Jump to content
gottaplan

The Trump Presidency

Recommended Posts

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2016/11/22/exclusive-interview-how-jared-kushner-won-trump-the-white-house/#5113989c2f50

 

This Forbes article is a bit disturbing. We should all be upset that somebody can be so rich as to be able to buy a $1.8 billion office building at age 26, take a huge bath on it during the crash none of the supposedly super-smart people foresaw, and come out the other end still getting to be a rich a-hole.  Most people who make a business (or just grad school) mistake at age 26 see their lives completely thrown off-track. 

 

It's like, the guy who owns the 24-unit apartment building across the street from my house got it for $700k back during the recession.  He was like 27 when his dad or uncle fronted the money for him to get that thing that basically sets him up for life getting 20% returns on money that wasn't even his.  But there are obviously levels so much higher than that, and they get to make big mistakes so many times that when something they worked on works out, suddenly they're a genius. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bannon, btw, is essentially the Chief of Staff, I don't care what they call him.  His duties are more comparable to Chief of Staff than anything else they want to call him.  Priebus is more like Deputy Chief of Staff.  Bannon is the one who will be running the show.  Priebus will answer to him and won't have access to Trump without Bannon's say so.

 

Can you please provide an MLA format citation for this?

 

Can you imagine the GOP outcry if Michelle Obama had decided to park in Chicago with the girls for a few years and rang up a billion dollar security bill?

Protecting Donald Trump costs New York City more than $1 million a day

 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/21/news/protecting-donald-trump/index.html

 

Do presidents ever move into the White House before inauguration? This cost, through inauguration in January, would be incurred no matter what. The article also mentions that most of the cost is for covering Trump's adult children and their kids. Trump has a big, happy family so the costs are inevitably going to be more than a smaller family like the Clintons, for example. Melania and Barron staying back likely make little to no impact since the rest of Trump's kids and grandkids are under secret service protection as well. The amount of whining about this is a bit ridiculous - it's so nit-pickey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bannon, btw, is essentially the Chief of Staff, I don't care what they call him.  His duties are more comparable to Chief of Staff than anything else they want to call him.  Priebus is more like Deputy Chief of Staff.  Bannon is the one who will be running the show.  Priebus will answer to him and won't have access to Trump without Bannon's say so.

 

By elevating Bannon to Chief of Staff (in KJP's mind) he's already made the association mentally that the country is being run by a racist, which connects the dots in his brain that he's supposed to hate everything that comes from the new President

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bannon, btw, is essentially the Chief of Staff, I don't care what they call him.  His duties are more comparable to Chief of Staff than anything else they want to call him.  Priebus is more like Deputy Chief of Staff.  Bannon is the one who will be running the show.  Priebus will answer to him and won't have access to Trump without Bannon's say so.

 

Can you please provide an MLA format citation for this?

 

Can you imagine the GOP outcry if Michelle Obama had decided to park in Chicago with the girls for a few years and rang up a billion dollar security bill?

Protecting Donald Trump costs New York City more than $1 million a day

 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/21/news/protecting-donald-trump/index.html

 

Do presidents ever move into the White House before inauguration? This cost, through inauguration in January, would be incurred no matter what. The article also mentions that most of the cost is for covering Trump's adult children and their kids. Trump has a big, happy family so the costs are inevitably going to be more than a smaller family like the Clintons, for example. Melania and Barron staying back likely make little to no impact since the rest of Trump's kids and grandkids are under secret service protection as well. The amount of whining about this is a bit ridiculous - it's so nit-pickey.

 

Exactly.  So was the whining about Obama's occasional golf trip, which was by far less vacation than George W Bush took.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bannon, btw, is essentially the Chief of Staff, I don't care what they call him.  His duties are more comparable to Chief of Staff than anything else they want to call him.  Priebus is more like Deputy Chief of Staff.  Bannon is the one who will be running the show.  Priebus will answer to him and won't have access to Trump without Bannon's say so.

 

Can you please provide an MLA format citation for this?

 

Can you imagine the GOP outcry if Michelle Obama had decided to park in Chicago with the girls for a few years and rang up a billion dollar security bill?

