President Trump

Dude.

__________________
Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews
Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel

These articles are complete garbage.

Even the ****ing Washington Post with their snarky subtitle "Democracy Dies in Darkness" literally has an article called "Americans read headlines. And not much else."

Forget wimping out: the problem is that he thinks trade deficits are bad just because the word "deficit" is there. They're not bad, and any time someone implies they are, I instantly know they're repeating something they heard without understanding the concept.

I sort of get the impression that you fall into that category as well. Either that or perhaps you're the smartest one in the room. You tell me.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

And I imagine you get that impression because you've stereotyped the sort of behavior of people who disagree with you on this topic.

You still haven't answered my question: Do you think racism informs his policies?

Just moving this week old conversation from the "Missing Obama" thread to this thread, as it seems more appropriately placed here.

The president doesn't have to "try" things. He's elected to actually realize stuff. He has not been effective to that extent so far.
Remember that I was originally responding to your statement that "Trump has done more to deliver on his campaign promises in the first MONTH of being in office since and beyond the first Clinton."

Well, trying isn't delivering.

We're talking about his presidency so far here, because that's what the initial context was. His failures surely don't help his future plans on all these matters either, in my opinion.

Then you'd have a program in place that would be completely ineffective + still costs a lot of money to the taxpayers. I wouldn't call that a success and I bet the American electorate wouldn't either if they'd actually get confronted by the consequences. Trump is tackling this healthcare problem in a very unsophisticated manner so far. His replacement plan was a disaster to both principled Democrats and Republicans.

Well, he kind of made it seem like this was a pretty urgent project during his campaign. He's already said different things about the wall during his presidency compared to his campaign, by the way, and he hasn't done anything yet to reassure his voters that Mexico is going to pay for the wall instead of them.

This has nothing to do with his protectionist promises, though.

He kind of did say that, though.

“I am also going to convene my top generals and give them a simple instruction: They will have 30 days to submit to the Oval Office a plan for defeating ISIS.” - Trump in September

I'm willing to give him some more time, but literally nothing has been achieved in this area so far.

I see it from a different perspective. Trump has made extraordinarily unrealistic promises and it's becoming clearer and clearer that he probably won't be able to accomplish even half of them.
I also think it's a very fair interpretation to see his failings so far as a possible sign of Trump not being able to deliver on what he said during his campaign.

I don't care about the intentions of a president. I care about what he achieves.

Bush and Obama got more done in their first 100 days than Trump did so far (and probably will in a month) and it's not even close.
http://archives.politicususa.com/200...-100-days.html

You may not agree with what they did, but they were way more effective in delivering on their promises. Also, look at their approval ratings at the time. It's no wonder they were way more effective presidents. Trump can't use his popularity as a leverage. That's a huge problem.

Anyway, I hope you can simply agree with me that your original statement of Trump being the president who has delivered on the most campaign promises since Clinton during his first days in office, isn't truly backed by any demonstrable evidence so far.

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

*hands up, Googled it, don't get why it's a bad thing*

Just quoting myself here about this matter in order to nuance this bit, because it can come across as a bit intellectually dishonest.

Clearly, Trump's promise didn't say that he was going to defeat ISIS in 30 days, but so far he has only used words and empty executive orders.
I'm sure the resignation of Flynn has a lot to do with this issue being delayed, but it's again becoming quite clear that he won't make ISIS their "heads spin" as fast as he implied during his campaign. That's the only point I was intending to make here.

That is subject to what you define as "effective". Could also be that you are unaware of what he has realized. I happen to agree with a lot of the small decisions he's made.

I'd prefer he try and fail than never address the issues he raised again.

So no change. And no kidding, it's a tax burden. It was always gonna be a tax burden, whether Obamacare "worked" or not.

Then you probably aren't personally affected by it. Other people are.

The consequences of what? Obamacare? They already have, that's part of the reason Trump's in office.

I hardly expect otherwise.

You mean Paul Ryan's replacement plan.

I'm unconcerned. And if it happens that there never is a wall, then I'm similarly unconcerned. I don't think it's a good idea to begin with.

"policies which Trump is beginning to mitigate, which reduces the disincentive to outsource production"

I know. Which is why I acknowledged it.

...Trump has said a lot of stupid things. I'm not at all unaware of that.

Hello Obama.

You seem to be backpedaling. You're now saying "he might not be able to do X" after saying "he was unable to do X".

Sure, what you see now could suggest that everything else falls through. I'm open to that possibility, fact is I don't know, and I don't pretend to know, so I hope to the contrary. I'm not going to defend dumb decisions on a hope, but I'll certainly defend dumb decisions from hyperbole.

Patience, my young padawan.

Oh dear.

Good.

Terrible.

Fair comparison.

Die in hellfire.

Terrible.

Ehh...

Bureaucratic tinkering.

Should've banned them entirely.

That was a campaign promise was it?

"Reform". If passing a budget counts as an accomplishment for all that it'll allow you to do later, then I wouldn't be so quick.

I don't care how popular they were, Obama got elected mainly for being black and got re-elected for not making waves in his first term. Now we got Obamacare and that "CHANGE" promise seems pretty ironic in more ways than one.

You're giving a thumbs up to the presidencies of both Bush and Obama? What did Trump do to you and your family? Did he make you watch?

You don't even count making an effort so what am I supposed to say?

Bush starts No Child Left Behind, Obama starts the Affordable Care Act, both bombed the hell out of the Middle East, and I'm just supposed to agree that Trump is already worse than either of these guys? You kiddin' me?

So be it. As I said, it was no expectation of mine anyway. I disagree with your assessment of "empty executive orders", but regardless of either of our speculations, everything remains to be seen.

Effective as in "achieving what you promised". Only that.

Well, purely rationally, not even trying would cost less needless effort, as the result is the same, but I see what you mean..


If the only change he can offer is bad change, then I guess I'd rather ask for no change.

And more people will be affected by him replacing Obamacare with another bad (possibly worse) healthcare bill.


The consequences of a bad replacement of Obamacare, but you knew that.

A president can't just blame someone else for bad and rejected plans that are proposed in his name. That's not how it works. Ryan may have been the brain behind the plan, but the president was officially. He has to take responsibility and his supporters should also see it in that light. That's leadership.

I agree with you that his campaign promise isn't a good idea. We're discussing his effectiveness, though, so it was logical to bring it up.


That's not protectionism. Maybe you should first understand the concept before you talk about it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism


Good.

I always said: he was unable to do it so far. This whole conversation is in the context of you implying that his first month is one of the most effective ones we've seen in some time. Don't forget that. If you hadn't made that claim, we would probably not even have a discussion, because I was mostly agreeing with what you were saying about his presidency and his critics.

Sure, but just don't make the "one month"-claim then.


I'm not judging the value of any of these achievements. I was just saying that they got more things done in their first 100 days than Trump so far. Sure, you could claim that Trump has a better 100 days because he mostly doesn't get anything new done, but again, I was merely having a discussion with you about Trump's effectiveness as a president, according to the definition I gave above. That's all.

This may or may not be true, but part of the job of a president and a politician is to get high enough approval ratings in order to use that popularity to get things done in the way you want them to be done. Trump has been ineffective in that respect. That's all I've been saying.

What's this supposed to mean? I'm giving you nuance, but I expect the same treatment from you.
I've never given them a thumbs up. I was merely stating that they got more things done during their first 100 days than Trump. Again, that's all.

I don't think signing a few executive orders, of which some get overruled, and allowing your Speaker of the House to design an awful plan that nobody wants, counts as a legitimate effort. He's the freaking president of the United States. He's in a position to do so much more.

That's not at all what I said and you know it. I'm only interested in holding legitimate discussions where the other's words aren't twisted around just to make them fit your argument. This kind of accusations is in the same league as some of the ridiculous anti-Trump accusations that you (and I at times) seem to dislike so much. Keep it intellectually honest, please.

I take "effective" to mean a substantial net positive.

The only change I specified was a repeal of the federal mandate. If you think that's a bad change, then you and I fundamentally disagree.

You cannot affect more people than all people, which is what the federal mandate did.

Proposed in his name or proposed during his presidency? Yoda keeps mentioning the whole "dealmaker" approach, have you not considered that they may have pulled the bill after waiting for Ryan to predictably lowball them? If your first proposal is very disagreeable then it's easier to squeeze in the actual disagreeable caveats you want into the follow-up proposal.

I didn't suggest it was, I only suggested it relates.

That was not my impression.

Provided "effective" here means "keeps promises", is restricted to the biggest bullet points, and disregards policies that have been rolled back or are openly contested, then yeah, you're right.

Granted, even by that standard, Bush and Obama can't even maintain claim to No Child Left Behind and the Affordable Care Act since the first has been replaced and the other is due for replacement, both on the claim that neither works.

That may or may not be true too. I'll not disregard it.

Perhaps I misunderstood your phrasing.

Pardon.

Frankly, I ought not conceal that I'm much more familiar with this campaign than the previous ones, so it's somewhat unfair of me to say what I did. That said, I find it difficult to agree with your specific counterarguments, I think some of them are couched in an unrealistic standard of expectation (for example; it hardly seems fair to write off everything he's specified to tighten the border because aspects of it were contested and rebuffed). Regardless, I've no attachment to my original claim so I will drop it.

Rachel Maddow round 2.

The Left says Trump won't win the election. They ensure he does.

The Left says Trump doesn't pay his taxes. They reveal he pays out the butt.

The Left says Trump's lying about surveillance. Then say he was under surveillance.


Shooting oneself in the face is an insufficient simile to describe this level of political suicide. This is like when Ren & Stimpy try to escape reality by imploding.

Perhaps. But as you have no idea who I am or what my stance even is, let's agree you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm not answering your question because it makes no sense. I'm not going to be the one that pretends that he even A. Has policies and B. Is informed about anything.

We've been fortunate so far--between all these legal roadblocks being thrown from every which direction at him (thank God for those checks and balances) and his utter ineptitude, the Fat Man hasn't accomplished much.


All the roadblocks are indicative of a man who obviously doesn't review and/or understand the bills he's signing and shows an inherent lack of knowledge of such matters. The man seems removed from reality and seems dead set on simply undoing everything Obama implemented regardless of whether or not it even makes any sense. The man can't even string entire sentences together half the time, so how can we expect him to accomplish much of anything else?


The man throws tantrums on Twitter like the spoiled, petulant little rich boy that he is, bullies people left and right and makes outrageous allegations with ZERO proof to back any of it.


Bush and Obama were both clowns yet neither one annoyed me even a quarter as much as Trump does. Trump has conducted himself as president in the same manner as he conducted himself during his campaign run: loud, annoying, confrontational and spewing loads of hot air. Other than that, the Fat Man hasn't accomplished much.


I still stand in awe of the fact that Donald Trump is actually our president. It's been months now and I'm still in awe of it...

Trump definitely seems like an empty slate of nothing so far, that's for sure. Three months in and what has he accomplished? One of the main campaign promises of his (the travel ban) was a failure to launch TWICE, his ""wall"" is in limbo as Mexico (rightfully) told Trump to "shove it" when Trump demanded they pay for it, his approval rating is an historical low for being so recent in the office, hate crimes on the rise, healthcare fumbled, his tax break "promises" are slowly being revealed to be the BS that they were....and people sit around saying: "Go Trump! He's already accomplished more than Obama did in 8 years!" WHAT has he accomplished exactly? None of his supporters seem to mention WHAT he's accomplished.

It was chilling when his supporters wouldnt even state why they were supporting him during the election. It was fear on their part from being exposed to following the bright shiny object in what is usually a dull political landscape.

Now? Now we just suck. Yes I say "we" because we are all countrymen and have to treat this as such, or we will be as oblivious as him.

CNN Had a Problem. Donald Trump Solved It.


Jeff Zucker

At 3:58 on a recent Wednesday afternoon in Washington, CNN’s largest control room was mostly empty but for a handful of producers hunched over control panels and, hovering behind them, a short, barrel-shaped, restless-looking man in a dark pinstriped suit and open white dress shirt: the president of CNN Worldwide, Jeff Zucker.

Zucker had spent most of the day holed up in a conference room, prepping two anchors who would be moderating a CNN Town Hall on Obamacare that night. Right now, though, his mind was elsewhere. It was two minutes until airtime for “The Lead With Jake Tapper,” and Tapper’s featured guest was the President Trump counselor and noted CNN adversary Kellyanne Conway.

