the pace.

 

Actually, Clinton Inc. (aka Clinton Foundation) donations began to tank long before the election, as the media spotlight was focused more on just what they were up to and the pay for access excesses were exposed.   Clinton's campaign aides struggled with the impact that the donations and sources were having on her candidacy, damaging it badly for political purposes, regardless of any meaningful work that was being done.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/us/politics/bill-hillary-clinton-foundation-wikileaks.html?_r=0

[taxme]

57 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Actually, Clinton Inc. (aka Clinton Foundation) donations began to tank long before the election, as the media spotlight was focused more on just what they were up to and the pay for access excesses were exposed.   Clinton's campaign aides struggled with the impact that the donations and sources were having on her candidacy, damaging it badly for political purposes, regardless of any meaningful work that was being done.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/us/politics/bill-hillary-clinton-foundation-wikileaks.html?_r=0

I am just so amazed as to how the fight over the election is still going on, and how the losers will not accept their loss. Demonstrations here, demonstrations there, more demonstrations to come against Trump has really gone beyond bloody ridiculous. The liberal American stunned media, and the Canadian fake media also will just not give up on bashing Trump every hour of every day. I guess that the losers want to try and go out with a bang before it will be all over and Trump is President. Their last gasps are at hand. 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, taxme said:

I am just so amazed as to how the fight over the election is still going on, and how the losers will not accept their loss. Demonstrations here, demonstrations there, more demonstrations to come against Trump has really gone beyond bloody ridiculous. The liberal American stunned media, and the Canadian fake media also will just not give up on bashing Trump every hour of every day. I guess that the losers want to try and go out with a bang before it will be all over and Trump is President. Their last gasps are at hand. 

 

The shock and contentious rejection of President Trump will continue long after the inauguration, even by foreigners in other nations.   Not sure why it matters so much to some Canadians, but Trump should give them something to whine about if they are going to so much trouble to do so (e.g. marching in protest).

[-TSS-]

People are fed up with the same President after eight years. I don't think that even Reagan could have won a third term. However, Reagan was popular enough to have his endorsement getting elected under his wing. His endorsement failed to get re-elected on his own merit.

But that's the way the American system works; the illusion of change every eight years when as in the long term nothing changes.

Edited January 14, 2017 by -TSS-

[cybercoma]

.

Edited January 31, 2017 by cybercoma

[BubberMiley]

2 hours ago, blueblood said:

 

It's quite plausible that money for favours was going on and people shouldnt let the anti-trump narrative bamboozle them.

I was sure you felt that people shouldn't talk about such things unless the information is first sufficiently verified.

[blueblood]

5 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

I was sure you felt that people shouldn't talk about such things unless the information is first sufficiently verified.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/8270/6-peoplecountries-bought-favors-hillary-clinton-ben-shapiro

plausible as it's sourced

[Argus]

I think today pretty much exemplified Trump's childishness and lack of self-control. A Democratic congressman named John Lewis said in an interview that he doesn't regard Trump as a legitimate president because he thinks the Russians helped him. Most elected presidents - or presidents elect - would ignore that, since the office is supposed to have a certain level of elevated dignity, or at most, have one of their representatives say something. But Trump, of course, goes immediately for Twitter to call him names, and not just him, but to insult his whole district, calling it "horrible, falling apart, and crime infested".

It's almost certain Trump had no idea what district Lewis represented, but figured since he was Black it was probably some sort of dump. In reality, he represents most of Atlanta, including some of it's more upscale neighborhoods. But that's just the way Trump rolls, all blowhard bluster that's too lazy to engage in even the most elementary research. His description of George's 5th district pretty much shows that to anyone who cares to look. He's petty and immature, and lacks any sense of dignity.

Edited January 15, 2017 by Argus

[Topaz]

IF they had spent the billions or trillion of $$  going to war in the ME, they probably could have a better  healthcare system than other countries.

[kimmy]

25 minutes ago, Topaz said:

IF they had spent the billions or trillion of $$  going to war in the ME, they probably could have a better  healthcare system than other countries.

Are you new here?

A Republican sees unspent money, he doesn't think "hey, we could spend this to improve healthcare access."  He doesn't even think "we should start paying down the debt."  The only think he thinks is "tax cut!"

 -k

[cannuck]

5 hours ago, segnosaur said:

 

And what regulations would those be? The environmental ones that help control pollution? The financial ones put in place to prevent another 2008-style financial melt down?

 

 

Yes, because nothing says "good citizen" like a willingness to put an incompetent racist orangutan with proposals that might crash the economy (as well as having a huge number of potential scandals much bigger than any that might have occurred under the "establishment") , all in response to some perceived slights against you.

 

DUH!!!!   The economy is ALREADY in the toilet.  The only "recovery" and "regulatory reform" is to keep Wall Street fat and happy - all at the hands of a rather co-operative Uniparty and trillion$$ more of national debt.   Main Street elected that orangutang, simply because they were sick and tired of getting screwed by those inside of the Beltway.

[Cum Laude]

3 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

I was sure you felt that people shouldn't talk about such things unless the information is first sufficiently verified.

We are ingrained with the belief that the president should act “presidential”. That some career politician, or attorney, or partisan mafioso should be held, and maintain, deep respect. De facto legitimacy. The great thing about Trump, is that he destroyed that. We no longer MUST hold these criminals and clowns in high respect. When the president Tweets that the cow Meryl Streep is an overrated actress, we are met with pangs of embarrassment, followed by waves of joy… finally someone reverential… speaking the truth. Hilarious.

[?Impact]

The Sunday Times is reporting that Trump will meet Putin in Iceland in a few weeks. I guess high fives, hugs, and kisses all around are in order.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

The Sunday Times is reporting that Trump will meet Putin in Iceland in a few weeks. I guess high fives, hugs, and kisses all around are in order.

 

Good...he is following in Reagan's footsteps (met with General Secretary Gorbachev in Iceland).   

Sure beats wasting his time with Justin Trudeau in Ottawa.

[Cum Laude]

16 hours ago, segnosaur said:

First of all,, prior to the rise of Fox news, I think it would be fair to say that while individual media outlets may have had biases, overall there was a pretty fair balance. Yes, some sources (e.g. many prominant satirists) were more often on the political left, while talk radio was skewed to the right. And generally newspapers were often split roughly down the middle, with rougly half of them endorsing Democrats and the other half endorsing Repulican candidates. 

Secondly, some people may think there is a world of difference between the type of bias exhibited by a source like (for example) CNN or the New York Times (media sources that may have biases in their editorials but stick close to facts with their news reporting) and sources like Fox news (or the even more extreme sites like Brietbart) that do more than just exhibit editorial preferences, but attempt to actually manufacture news for political effect.

 

 

Some may say there is a line between opposition to political correctness and outright racism. Trump crossed that line. 

 

 

And what regulations would those be? The environmental ones that help control pollution? The financial ones put in place to prevent another 2008-style financial melt down?

 

 

Yes, because nothing says "good citizen" like a willingness to put an incompetent racist orangutan with proposals that might crash the economy (as well as having a huge number of potential scandals much bigger than any that might have occurred under the "establishment") , all in response to some perceived slights against you.

 

Now in the United States, clashing in a battle, several powerful oligarchic clans for control of Washington and an opportunity to build their own vision of the future of the country and the world. Trump and Hillary are just visible peaks of enormous icebergs. They only publicly personify the opposing forces remaining in the shadow of the mass media, news releases and political battles.

In fact, at the moment, Trump is trying to wrest control of the United States from the transnational oligarchic clans. Trump like a tank is going ahead through the dense ranks of the ruling US elite, regardless of party affiliation.

His goal is to save the United States, which are being used to the full depreciation in the interests of transnational oligarchy. Trump wants to stop the destructive processes in his own country.

Trump is not alone. Behind him are very influential people both within America and abroad. In addition he gets the maximum support of the US patriotic establishment (government officials, military personnel, intelligence and security officers) who dream to wrestle the US out of control transnational oligarchy.

So, in fact, what is happening in America, is a revolution. And not only in the US but also around the world. If Trump will be able to fully take power in the United States, the transnational oligarchy will lose the most important tool of their power and influence in the world. If this happens, all currently existing world order would collapse.

[cybercoma]

.

Edited January 31, 2017 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

.

Edited January 31, 2017 by cybercoma

[taxme]

21 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The shock and contentious rejection of President Trump will continue long after the inauguration, even by foreigners in other nations.   Not sure why it matters so much to some Canadians, but Trump should give them something to whine about if they are going to so much trouble to do so (e.g. marching in protest).

I guess one of their last hopes is getting this black civil rights movement Lewis guy to say that Trump is an illegitimate president. What is this Lewis talking about? Trump was elected fair and square period. I am really of the opinion that most of the liberal/democrats in America are suffering from some form of mental illness. What other conclusion can one come too? 

[taxme]

20 hours ago, cybercoma said:

No they weren't. Obama had higher approval than either candidate. They were more fed up with Trump and Clinton than they were Obama.

I don' know why Obama would have a higher approval rate than anyone else. He is now leaving office and their is more chaos in the Middle East now. Massive unemployment, and poverty. Thousands of murders every year. Some big legacy he is leaving behind for himself. The blacks are worse off today then before Obama came on the scene. 

[kimmy]

What's the big deal?  Obama's opponents spent 8 years doubting the legitimacy of his presidency.

I'm sure Mr Trump will receive every bit as much respect and cooperation from Democrats as Mr Obama received from Republicans.

 -k

[sharkman]

Sure, 8 years of "doubting the legitimacy of his presidency".  The disconnect with reality here is puzzling.