President Trump

[acbytesla]

Trump should be held to his word for the campaign promise he made in front of a television audience of 66 million Americans:

“I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, because there has never been so many lies, so much deception. People have been, their lives have been destroyed for doing one-fifth of what you’ve done, and it’s a disgrace, and honestly, you ought to be ashamed.”​

Trump won't.

Time to understand the difference between campaign rhetoric and political reality. I know that is what YOU WANT. Now let's identify why your hope is moronically stupid.
Here are the problems with your demand.

1. They just had an investigation that lasted 2 years and the FBI came to the conclusion that there was no justification for charges.
2. It would look vindictive.
3.You would just waste money and nothing is likely to become of it.
4. You would motivate the opposition and likely destroy your own presidency. And for what? Destroying a 70 year old woman who is now irrelevant in the scheme of things?

While I wouldn't want to see that happen to Secretary Clinton I'd say go for it. It would do more damage to the GOP and Trump's presidency than it would to Hillary. So please, please go for it.

 

[steve s]

That based on their personal feelings they chose the candidate least likely to help their situation.

I'm surprised Hillary's attack ads didn't hammer him more on his sending jobs overseas and buying Chinese steel. That probably would have played well with people complaining about outsourcing. Instead, most of her attack ads (at least the ones I saw) were about his boorish behavior. Specifically the ad with kids watching TV.

 

[theprestige]

I never thought she did that. In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. This appears to have no relation at all to the posts you quoted.

 

[sunmaster14]

I notice you didn't include the pussy grabber in your little list. But I'm nevertheless confident you got my point.

Well, it's embarrassing, especially when he does it on national TV:

 

[sunmaster14]

I'm surprised Hillary's attack ads didn't hammer him more on his sending jobs overseas and buying Chinese steel. That probably would have played well with people complaining about outsourcing. Instead, most of her attack ads (at least the ones I saw) were about his boorish behavior. Specifically the ad with kids watching TV.

Wow, you really don't get it. Trump's supporters don't give a **** about how he behaved as a private citizen and a businessman. And there is no good reason why they should.

 

[theprestige]

Great article. But I thought this comment was interesting:

I figure it's a **** you to all the lions who keep claiming to be vegetarians. Here's a guy who openly admits to being a lion like the rest of them, and promises a spectacle of lion on lion violence.

 

[trustbutverify]

I figure it's a **** you to all the lions who keep claiming to be vegetarians. Here's a guy who openly admits to being a lion like the rest of them, and promises a spectacle of lion on lion violence.

Yes. But I wonder if they know (or care) that this particular lion, in the privacy of his own cage, has utter contempt for vegetarians and couldn't care less about them.

 

[Bob001]

Wow, you really don't get it. Trump's supporters don't give a **** about how he behaved as a private citizen and a businessman. And there is no good reason why they should.

Do you really believe that? You think character doesn't matter? Why wouldn't someone who has spent his life lying compulsively, cheating customers and contractors, assaulting women "because when you're a star you can get away with it," demeaning and threatening minorities, getting even with his perceived "enemies," and refusing to acquaint himself with the basic facts of any public policy issue continue to do so after winning an election? Do you think that person represents your interests? Or do you think our governmental structures are so strong that they will restrain a Trump, then it shouldn't matter to you whoever is President. Do you really believe that, too?

 

[Bob001]

Meet President Trump:

The greatest trick Donald Trump pulled was convincing voters he’d be “anti-establishment.”

Well, maybe not the greatest trick. But in a campaign full of cons, it has to rank close to the top.
.....
President-elect Donald J. Trump, who campaigned against the corrupt power of special interests, is filling his transition team with some of the very sort of people who he has complained have too much clout in Washington: corporate consultants and lobbyist.
....
An organizational chart of Trump’s transition team shows it to be crawling with corporate lobbyists, representing such clients as Altria, Visa, Coca-Cola, General Electric, Verizon, HSBC, Pfizer, Dow Chemical, and Duke Energy. And K Street is positively salivating over all the new opportunities they’ll have to deliver goodies to their clients in the Trump era. Who could possibly have predicted such a thing?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...anti-establishment-guess-what-you-got-conned/

 

[sunmaster14]

Do you really believe that? You think character doesn't matter? Why wouldn't someone who has spent his life lying compulsively, cheating customers and contractors, assaulting women "because when you're a star you can get away with it," demeaning and threatening minorities, getting even with his perceived "enemies," and refusing to acquaint himself with the basic facts of any public policy issue continue to do so after winning an election? Do you think that person represents your interests? Or do you think our governmental structures are so strong that they will restrain a Trump, then it shouldn't matter to you whoever is President. Do you really believe that, too?

Trump was voted in to shake things up. This cartoon sums up the idea rather nicely.

 

[Cain]

It's hard to argue with the points he makes... I still wouldn't vote for him, but it is a better explanation than the one I myself have used, "they're all idiots!"

Really?

Is there any data showing rural people turned out in significantly greater numbers to vote for Trump than previous Republicans?

Someone posted that article here a month ago, and it's just saying what commenters have said many times before, especially in the wake of the 2000 blue state vs. red state election (yes, analysts understood it was urban vs. rural).

It's not a matter of urban people failing to understand the yokels, but probably the other way around. Rural areas can get away with "limited" government, but cities require an active public sector -- a public transportation system to move people and police, courts and social services to resolve conflicts. How many mayors of major cities are libertarians?

Also, is it right to say rural areas have been particularly "beaten to ****." As I'm sure conservatives like to point out, the material standard of living has improved, it's just that urban wealth has increased at a much, much faster pace. When it comes to human beings, relative wealth and opportunity matter.

It's nice mollycoddle those poor, country-livin' folk with more guns than teeth, but those are places where ignorance flourishes (along with meth-addictions). The salt of the earth is also where you find racism, homophobia, xenophobia, misogyny and religion. Seventy-five percent of Americans believe in angels. Guess who most of them voted for?

Bush Jr. was a terrible president, and then they voted for him again! We had a monster recession and people said, "enough of this ****," and voted for a relatively decent manager of empire.

 

[Bob001]

Trump was voted in to shake things up. This cartoon sums up the idea rather nicely.

Yeah, Trump's gonna shake things up all right. But maybe not like his acolytes think.

More from above post:

Now to be clear, the fact that in some ways — hiring lobbyists, cutting taxes for the wealthy, gutting regulations — Trump is going to be little different from any other Republican president doesn’t mean that he isn’t uniquely dangerous. He’s reckless, impulsive, vindictive, hateful, and authoritarian, and his presidency is going to be somewhere between disastrous and cataclysmic, likely in ways we can’t even imagine yet.

But one thing it will not be is a threat to the establishment, or the system, or whatever you want to call it. The wealthy and powerful will have more wealth and power when he’s done, not less. There’s a lot that Trump will upend, but if you’re a little guy who thinks Trump was going to upend things on your behalf or in order to serve your interests, guess what: you got suckered.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...anti-establishment-guess-what-you-got-conned/

 

[Tero]

Where is the other pirate? Gingrich. Have not seen pics with Trump yet.

 

[Belz...]

Wow, you really don't get it. Trump's supporters don't give a **** about how he behaved as a private citizen and a businessman. And there is no good reason why they should.

Yeah, I mean why would someone's past actions be any indicator of how he's going to act in the future. Data, you say? HA! What a liberal thing to say!

 

[Belz...]

This cartoon sums up the idea rather nicely.

Based on what? Anti-Hillary folks have been saying that for a while but without ever giving us a clear explanation of why they think that is.

 

[Mader Levap]

No they wouldn't. Politicians would only focus on major metropolitan areas - where the population density is highest. It's the biggest bang for their campaign buck.

Wrong.

 

[Minoosh]

Russell Brand's take is interesting.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Farage meets Trump

Nigel Farage has become the first British politician to meet Donald Trump since he became US president-elect, UKIP has said.

A party spokesman said the interim UKIP leader discussed "freedom and winning" with Mr Trump on a visit to Trump Tower in New York.

UKIP sources say this had "made the prime minister look very foolish".

The meeting came after Mr Farage warned Theresa May on US media that she needed to "mend fences" with Mr Trump.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37965089

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Read what Comey told us:

"For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."

Come to your own conclusions.

Thanks. I based my comment on an article that gave a different take but some bits sync. Thanks for the info.

 

[Marcus]

Really?

Is there any data showing rural people turned out in significantly greater numbers to vote for Trump than previous Republicans?

Someone posted that article here a month ago, and it's just saying what commenters have said many times before, especially in the wake of the 2000 blue state vs. red state election (yes, analysts understood it was urban vs. rural).

It's not a matter of urban people failing to understand the yokels, but probably the other way around. Rural areas can get away with "limited" government, but cities require an active public sector -- a public transportation system to move people and police, courts and social services to resolve conflicts. How many mayors of major cities are libertarians?

Also, is it right to say rural areas have been particularly "beaten to ****." As I'm sure conservatives like to point out, the material standard of living has improved, it's just that urban wealth has increased at a much, much faster pace. When it comes to human beings, relative wealth and opportunity matter.

It's nice mollycoddle those poor, country-livin' folk with more guns than teeth, but those are places where ignorance flourishes (along with meth-addictions). The salt of the earth is also where you find racism, homophobia, xenophobia, misogyny and religion. Seventy-five percent of Americans believe in angels. Guess who most of them voted for?

Bush Jr. was a terrible president, and then they voted for him again! We had a monster recession and people said, "enough of this ****," and voted for a relatively decent manager of empire.

I'm not sure if there is data supporting the idea that Trump appealed more to rural people. Perhaps a red/blue county map like the one presented in the article for 2012.

I'm not idealizing rural people, I realize there are undesirable things there like homophobia and religion, the point is that there is more to it than anyone who voted for Trump is a moron.