Conway’s last interview on CNN, about a month earlier, had generated fireworks; she and Anderson Cooper spent nearly 25 minutes arguing about CNN’s report on the secret dossier of Trump’s ties to Russia. (Conway: “I know CNN is feeling the heat today, but I’m gracious enough to come —” Cooper: “I think you guys are feeling the heat.”) The tension between Conway and the network had since become a kind of B story in the larger narrative of Trump’s ongoing war with CNN, which the president had taken to characterizing as “fake news.” In response to calls for media outlets to boycott her, Conway told The Hollywood Reporter that she could “put my shoes and pantyhose back on and go on any show at any time.” And yet, when the White House offered Conway for Tapper’s Sunday morning talk show, CNN declined, questioning her credibility.

But that was a few days ago.

“She looks shiny to me,” one of the producers said as Conway’s face appeared on a feed from the South Lawn of the White House. “Do they have powder out there?”

“Don’t worry about it,” Zucker assured him. “She looks fine.”

The monitor next to Conway’s featured a close shot of Tapper, starting his show in the studio down the hall. His opening line, a lightly self-deprecating reference to Trump’s latest howler — “President Trump says the media doesn’t report terrorist attacks. Wait, I thought he watched a lot of cable news?” — brought a smile to Zucker’s face. He was soon chuckling and then laughing out loud as Tapper unspooled a few more one-liners before introducing the main event: “Joining me now live from the White House, counselor to the president, Kellyanne Conway.”

Zucker, now 51, became the executive producer of NBC’s “Today” show at the almost unheard-of age of 26 and eventually took over the entire network. Along the way, he survived two bouts of colon cancer and Bell’s palsy, was blamed for killing quality television and has been accused of enabling the rise of Donald Trump. But he still loves TV. And he especially loves the adrenaline rush of producing live television. It’s a job that demands a unique kind of situational awareness: You are guiding the unscripted scene unfolding on the bank of monitors in front of you, shaping the event in real time to maximize the emotional impact of the moment.

“Stay on your doubles!” Zucker said to the director. “Stay, stay.”

Tapper had just shown a montage of various CNN correspondents covering a number of the very terrorist attacks that Trump claimed the media hadn’t reported and had asked Conway to explain the contradiction. Zucker didn’t want the director to abandon the split screen and zoom in on Conway — and thus miss Tapper’s facial expressions as she tried to respond. While Conway spoke, CNN trolled the Trump administration with a chyron: “CNN EXTENSIVELY COVERED MANY ATTACKS ON WH LIST.”

As Tapper cross-examined Conway — “the White House is waging war on people who are providing information” — Zucker paced behind the show’s production team like a coach on the sidelines, his hands alternately stuffed into his pockets, pressed up against the sides of his bald head, then squeezing the shoulder of one of the producers seated in front of him.

CNN’s Washington bureau chief, Sam Feist, told Zucker that the interview had been going for six minutes, the length they agreed to with the White House.

“Fine,” Zucker said. “Go 12.”

The director was again preparing to cut away from Tapper to focus on Conway, this time as she explained that the administration had “a very high respect for the truth.”

“Hey, doubles!” Zucker said. “Doubles.”

Zucker prodded a producer to pass along a question to Tapper through his earpiece: “Have you guys ever made any mistakes?”

Tapper obliged, with a slight rephrase: “Have you or President Trump ever said anything incorrect?”

Feist, meanwhile, was staring at his phone, looking agitated. He was receiving unhappy texts from a CNN producer at the White House.

“The White House wants her to stop,” he said.

“She wants to talk,” Zucker answered. “Let him finish.”

CNN’s communications director, Lauren Partrapas, who happened to be in the control room, had an idea. She fed it to Zucker, who instantly repeated it to the producer: “Does she consider us fake news?”

“Are we fake news, Kellyanne?” Tapper asked seconds later. “Is CNN fake news?”

“I don’t think CNN is fake news,” Conway replied.

A new chyron soon appeared on-screen: “CONWAY: I DON’T THINK CNN IS FAKE NEWS.”

More below...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compa...jqF?li=BBnb7Kz

No. That impression of me came from somewhere and as I've given no evidence of it, your assumption is probably founded in the same false dichotomy everyone else crying racist is stuck in: "everyone right of me must be guilty of the same".

Instead of trying to deflect, I suggest you take my criticism under advisement.