Protecting Donald Trump costs New York City more than $1 million a day

 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/21/news/protecting-donald-trump/index.html

 

Do presidents ever move into the White House before inauguration? This cost, through inauguration in January, would be incurred no matter what. The article also mentions that most of the cost is for covering Trump's adult children and their kids. Trump has a big, happy family so the costs are inevitably going to be more than a smaller family like the Clintons, for example. Melania and Barron staying back likely make little to no impact since the rest of Trump's kids and grandkids are under secret service protection as well. The amount of whining about this is a bit ridiculous - it's so nit-pickey.

 

Exactly.  So was the whining about Obama's occasional golf trip, which was by far less vacation than George W Bush took.....

 

"occasional???"

 

President Obama plays 300th round of golf as president

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-obama-plays-300th-round-of-golf-as-president/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bannon, btw, is essentially the Chief of Staff, I don't care what they call him.  His duties are more comparable to Chief of Staff than anything else they want to call him.  Priebus is more like Deputy Chief of Staff.  Bannon is the one who will be running the show.  Priebus will answer to him and won't have access to Trump without Bannon's say so.

 

Can you please provide an MLA format citation for this?

 

Bannon, Steve. Grab This!: Capitalizing on the Fear and Wimpy-ness of the Alt-Right (1st Ed.).  Trump Publishing (2016).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol! I guess they were too busy rehearsing :laugh:

 

Several ‘Hamilton’ Cast Members Haven’t Voted in Years

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/11/22/several-hamilton-havent-voted-years-lectured-mike-pence-politics/

 

The ranting actor was probably too busy making racist, sexist jokes about sexual assault on Twitter to find the time to vote:

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/11/21/hamilton-star-lectured-pence-fire-racist-sexist-tweets/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do Alt-Right people seem to think the NYT is the only newspaper in the country?  What is your obsession with that publication?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do Alt-Right people seem to think the NYT is the only newspaper in the country?  What is your obsession with that publication?

because it's still considered to be the premier newspaper in the country, and many other news organizations base their lead stories on what the Times decides is important, using their highly editorialized content in their own publications and television reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump disavows 'alt-right' supporters

 

_92608033_hi036530794.jpg

 

Donald Trump has repudiated the fringe "alt-right" group that celebrated his election win with Nazi salutes.

 

In a far-ranging interview with the New York Times, the US president-elect was quoted as saying: "I condemn them. I disavow, and I condemn."

 

He said he did not want to "energise" the group, which includes neo-Nazis, white nationalists and anti-Semites.

 

Alt-right supporters were filmed on Saturday in Washington DC cheering as a speaker shouted: "Hail Trump."

 

More below:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38069469


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you imagine the GOP outcry if Michelle Obama had decided to park in Chicago with the girls for a few years and rang up a billion dollar security bill?

Protecting Donald Trump costs New York City more than $1 million a day

 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/21/news/protecting-donald-trump/index.html

 

I really want context for this statistic, though.  How much did it cost to protect Obama between when he won and when he took office in 2008?

 

Note that Joe Biden takes the Amtrak to and from Delaware fairly regularly.  From a distance, they play it up as Uncle Joe's Regular Joe schtick, but the people who are actually on the train experience it very differently (train is locked down while he's embarking and disembarking, he has a car all to himself, Secret Service fans out through basically every station in front of him, etc.).  And that's for the VP.  Not that the VP is just a sack of potatoes, but I'm sure the president himself gets a much larger (and more paranoid) security detail than the VP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Clinton got away with using her position as Secretary of State to advance her foundation's wealth and agenda. That was actually illegal (note that the exceptions don't apply to cabinet members, just the "President, the Vice President, a Member of Congress, or a Federal judge."

 

So not only is Trump in a perfectly legal area, he can refer to the woman he ran against as a very recent precedent for such behavior. Democrats didn't care then, and even Republicans let her off easy - so why all the hubbub now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^pure bunk. There was assumption by the republicans that she was using her office to enrich her foundation. No proof. That is why the fbi and hearings were going through her emails.

