Cont: The Trump Presidency Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacko said:
The Fox/Trump feedback loop is strong.
Click to expand...

Yes, this was something a colleague brought up on previous days where the same correlation between Fox News segments and Trump Tweets was best interpreted as a causal relationship.

State propaganda usually works the other way around: the State has reliable information conduits, but broadcasts fiction.

In this situation, the State is using corporate propaganda as input, which cannot lead to competent decisionmaking, and is a genuine danger.
 
So Trump loves to take credit for the stock market increases. I wonder if he'll take credit for this?

From: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...x-year-low-trumps-first-year?cid=sm_fb_maddow
Job growth slows to a six-year low in Trump's first year.

Note that the article doesn't say jobs were lost (and it does say unemployment rates are pretty low)... it just says growth didn't match that of Obama's later years.

Now, normally it would be wrong to blame all economic problems at the feet of a president, especially in his first year (since there are so many outside factors affecting the economy, and much of what happens is a holdover from the previous administration.) But Trump loves to take credit for the stock market. Maybe he should take credit for the slower job growth too.
 
blutoski said:
Yes, this was something a colleague brought up on previous days where the same correlation between Fox News segments and Trump Tweets was best interpreted as a causal relationship.

State propaganda usually works the other way around: the State has reliable information conduits, but broadcasts fiction.

In this situation, the State is using corporate propaganda as input, which cannot lead to competent decisionmaking, and is a genuine danger.
Click to expand...

What I would love to see is for Morning Joe to troll him sometime. What Scarborough should do some morning is give a false flag report about something he says is in the New York Times. Make up something really goofy. Then watch to see if Trump responds to it, and, more specifically, if he attacks the New York Times for it.

Because if he does, then he'd have to explain why he is getting his news from Joe Scarborough.
 
Segnosaur said:
So Trump loves to take credit for the stock market increases. I wonder if he'll take credit for this?

From: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...x-year-low-trumps-first-year?cid=sm_fb_maddow
Job growth slows to a six-year low in Trump's first year.

Note that the article doesn't say jobs were lost (and it does say unemployment rates are pretty low)... it just says growth didn't match that of Obama's later years.

Now, normally it would be wrong to blame all economic problems at the feet of a president, especially in his first year (since there are so many outside factors affecting the economy, and much of what happens is a holdover from the previous administration.) But Trump loves to take credit for the stock market. Maybe he should take credit for the slower job growth too.
Click to expand...

Pretending everything is fine. At ~4% unemployment it's not surprising that job growth has slowed. Of course all this is ignoring the growing elephant in the room.
 
I just started listening with Audible on my way to work. I got through the Bannon/Ailes conversation that has been online, so nothing that I hadn't read so far.

I'm betting that hearing vs. reading what was supposedly said is going to be fun.
 
Stacko said:
From: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
Job growth slows to a six-year low in Trump's first year.
Click to expand...
At ~4% unemployment it's not surprising that job growth has slowed.
Click to expand...
But Trump painted such a vivid picture during the election of the U.S. being some sort of Mad Max style hell-scape, with an unemployment rate greater than 40%!

Plus, the recent gift to the wealthy, er, I mean Tax Cut bill was supposed to stimulate jobs growth. Why would they need to stimulate growth if unemployment is so low?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trump-says-unemployment-rate-may-be-42-perc/
 
Stacko said:
Pretending everything is fine. At ~4% unemployment it's not surprising that job growth has slowed. Of course all this is ignoring the growing elephant in the room.
Click to expand...

Yep. The unemployed did not vote for Trump... they overwhelmingly voted Democrat, because that's the party with the job 'creation' platform.

Trump's swing voters are looking at improving their sense of hope. They're hardworking people with jobs that they thought were not paying enough, not stable enough, insecure, rubbish benefits, no prospect for a comfortable retirement before they're permanently disabled, and unaffordable healthcare for when that day comes.

If he doesn't deliver on the promise to improve the typical American worker's situation, he's betraying a critical mass of supporters.
 
Civet said:
The administration is withholding a bunch of aid from Pakistan to pressure them to do a better job of fighting terrorists. My initial reaction is that this doesn't seem unreasonable. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Not really unreasonable, considering that Pakistan continues to harbor and support insurgents fighting the Afghan government. The US was a strong ally of Pakistan during the cold war while India was supported by the Soviet Union.

Over the last couple of decades Pakistan has been drifting away supporting the US and instead emphasizes relations with China against its nemesis India. Similarly, while relations with Russia are strong, India as increasingly desired closer relations with US to counter the threat from China which it has been at war with relatively recently and still have conflicting border claims that flare up every now and then. During much of the cold war relations between China and the soviet union were hostile were they also fought a brief border with each-other.

Post-soviet Russia has very good relations with China, although there are some simmering tensions with Russians viewing China and it's expanding influence in the Russian Far-East and Central Asia with increasing concerns. Even then it's not like Russia would do anything even if China did anything less than launching a full scale invasion of India, and then it's highly unlikely they'd intervene militarily because Russia has no chance at all to win a fight against China.

In a large scale conflict between China and Russia the question is not about who would win rather it's about how much land Russia would lose and whether they use nuclear weapons against the Chinese.

It's not a lot of money that's being withheld if i understand it correctly.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't be surprise if at some point he confuses "Pakistan" with "Palestine".

(I have to admit -- I've done that myself sometimes. But then, I'm not the duly-elected Leader of the Free World, either.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom