Cont: The Trump Presidency: Part 19

[newyorkguy]

I have a hunch what is becoming a big negative for Trump is that even people who normally don't follow/pay much attention to politics are beginning to see that Trump seems mostly about Trump. His latest irritants, his thoughts, what caught his attention. He's not identified with any major policy initiatives. Healthcare, blue collar jobs, border security, an immigration policy. Oh sure, he talks about all of them but what's his plan? What is he trying to get Congress to pass? I would say it appears he isn't doing anything besides Tweeting and scheduling rallies. As one of the guys at work -- someone who voted for Trump -- says, "I thought he was different, but he's the same as all of them. Just talk."

He tries to connect himself to the economy but how many people think it's doing well 'because of Trump' or that he just happens to be 'in the right place at the right time.' Of course his supporters answer is, he reduced corporate taxes and regulations. Okay, but it's a lot harder to point to specific growth that was the result of lowering the corporate tax rate or citing regulations that were eliminated and led to growth in the economy. It might be a lot smarter to think the economy is good -- because of many complex interconnected factors -- and lowering the corporate tax rate and reducing regulations were just a bonus to the big corporations and fat cats who support Trump and the GOP.

Trump has hard core supporters who will always accept what he says as gospel -- we see it here -- but I don't think they really believe his BS either. I think they just like what he represents, they like he's the anti-liberal. He's a symbol.

I think it's undoubtedly true: without social media Trump wouldn't have even gotten the Republican nomination. Go back and read what Republicans like Lindsey Graham were saying about him in mid-2016. Without social media Trump had no way to counteract that. Reality is, his track record in business stinks. But again, for Trump's hard core base, his business failures and bankruptcies don't matter. They only care about what he Tweets.

 

[Ladewig]

And, unfortunately, he's hardly the only one. When it's a Democrat in office, the President is a public servant. When it's a Republican, it's a king. That's if you go by right-wing media treatment.

Either way, this particular mob boss aspirant is bad news for the country.

Agreed.

I’m trying to imagine how many heads would asplode if President Obama had used that quote to refer to himself.

 

[Ladewig]

Trump has hard core supporters who will always accept what he says as gospel -- we see it here -- but I don't think they really believe his BS either. I think they just like what he represents, they like he's the anti-liberal. He's a symbol.

I think it's undoubtedly true: without social media Trump wouldn't have even gotten the Republican nomination. Go back and read what Republicans like Lindsey Graham were saying about him in mid-2016. Without social media Trump had no way to counteract that. Reality is, his track record in business stinks. But again, for Trump's hard core base, his business failures and bankruptcies don't matter. They only care about what he Tweets.

And they are so loyal, they will always fervently believe the last thing he said. Even if it contradicts what he said yesterday. We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.

 

[newyorkguy]

George Orwell nailed it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweets

IG report on Andrew McCabe: Misled Investigators over roll in news media disclosure...Lacked Candor (Lied) on four separate occasions...Authotized Media Leaks to advance personal interests...IG RECOMMENDED MCCABE’S FIRING.
@FoxNews @IngrahamAngle

 

[Fast Eddie B]

“Roll”, “Authotized”.

Barely literate, cognitive decline, or both?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Interesting that Trump doesn't go after the Prosecutors who failed to get the Grand Jury to indite McCabe.
I guess he is running out of people at Justice who will work on any political case.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Where is your evidence of this?

If they spout religious gibberish to vulnerable communities they are con artists. That they are taking public funds to do so makes them double con artists.

And who are these people who've been just as or more successful?

The groups not given public funds who were rated as more reliable, effective, and deserving of those funds.

Perhaps go back and read the story again.

 

[Steve]

“Roll”, “Authotized”.

Barely literate, cognitive decline, or both?

Keyboard too big for his tiny thumbs.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

And, unfortunately, he's hardly the only one. When it's a Democrat in office, the President is a public servant. When it's a Republican, it's a king. That's if you go by right-wing media treatment.

Either way, this particular mob boss aspirant is bad news for the country.

If you go by rights abandoned by legislative assemblies and contracted out to an executive agency without any ongoing rigorous oversight?

Then both parties have functionally enabled the President to act more and more like a king as time has gone on.

The Pentagon is assumed to have a certain kind of independence. I see good reasons for it, but then it also makes them a behemoth that can dominate the military committees of Congress and be an 800 lb. gorilla.

the DOJ has been smothered in expectation as being truly independent, but that's a clear farce given the records of many of it's top personnel in its history and don't even get me started on how politicized the FBI has been and remains (this doesn't mean partisan mind you, and certainly not how Trumpers imagine it).

I can't think of a single other agency I have even the most remote expectation that Congress actually has any will to get up in their face and grill them over all the reckless decisions they make. I fully expect every other agency to simply be an extension of a President's sole vision for how that area of policy should work. If the public gets up in a frenzy about something, sure, they'll all sit in their chairs practicing their concerned and judgmental faces and shout stuff. Look at the next budget, still the same ****. Look at the next appointment confirmation, new boss the same as the old boss.

But they get to make campaign ads showing them being "tough on corruption."

 

[Lurch]

Trump Tweets

It has been two years since the tragedy in Parkland. We will always mourn the innocent lives taken from us – 14 wonderful students and 3 terrific educators. Earlier this week, I met with families whose experiences from that horrible day still pierce the soul....

....Today, @FLOTUS and I encourage all Americans to cherish and honor the memory of those we have lost through acts of love and service. We will hold Parkland forever in our hearts.

@JodeyArrington from the Great State of Texas has been an incredible supporter of our #MAGA Agenda. Jodey fully supports Securing our Border w/ the WALL, he Loves our Military & Vets, and is Strong on the #2A. Jodey has my Complete and Total Endorsement!

@TomMcClintock is a strong Conservative Leader who will always fight for the people of California. He fully supports our #MAGA Agenda, will continue to Secure Our Border, Loves our Military & Vets, & is Strong on the #2A. Tom has my Complete Endorsement!

@LouieGohmertTX1 is a Fantastic Republican from the Great State of Texas! He fully supports our #MAGA and #KAG Agenda, Border WALL, Military, Vets, and your Second Amendment. Louie is my friend and has my Complete and Total Endorsement!

@MoInTheHouse Brooks is running for Congress in the Great State of Alabama. He is a huge supporter of the #MAGA Agenda. Mo fully supports Securing our Border w/the WALL, he Loves our Military & Vets, & is Strong on the #2A. Mo has my Complete Endorsement!

“The Greatest name in politics,”
Patrick @McHenryCampaign from the Great State of North Carolina, is a Conservative Fighter and a true Leader who ALWAYS supports our #MAGA Agenda. Patrick has my Complete and Total Endorsement!

So, they all support a barrier, the military, and guns in every hand. That's what makes America great? Such emphasis on three specific 'policies' that don't pay the bills for the majority of citizens.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

How much Trump could improve the lives of his followers with a massive investment in rural infrastructure instead.
Of course, the GOP is dead set against that, as easier travel between urban and rural would dispell the lies about the evil citydwellers.

 

[pgwenthold]

Keyboard too big for his tiny thumbs.

Hey, the President has the right, just like any citizen, to tweet with multiple misspellings.

 

[Trebuchet]

It's not a misspelling when the President does it!

 

[MRC_Hans]

Trump Tweets

IG report on Andrew McCabe: Misled Investigators over roll in news media disclosure...Lacked Candor (Lied) on four separate occasions...Authotized Media Leaks to advance personal interests...IG RECOMMENDED MCCABE’S FIRING.
@FoxNews @IngrahamAngle

I wonder who he is addressing with tweets like this? I mean, the MAGA hat folks cheering at his ralllies will probably not understand it, so who else is he talking to?

Hans

 

[Aridas]

If they spout religious gibberish to vulnerable communities they are con artists. That they are taking public funds to do so makes them double con artists.

It's worth pointing out that one of the top rated choices specifically calls themselves "Catholic" as part of the name. That doesn't negate your criticism, but it is worthwhile to have as context. Going further, there's a much deeper discussion to be had when it comes to religious groups that provide good services that help meet needs like this. To touch on it briefly, pragmatically speaking, in the real world of yesteryear and today, you can't depend on such needs being magically met by secular groups taking initiative and handling it all. To look at religious groups versus secular, religious groups tend to have more motivating factors to do and contribute to such in the first place and more foundation and ability to fundraise to build off of, even if secular might happen to potentially be able to provide better quality help, if the actual resources available to each were effectively equal.

If you go by rights abandoned by legislative assemblies and contracted out to an executive agency without any ongoing rigorous oversight?

A fair counterpoint. As it was, I specifically limited my comment to the right-wing media because things get much more complicated in the real world and I really didn't feel like writing a lot there.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

It's worth pointing out that one of the top rated choices specifically calls themselves "Catholic" as part of the name. That doesn't negate your criticism, but it is worthwhile to have as context. Going further, there's a much deeper discussion to be had when it comes to religious groups that provide good services that help meet needs like this. To touch on it briefly, pragmatically speaking, in the real world of yesteryear and today, you can't depend on such needs being magically met by secular groups taking initiative and handling it all. To look at religious groups versus secular, religious groups tend to have more motivating factors to do and contribute to such in the first place and more foundation and ability to fundraise to build off of, even if secular might happen to potentially be able to provide better quality help, if the actual resources available to each were effectively equal.

Horse.

****.

I'll immediately dismiss half of the "help" as not being motivated to help but being motivated to recruit. Helping the person isn't the goal, it's the means to a more self-serving end. Plus my time in that community showed me how much its about "look how helpful and godly I am!"

As to having more internal fundraising in place? Good, then they don't need public funds.

Let's release the funds to whoever is most successful and needs the most support. Oh look, by your own description that's the secular groups.

Less effective methods receiving more spontaneous resources to work with is not an argument to give even more resources to that less effective method. Plus it is entirely fair to say that while they might do some good work in a specific task, it is worth asking what negative consequences arise in other matters of "whole person care."

A fair counterpoint. As it was, I specifically limited my comment to the right-wing media because things get much more complicated in the real world and I really didn't feel like writing a lot there.

I'll grant you there's some qualitative differences in "pushing for it" and "quietly going along with it," but it wouldn't have happened without both. So pox on both their houses.

 

[Aridas]

I'll immediately dismiss half of the "help" as not being motivated to help but being motivated to recruit. Helping the person isn't the goal, it's the means to a more self-serving end. Plus my time in that community showed me how much its about "look how helpful and godly I am!"

Yes, I was very much including that when I said such. Those factors are likely the main additional ones, after all.

As to having more internal fundraising in place? Good, then they don't need public funds.

Let's release the funds to whoever is most successful and needs the most support. Oh look, by your own description that's the secular groups.

To be clear here, I'm not particularly a fan of religion. However, I think that it's important to look at things clearly and holistically.

Less effective methods receiving more spontaneous resources to work with is not an argument to give even more resources to that less effective method.

Unless, for example, the resources will end up doing more good if they go to them because the costs to run are already taken care of reliably and the already established infrastructure, experience, and networking is superior.

Plus it is entirely fair to say that while they might do some good work in a specific task, it is worth asking what negative consequences arise in other matters of "whole person care."

It is. And that's a factor that varies quite significantly in religion-based service providers, not least because of how much the religious beliefs and practices vary.

I'll grant you there's some qualitative differences in "pushing for it" and "quietly going along with it," but it wouldn't have happened without both. So pox on both their houses.

I'd say that the roots of the situation are much more complex, overall, but... as I noted, I don't feel like delving especially deeply into it at the moment. Nor, for that matter, would delving into it especially deeply be on topic here. Still, I'd poke towards cowardice, the long-term systematic loss of systems that provide accountability, massive spending and effort by domestic forces to change cultural perspectives for their benefit at expense to everyone else, market forces and profit motive increasingly driving media coverage... just to start with.

 

[Tero]

I have a hunch what is becoming a big negative for Trump is that even people who normally don't follow/pay much attention to politics are beginning to see that Trump seems mostly about Trump. His latest irritants, his thoughts, what caught his attention. He's not identified with any major policy initiatives. Healthcare, blue collar jobs, border security, an immigration policy. Oh sure, he talks about all of them but what's his plan? What is he trying to get Congress to pass? I would say it appears he isn't doing anything besides Tweeting and scheduling rallies. As one of the guys at work -- someone who voted for Trump -- says, "I thought he was different, but he's the same as all of them. Just talk."

He tries to connect himself to the economy but how many people think it's doing well 'because of Trump' or that he just happens to be 'in the right place at the right time.' Of course his supporters answer is, he reduced corporate taxes and regulations. Okay, but it's a lot harder to point to specific growth that was the result of lowering the corporate tax rate or citing regulations that were eliminated and led to growth in the economy. It might be a lot smarter to think the economy is good -- because of many complex interconnected factors -- and lowering the corporate tax rate and reducing regulations were just a bonus to the big corporations and fat cats who support Trump and the GOP.

Trump has hard core supporters who will always accept what he says as gospel -- we see it here -- but I don't think they really believe his BS either. I think they just like what he represents, they like he's the anti-liberal. He's a symbol.

I think it's undoubtedly true: without social media Trump wouldn't have even gotten the Republican nomination. Go back and read what Republicans like Lindsey Graham were saying about him in mid-2016. Without social media Trump had no way to counteract that. Reality is, his track record in business stinks. But again, for Trump's hard core base, his business failures and bankruptcies don't matter. They only care about what he Tweets.

Good to hear about this Trump erosion. I summarized your summary into a tweet, or meme:

 

[Cain]

I have a hunch what is becoming a big negative for Trump is that even people who normally don't follow/pay much attention to politics are beginning to see that Trump seems mostly about Trump. His latest irritants, his thoughts, what caught his attention. He's not identified with any major policy initiatives. Healthcare, blue collar jobs, border security, an immigration policy. Oh sure, he talks about all of them but what's his plan? What is he trying to get Congress to pass? I would say it appears he isn't doing anything besides Tweeting and scheduling rallies. As one of the guys at work -- someone who voted for Trump -- says, "I thought he was different, but he's the same as all of them. Just talk."

He tries to connect himself to the economy but how many people think it's doing well 'because of Trump' or that he just happens to be 'in the right place at the right time.' Of course his supporters answer is, he reduced corporate taxes and regulations. Okay, but it's a lot harder to point to specific growth that was the result of lowering the corporate tax rate or citing regulations that were eliminated and led to growth in the economy. It might be a lot smarter to think the economy is good -- because of many complex interconnected factors -- and lowering the corporate tax rate and reducing regulations were just a bonus to the big corporations and fat cats who support Trump and the GOP.

Trump has hard core supporters who will always accept what he says as gospel -- we see it here -- but I don't think they really believe his BS either. I think they just like what he represents, they like he's the anti-liberal. He's a symbol.

I think it's undoubtedly true: without social media Trump wouldn't have even gotten the Republican nomination. Go back and read what Republicans like Lindsey Graham were saying about him in mid-2016. Without social media Trump had no way to counteract that. Reality is, his track record in business stinks. But again, for Trump's hard core base, his business failures and bankruptcies don't matter. They only care about what he Tweets.

As long as people believe the economy is fine, a large portion of the electorate will not give a ****. Moreover, a high percentage of people who say they do not like Trump, or disapprove of Trump, are only saying those things because it's what people around them are saying. They're low-information voters not necessarily wedded to that view, and in crunch-time, they can be convinced to go with the devil that they know. Status quo bias is difficult to overcome.

Trump's vulnerable, but his numbers are remarkably strong given his administration's scandals and incompetence.