  If it were that big of an operation to bring people in don't you think they would've uncovered something? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gen. Flynn, who is Trump's pick for National Security advisor, ranted in August about Islam being a cancer.  That Trump team member whose first name is Boris (can't recall his last name) was being interviewed about how Flynn could say that a religion of 1.7 billion people could be a cancer.  He replied that the comments were likely taken out of context and that Flynn didn't mean to imply that the entire religion was a cancer.  The interviewer then played the whole clip in which Flynn said the cancer was growing in all 1.7 billion Muslims.  Boris said that type of rhetoric was divisive.  When asked why he thought Flynn's rhetoric was divisive, he says he was referring to the questions about Flynn's statement.  Un-f'in-believable.  It hasn't quite settled in that these pathological liars and scam artists (bad ones at that) are going to be running the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if you can quite say the "country" made that choice.  Certainly not by any straightforward democratic standards.  2 million is a LOT to lose the popular vote by. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe you're right. the country made a bad choice. It would have been so much better if we had chosen good, professional "pathological liars and scam artists" like the Clintons :-(

 

It's sad when a complaint is made about a candidate, and the supporter of that candidate can only respond by painting the opponent as a criminal and a cancer. In magic, it's called misdirection. And it's how a criminal, cancerous candidate won the most powerful elected office in the world.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if you can quite say the "country" made that choice.  Certainly not by any straightforward democratic standards.  2 million is a LOT to lose the popular vote by. 

 

The "country" chose Trump to be our president in the same manner in which we chose the other 43 guys before him. He was chosen by straightforward American standards - the same standards we will continue to choose our presidents by for the foreseeable future. The sooner people come to terms with these 200+ year old standards that we have all known about since 2nd grade, stop erroneously claiming "not my president," and stop whining about irrelevant popular vote results the sooner we can try to put to rest the hateful divisiveness of the 2016 election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The sooner people come to terms with these 200+ year old standards that we have all known about since 2nd grade, stop erroneously claiming "not my president," and stop whining about irrelevant popular vote results the sooner we can try to put to rest the hateful divisiveness of the 2016 election.

 

Well, seeing how "we" elected a divisive president, good luck with that.


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sooner people come to terms with these 200+ year old standards that we have all known about since 2nd grade, stop erroneously claiming "not my president," and stop whining about irrelevant popular vote results the sooner we can try to put to rest the hateful divisiveness of the 2016 election.

 

Well, seeing how "we" elected a divisive president, good luck with that.

 

We had a choice between two of them.  It was a race to the bottom that the Democrats won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gen. Flynn, who is Trump's pick for National Security advisor, ranted in August about Islam being a cancer.  That Trump team member whose first name is Boris (can't recall his last name) was being interviewed about how Flynn could say that a religion of 1.7 billion people could be a cancer.  He replied that the comments were likely taken out of context and that Flynn didn't mean to imply that the entire religion was a cancer.  The interviewer then played the whole clip in which Flynn said the cancer was growing in all 1.7 billion Muslims.  Boris said that type of rhetoric was divisive.  When asked why he thought Flynn's rhetoric was divisive, he says he was referring to the questions about Flynn's statement.  Un-f'in-believable.  It hasn't quite settled in that these pathological liars and scam artists (bad ones at that) are going to be running the country.

 

On the other hand, General Mattis had a very good record dealing with Muslim populations while in command over there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^he's going to be my president, unfortunately.  Very unfortunate. But my president nonetheless. That said, he was not chosen in the same manner as every other president. In fact, he is in rare company. Extremely rare company. It does indeed matter how one is elected. If you win in a landslide, that says something. If you lose the popular vote, especially by such a significant margin, that says something too. He's still going to be President, absent the EC exercising the discretion the Founders envisioned. But he has to take into account that only about 4 in 10 voters who took part in this election wanted him to win.  And that's putting aside that his favor ability ratings are lower than that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^he's going to be my president, unfortunately.  Very unfortunate. But my president nonetheless. That said, he was not chosen in the same manner as every other president. In fact, he is in rare company. Extremely rare company. It does indeed matter how one is elected. If you win in a landslide, that says something. If you lose the popular vote, especially by such a significant margin, that says something too. He's still going to be President, absent the EC exercising the discretion the Founders envisioned. But he has to take into account that only about 4 in 10 voters who took part in this election wanted him to win.  And that's putting aside that his favor ability ratings are lower than that. 

 

I'm extremely skeptical of course, but there's indications that his rhetoric was just that.  Which of course is a big part of why I didn't vote for him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That said, he was not chosen in the same manner as every other president.

 

He was chosen by winning the most electors - that's the same was every president is chosen. Everything else is small potatoes - popular vote has no actual impact on anything that matters.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that if he really intended to follow through on all that rhetoric you would've voted for him?

 

Depends.  My concern was he didn’t mean the things I approved of and did mean the crazy stuff.

 

No way do I vote for a guy that advocates religious bigotry.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A less-informed America means more demagogues like Trump get elected...

 

Trump to scrap NASA climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’ https://t.co/0uStjpQjDi


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much longer and in how many ways do we have to rehash the fact that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats lost the presidential election?  It doesn't matter what stats you want to partially use or otherwise purposefully skew, she/they LOST plain & simple.  The Democrats also failed in all other election goals; the Senate and House.  The people have spoken..

 

Now, the D's and mainstream media would be better served to stop trying to create their artificial realities and start thinking about changes to their platform that represent more Americans.  If anything, this election should teach the D's that no amount of attacks by the left through the Clinton News Network and other usual suspects will not win them elections, they have to actually do something that will benefit people, ALL people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Melania and her son are staying in the Trump Tower, doesn't that mean that the Secret Service will need a significant 24 hour presence there as well?  I'd assume that a sizeable suite, separate from the Trump penthouse will be needed.  Who foots the bill for that?  How much will it be?  Can the Trump Organization rightfully pocket that money?

 

That said, he was not chosen in the same manner as every other president.

 

He was chosen by winning the most electors - that's the same was every president is chosen. Everything else is small potatoes - popular vote has no actual impact on anything that matters.

 

I'm sure you would be saying the same if the situation were reversed.  To be clear, I don't deny he won the election.  But he did not win it the same way Reagan won it or Obama.  He won it the same way Bush won it in 2000 (well, sort of... since the margin was much closer in 2000) and different from every single president in the 20th century.  Those are facts, whether you consider them 'small potatoes' or not.  Sorry that it gets under your skin so much.  I happen to think it is important.  JMO.  I'm disappointed he is the presumptive President elect.  But I'm slightly encouraged "the American people", at least how the Right has liked to use that term recently, did not support him.  That doesn't mean he will be any less president than his predecessors.  He will still have all the authority granted to him by the constitution.  But it is perfectly fair game for his opponents to feel more emboldened in their opposition considering the manner in which he won.  If there was ever a time to implement the type of obstructionist attitude we saw from Congress over the past 8 years, now is it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A less-informed America means more demagogues like Trump get elected...

 

Trump to scrap NASA climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’ https://t.co/0uStjpQjDi

2/3's of white college educated males voted against Hillary. 

 

Who is this mystery "more-informed" pool of overs supposed to be if the largest college educated pool of voters voted heavily against Hillary and the D's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A less-informed America means more demagogues like Trump get elected...

 

Trump to scrap NASA climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’ https://t.co/0uStjpQjDi

 

It seems his plan is to redirect NASA’s focus to deep space exploration, Mars, etc. instead of climate research – which is a job that should be probably be done by NOAA, anyway, via satellites and other equipment launched by private contractors like SpaceX. I really think this is a great idea and eliminates some wasteful bureaucratic overlap. Redirect those billions to putting a man on Mars, landing more robots on Jupiter’s moons, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A less-informed America means more demagogues like Trump get elected...

 

Trump to scrap NASA climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’ https://t.co/0uStjpQjDi

2/3's of white college educated males voted against Hillary. 

 

Who is this mystery "more-informed" pool of overs supposed to be if the largest college educated pool of voters voted heavily against Hillary and the D's?

 

How about all other college educated people?

 

And then there is this -- http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/ - I can save you the time by summarizing the findings as this: Clinton overwhelmingly won the most educated counties (in fact, she improved on those results from how Obama had performed) and Trump overwhelmingly won the least educated counties (also improving on how Romney had done in those counties).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the shoe was on the other foot and Republicans were promoting/arguing the fact that their electorate was wealthier and more educated, the shrieking from Democrats would require every pane of glass in the US be replaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I'm not getting into skewed or partial data.  Again, according to the D's the largest college educated pool of voters that voted against Hillary more than 2/3's of the time are the dumb one's that need to get educated and "with the program".  Keep thinking like that and they'll enjoy another 4 years of R dominance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^C'mon man.  The Right has always made that argument and I haven't replaced the windows in my house in over a decade.  Indeed, what the Right argued/promoted in 2008 and 2012 was much, much worse.  What they alleged was that Obama was elected by..... what is the term?..... oh yeah, "low information voters" from the inner-cities.  Everyone voted for him because they wanted free cell phones and other handouts.  "Real America" (remember that phras?) allegedly did not support him and that lack of support justified the 8 years of obstructionist tactics.

 

^You are the one using partial data.  Why limit your analysis to just part of the college educated population?  Are college educated white men really a voting block?  What portion of that group has graduate degrees and does it include community college and trade school educations? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the shoe was on the other foot and Republicans were promoting/arguing the fact that their electorate was wealthier and more educated, the shrieking from Democrats would require every pane of glass in the US be replaced.

 

Yep, and they would hopefully elect someone who could help them. Let me know when Trump brings those jobs and better education back to rural America. If the deep, red, rural south is any indication, they're going to be waiting a long time....

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_n_4855191.html

 

Except Trump is worse than the Republicans. He doesn't believe in anything except pleasuring himself.

 

 


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What they alleged was that Obama was elected by..... what is the term?..... oh yeah, "low information voters" from the inner-cities. 

 

And the shrieking was intense was it not?  I remember it being.

 

Uneducated low information voters are the scourge of society when they vote for the other guy but the righteous vox populi! when they vote for your guy.  That goes for both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^C'mon man.  The Right has always made that argument and I haven't replaced the windows in my house in over a decade.  Indeed, what the Right argued/promoted in 2008 and 2012 was much, much worse.  What they alleged was that Obama was elected by..... what is the term?..... oh yeah, "low information voters" from the inner-cities.  Everyone voted for him because they wanted free cell phones and other handouts.  "Real America" (remember that phras?) allegedly did not support him and that lack of support justified the 8 years of obstructionist tactics.

Isn't that true?  Low information voters won Obama both elections??  They bought into Hope & Change and got slow growth and record debt among other perks like ISIS explosion and cop killings.  Some of those low information voters didn't fall for it again and is why Hillary and the D's lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What they alleged was that Obama was elected by..... what is the term?..... oh yeah, "low information voters" from the inner-cities. 

 

And the shrieking was intense was it not?  I remember it being.

 

Not really.  Again, my windows are fine and I live in one of the most liberals areas of the state.  But more to the point, it simply wasn't true, so the collective hissy fit we see now from the Trumpsters wasn't really necessary.  Plus, having thicker skin and a bit of toughness helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A less-informed America means more demagogues like Trump get elected...

 

Trump to scrap NASA climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’ https://t.co/0uStjpQjDi

 

It seems his plan is to redirect NASA’s focus to deep space exploration, Mars, etc. instead of climate research – which is a job that should be probably be done by NOAA, anyway, via satellites and other equipment launched by private contractors like SpaceX. I really think this is a great idea and eliminates some wasteful bureaucratic overlap. Redirect those billions to putting a man on Mars, landing more robots on Jupiter’s moons, etc.

 

The real question is whether the budget is shifted (to a different agency) or simply axed.  If it's axed, then there is a real question of what happens to all the satellites and other hardware that NASA has deployed for monitoring purposes.  Even as one of this board's resident AGW alarmism skeptics, I approve of the fact that we're monitoring the atmosphere, and would not want to see us stop--it's a legitimate function of government and not all that expensive in the grand scheme of things.  If they want to move it back to the Navy (the original home of government weather-monitoring research, for rather predictable reasons), fine, or to some completely new agency, maybe.  But I'd be disappointed (to put it mildly) to see us just switch the satellites off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most voters can go either way, which is why we rarely see the same party win 3 presidential elections in a row.  Smart, dumb, educated, not, none of those data points mean as much as the issues and the messages.  Clinton's campaign went overboard with identity and segmentation.  Let's not do that again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...