• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

President Trump: Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
This election says a lot about the people who choose some idealistic vote. Just like Nader tries to blame Gore, it doesn't matter. We got Bush, Nader taking FL votes mattered and we got 1,000+ preventable deaths following Katrina, we got the Iraq war and its disastrous consequences, and if you read Richard A. Clarke's book, Against All Enemies, you might even question whether or not Bush missed many opportunities to stop 9/11. Not that he could have, but the PDB that Bin Laden was determined to attack inside the US was not the only intelligence the Bush admin ignored.

So now you get Trump. Maybe you were in a solid blue or red state, allowing you the luxury of voting your ideals. But if you vote your ideals and you were in a state with a close vote count, you defeated your own idealism by claiming you weren't one of the responsible people that gave us Trump.

I did read Against All Enemies.

Chicago politics tends to smash idealism, for those paying attention. And the same Democratic Party that produced Hillary and Barack also produced the Daleys, Blagojevich, and Mike Madigan. And they are all intertwined.

Who's the idealist?

And to be fair, the Republican Party here is really no better, just out of power.
 
Chicago politics tends to smash idealism, for those paying attention. And the same Democratic Party that produced Hillary and Barack also produced the Daleys, Blagojevich, and Mike Madigan. And they are all intertwined.
Are they really intertwined? All politics is local, and nowhere more so than the US.
 
Have you ever heard of a tiny news outlet called "Fox News"? You should try watching them sometimes. They very clearly and plainly tell people what to think.
I don't like it there either.
 
I did read Against All Enemies.

Chicago politics tends to smash idealism, for those paying attention. And the same Democratic Party that produced Hillary and Barack also produced the Daleys, Blagojevich, and Mike Madigan. And they are all intertwined.

Who's the idealist?

And to be fair, the Republican Party here is really no better, just out of power.
No, who is the realist? The one who campaigned for Clinton (me) because I saw the Trump disaster for what it was. And I do believe I can safely say, "Told ya."
 
So sayeth people with no evidence.

Sorry, logic fail. The apology could have very well neutralized any negative effect.

Enough of this Clinton blaming, @Marcus, @Meadmaker, @Bob001: get over it. Baskets of idiots and deplorables elected a disaster. That was not Clinton's fault.

[/off topic]

Millions of people who voted for Trump voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And it's not like Obama got a free ride from anybody. If she couldn't keep the same voters who supported Obama, that's on her. And now we all pay a high price.
 
Last edited:
Millions of people who voted for Trump voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And it's not like Obama got a free ride from anybody. If she couldn't keep the same voters who supported Obama, that's on her. And now we all pay a high price.

[/off topic] And you've had many chances to post evidence, but you haven't. This is just another assertion.
 
No, who is the realist? The one who campaigned for Clinton (me) because I saw the Trump disaster for what it was. And I do believe I can safely say, "Told ya."

Trump is a disaster. Hillary is lesser only by degree, there is no high ground there. If you wanted a candidate folks would jump on board with, Hillary was not the wagon to hitch your horse to. I won't be shamed, by you or any other. I have my principles, and I feel fine.
 
I worked at a newspaper for 29 years and wrote and edited thousands of articles. I don't think I ever saw someone labeled a liar (by the newspaper itself)...
First, this is about calling a lie a lie. Not labeling the person who tells it "a liar." There's a big difference which I would've expected you to understand -- this even gets touched on within the ISF MA -- between using the word "lie" and using the word "liar." I don't agree the media has never used the word "lie." There are many examples of statements by various people having been labeled "lies." How many times have you seen:
President Bill Clinton lied under oath, and told the court he had never had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.


I agree with this:
No they won't. That is the lesson I've taken from this election. People no longer care about the whole story, or what can be read between the lines...
Many people I know seldom read the entire story for a very simple reason: they don't have the time. As for The Times decision to label Trump's voter fraud allegations "lies" it was not taken lightly.
Some news organizations used words like “falsely” or “wrongly” — adverbs that tend to weaken the impact — in framing what the president said. Some used “with no evidence,” or “won’t provide any proof,” or “unverified claims,” or “repeats debunked claim.” The New York Times, though, ultimately chose more muscular terminology, opting to use the word “lie” in the headline. After initially using the word “falsely,” it switched to “lie” online and then settled on “Meeting With Top Lawmakers, Trump Repeats an Election Lie” for Tuesday’s print edition.

“This is the very unique situation that we find ourselves in as journalists and as a country,” said Joshua Benton, the director of the Nieman Journalism Lab at Harvard University. “We have an administration that seems to be asserting a right to its own facts and doesn’t seem to be able to produce evidence to back those claims.” link

If we ever get to the point where the president can tell blatant lies to the public without having them labeled as such, will we still be a democracy? :(
 
There are reports of travelers stranded in foreign countries and detained at American airports despite being fully vetted with proper travel documents. This followed Trump's executive order that bars entry to the U.S. for:

  • Syrian refugees indefinitely
  • Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen citizens for 90 days
  • All refugees, regardless of citizenship, for 120 days.

According to news reports the Department of Homeland Security has said even green card holders from the countries named are barred from reentering the United States, leaving some vacationers stranded. This is from Snopes:

At least one case quickly prompted a legal challenge as lawyers representing two Iraqi refugees held at Kennedy International Airport in New York filed a motion early Saturday seeking to have their clients released. They also filed a motion for class certification, in an effort to represent all refugees and other immigrants who they said were being unlawfully detained at ports of entry.

Shortly after noon on Saturday, Hameed Khalid Darweesh, an interpreter who worked on behalf of the United States government in Iraq, was released. After nearly 19 hours of detention, Mr. Darweesh began to cry as he spoke to reporters, putting his hands behind his back and miming handcuffs. Link

One Syrian family being detained had been sponsored by a Jewish group led by Tufts law professor Daniel W. Drezner. Drezner tweeted, "Who drafted and advised on this idiocy?"
 
There are reports of travelers stranded in foreign countries and detained at American airports despite being fully vetted with proper travel documents. This followed Trump's executive order that bars entry to the U.S. for:

  • Syrian refugees indefinitely
  • Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen citizens for 90 days
  • All refugees, regardless of citizenship, for 120 days.

According to news reports the Department of Homeland Security has said even green card holders from the countries named are barred from reentering the United States, leaving some vacationers stranded. This is from Snopes:
...

Yep.
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/u...llenges-to-trumps-immigration-order.html?_r=0

CNN commentators say that there has been no formal instruction of how to apply the presidential order, so every immigration officer is pretty much making it up on the spot.
 
Trump is a disaster. Hillary is lesser only by degree, there is no high ground there. If you wanted a candidate folks would jump on board with, Hillary was not the wagon to hitch your horse to. I won't be shamed, by you or any other. I have my principles, and I feel fine.

And thus we have the Trump disaster and, throw in touch of denial believing that Clinton was as bad or almost as bad.

Care to revisit this in another couple weeks? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
This election says a lot about the people who choose some idealistic vote. Just like Nader tries to blame Gore, it doesn't matter. We got Bush, Nader taking FL votes mattered and we got 1,000+ preventable deaths following Katrina, we got the Iraq war and its disastrous consequences, and if you read Richard A. Clarke's book, Against All Enemies, you might even question whether or not Bush missed many opportunities to stop 9/11. Not that he could have, but the PDB that Bin Laden was determined to attack inside the US was not the only intelligence the Bush admin ignored.

So now you get Trump. Maybe you were in a solid blue or red state, allowing you the luxury of voting your ideals. But if you vote your ideals and you were in a state with a close vote count, you defeated your own idealism by claiming you weren't one of the responsible people that gave us Trump.
You really have to be drinking the Kool-aide to think a different president could have prevented deaths in Katrina.
 
I think it's more about the Democrats not countering the negative messaging about Obama's term.

The GOP has been hammering the message for 8 years that the economy was bad, blaming Obama and not things like the minimum wage being too low. Claiming the job gains were not good jobs. Claiming falsely that regulations and taxes on corporations were the problem when anyone who has taken Economy 101 should have been able to see the problem was not enough demand. You don't solve a demand problem by feeding the suppliers.
Look at the ACA, pounding pounding pounding how horrible the legislation is. And now when their bluff has been called, low and behold they have nothing better.

The Democrats should have been putting out a coordinated relentless counter message. The GOP has all that money behind it, from the Kochs to Corporate support. It can be countered, but it wasn't.
What reality are you from? The Dems had a lot more money than the GOP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom