Cont: The Trump Presidency: Part 24

[Mumbles]

If trump is so obviously racist, why are his approval ratings among Blacks and Hispanics increasing? Between 25 and 40% approval depending on the poll and minority group in question.

https://spectator.org/why-trumps-approval-ratings-are-up-among-minorities/

https://lidblog.com/violent-crime-driving-trumps-approval/
Its totally consistent with research on this sort of thing. In the 60s, elections following peaceful protests went more liberal and elections following violent protests went more conservative. Seems to have been true in most of the democratic world.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Oh, Zogby *and* Rasmussen! It absolutely must be true.

Hold on, let me gt up off the floor and return to my chair.

Here, let me help you out a little: Dolt 45's going to get stomped among black voters. That was set in stone long before he came down that escalator and started ranting about the rapey Mexicans. Among Latinos, he's likely strong among, say, Cuban immigrants and others who are still freaked out by "socialism", never mind that Biden is very clearly not a socialist, and decently among white latinos who, like other light-skinned immigrants, are easily accepted in by even racist US white folk. Both parties reliably fumble around when it comes to latino voters in general, mostly because both treat them (us) as a coherent group with similar interests, culture, etc. when this is decidedly not true at all. That's how you end up with people like Marco Rubio and "Ted" Cruz in the GOP, but a GOP president telling a brown-skinned Puerto Rican that her country's leader is a failure, with no apparent idea that he is insulting himself.

 

[phiwum]

Ok I read the announcement. Sounds like it was written by a politician. A few platitudes, no indication that they expect any results. Basically follow the leader. NBA did it so we will too.

At least the NBA Milwaukee Bucks are made up of predominantly black players and staff, and are located very close to the most recent incident. I certainly see the justification there.

The NHL has a reputation for poor race relations. I think this is a reasonable way to try and make some amends. Baby steps, but at least it's an attempt to show some concern about racism.

It shouldn't be mistaken for serious effort, but it's non-trivial effort.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

She planted a lot of new bulbs that won't sprout until next year. One morning in the spring people are going to wake up to see "I'M OUT - THANK YOU AMERICA" spelled out in big, bold blossoms.

 

[Meadmaker]

Uggh. I just saw a picture of the White House, all decked out for Trump's address.

How tacky.

It might not be illegal. Even if it is a little bit illegal, it won't be something he could be impeached and convicted on. However, it's just plain tacky. I wish we had a president who understood why that was such a bad idea.


(For what it's worth, just in case there are any Trump defenders on the subject, I can recall one pre-Trump incident where the White House was used as a prop, and I thought that was tacky, too.)

 

[SezMe]

If they want publicity, it seems logical to be in public. After game interviews, magazine articles, whatever.
A boycott seems to do the opposite. It is a negative. It uplifts, informs and inspires no one. I think it is a big turd of a virtue signal. Good intentions, but out of touch and misguided.

You don't know that. Speak for yourself or, if you want to generalize, you should be prepared to support your statements with evidence. Do you have evidence that boycotts "inspire no one"?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Last thought on the Rose Garden.

Trump pulls **** like this because he knows the Dems aren’t organized enough to prioritize their complaints. He knows that digging up trees planted by First Ladies more than 60 years ago upsets the liberals. In fact, it upsets them enough that they stop talking about his firing inspector generals (that’s something that needs to be in the top ten).

And there is a side effect. Apolitical friends of Democrats listen them complaining about a garden and think “FFS, is there anything you won’t complain about. I’m just going to start tuning you out.”

TL;DR
The Troll in the White House is calling the tune and the liberals are dancing like trained monkeys.

Except the part about trained monkeys because that's a bit disproportionate to the amount of time the Liberals including in this thread are actually paying to the issue, the digging up trees comment has some merit.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Uggh. I just saw a picture of the White House, all decked out for Trump's address.

How tacky.

It might not be illegal. Even if it is a little bit illegal, it won't be something he could be impeached and convicted on. However, it's just plain tacky. I wish we had a president who understood why that was such a bad idea.


(For what it's worth, just in case there are any Trump defenders on the subject, I can recall one pre-Trump incident where the White House was used as a prop, and I thought that was tacky, too.)

It is illegal for anyone but Trump and Pence, personally.
Everyone on the government payroll helping to make the campaign event at the White House is violating the law.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

My wish list for the Biden administration to reverse as much as possible of Trump's doings now includes changing back the Rose Garden to the way it was. It now has about the same charm as Trump himself.

If it's true, and it sounds like it could be, the trees had been damaged at the roots and were moved to where they'd be safer. They're nice, but there's no reason to make trees suffer so we can admire them.

 

[Meadmaker]

It is illegal for anyone but Trump and Pence, personally.
Everyone on the government payroll helping to make the campaign event at the White House is violating the law.

I would hope that they were at least smart enough to foot the bill themselves, i.e. the RNC or the Trump campaign paid the cost.

Although, now that I think about it, if they hired contractors to set everything up, could they clear them for work on it that fast? I suppose I'm not the only one with these concerns, and some combination of media and the House of Representatives will look into it.

Whether or not it's illegal, it's tacky. And, more than tacky, it just shows an irreverence for the office and for the institutions of government. There's a reason that this sort of thing ought not be done, even if the problem is only symbolic.

 

[SezMe]

In times of great strife people need some outlet. If those people want to quit to cause 'awareness' even after years of constant 'awareness', then I think the sport will suffer.

If there was indeed "constant" awareness of systemic racism, especially in our justice system, BLM would not now exist.

Do you think they will appreciate hearing for the umpteenth time that they need to be 'aware" of racism? Is there someone who has not heard it yet who would have some epiphany of change because basketball is cancelled??

You're being simplistic. Politicians use talking points repeatedly because that's the way to create "awareness". So, of course, one game or one interview or one protest probably won't cause a lot of change or an indiviual epophany. But keep hammering and maybe success will come about.

 

[Bob001]

Another anti-Trump ad, by the father of a Navy SEAL set on a raid for no purpose:
https://www.votevets.org/video

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You mean like getting American warships on the Black sea, more American soldiers in Poland, more American money into an eastward NATO buildup, more & more sanctions on Russia, attacks on Russia's main Middle-Eastern ally, arming of Ukrainian Neo-Nazi rebels, opposition to Russian deals with Venezuela, attempts to get Germany to drop a Russian oil deal, the blocking of a Russian deal with Exxon, and the violation of the Iran deal that Russia had also been a part of?

Well, they are the same on some of the biggest issues. They both favor economic policies that keep making the rich richer and the poor poorer (or deader), and they're both pro-war (although not the same wars). They're different on the "culture wars", which conveniently happens to not cost money no matter which way that goes. They're also different on the environment, with Republicans taking an essentially hostile approach and most Democrats ambivalently idling about it (and a few seeming very motivated but also with some strange anti-environmental blind spots like their anti-nuclear cultishness).

So let's see, we have ships in the Black Sea off and on under Trump.

And Putin responds: NavyTimes, Jan 2020: Putin attends naval drills in Black Sea

Seems like nothing more than a stalemate.

Military Times July 2020: WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump welcomed Poland’s president to the White House on Wednesday,

with a U.S. decision to send more American troops to Poland to bolster NATO’s eastern flank against Russian aggression at the top of the leaders’ agenda.

Even before Andrzej Duda arrived, the U.S. ambassador to Poland, Georgette Mosbacher, told TVN24 in Poland that the U.S. will send another 1,000 troops to Poland — over and above the 1,000 declared last year. But she said they might not necessarily be transferred from Germany, where Trump is planning to withdraw about 10,000 U.S. troops.

2,000 in, 10,000 out?

Reuters: Armed with new U.S. money, NATO to strengthen Russia deterrence FEB 2016!!!

Russian deal with Exxon thwarted: Think Progress: Did Putin help elect Trump to restore $500 billion Exxon oil deal killed by sanctions

Follow the money: Will Trump repay Putin by ending Russian sanctions and killing the Paris climate deal?

Oh dear, taking credit again for something that happened on Obama's watch. There was a lot of talk when Trump put the Exxon favorite Tillerson in his Cabinet. That didn't last long.

But it appears our democracy and our children have a new axis to worry about: Putin, Trump, and ExxonMobil, whose CEO Rex Tillerson — an extreme Russophile and long-time director of a US-Russian oil company — is Trump’s puzzling choice for Secretary of State.

Opposing Russian deals with Venezuela, words, sure. Has it gone beyond that? I don't recall.

So why am I supposed to think Trump is a nightmare for Putin? Seems like Trump made some attempts after the election to not be in Putin's pocket, or rather to not appear to be in Putin's pocket.

I'm not impressed by your list.

 

[Jim_MDP]

And the USA already HAS Socialism. Social Security? Socialism. Medicare? Socialism. Federally funded highways? Socialism. State Universities? Socialism. City police and fire departments? Socialism.

We just aren't all that good at it sometimes.

I'll pick yours to reply as I wasn't on yesterday and still have 150 posts to get through, and this derail needs to die or get a thread.

My mistake was not capitalizing Socialism (as in the national form of government) and here yours is doing so in reference to social support policies.
I have no issues with the latter honestly instituted) but was expressing my doubt about the viability of the former (and no, the "Nordic Model" variants in use today don't qualify). Nor was I conflating Socialism(gov't) with Communism(gov't), many similarities... a few MAJOR differences. So for the third time... sorry, my bad.
Now... back to catching up on the TRUMP thread. [emoji1]

 

[Jim_MDP]

Just looked over the old vs the new Rose Garden because I thought people were exaggerating how bad the new is.

Before and after photos of Melania Trump's Rose Garden renovation


Here Are The Before And After Photos Of Melania Trump's White House Rose Garden Renovations

She removed the majority of the blossoming trees, took out all the colorful tulips and put in a lot of white somethings, (roses I guess).

Yeah, it's been... sterilized.
Did the grounds really need another expanse of plain flat lawn?
(Not sure a tennis pavilion will get a lot of use either but that's another discussion.)

 

[Jim_MDP]

I'm fairly certain Presidential aspirants can handle that.

Slight derail, for us mortals, they usually use 2 specimen vials.

Many things can trigger an initial positive of the cheap screening test. The test that specifies the offending contaminant is much more expensive. Depending on the nature of the agreement (court ordered, employer mandated, whatever) one could potentially be told they must fork over hundreds of dollars to get them to open the second vial and run the expensive test to challenge an initial positive.

Boss: Random drug testing starts next week.
Me: Okay. But, no needles... and I won't do heroin.

.

An oldie but, I like it. [emoji1]

 

[Lurch]

It doesn't matter what they do to protest, it's always wrong.

If they take a knee, it's wrong.
If they stop playing, it's wrong.
If they wear a protest sign/shirt/ garment, it's wrong.
If they talk about it in pressers, interviews or at all, it's wrong.

Essentially, if it bothers the privilege of those in power, it's wrong.

They need to get back to picking cotton just play the game.

BINGO. And I completely agree with players boycotting games. That's their version of a strike. And a strike is perhaps the most attention-getting action that's legal. Nobody with an interest in the struck organization can ignore it. And it'll be mighty hard to get a crew of scabs to fill in, too.

If the complacent part of populace won't see what's going on in the larger scene, then let the lack of their circuses jolt them to reality. If they then bite off their nose to spite their face, then they're irredeemable deplorables not worth the effort.

 

[Lurch]

People do know about the issue and are talking about it. Particularly sports fans because, if they are watching the games, they are exposed to the commentators talking about it before the game, between periods and after the game, They are exposed to it during the anthem(s), and they are exposed to it during player interviews. I would say that sports fans have much more exposure to the issues than the general public at large. If sports events are cancelled the result will be that the fans of those sports are less exposed to the issues during the inactive periods and people who do not watch anyway will be unaffected by the actions of athletes. I fail to see how cancelling sports events will have any positive effect on social injustice and the Black Lives Matter cause.

FTR it is a cause that I fully support and athletes refusing to play will not affect my support one iota. I assume most supporters of the cause would have a similar reaction. Is there any real suggestion that those that are not supportive of the cause will change their attitude because athletes refuse to play. If they pay lip service to supporting a cause that they really don’t care about just to be able to watch sports has anything positive really been accomplished?

Or is the action not directed at sports fans but, rather, is it intended to get action out of politicians and community leaders? That could have a positive effect if sports fans feel deprived enough to urge these leaders to more action. But even there, if the primary motive of the sports fans is to get the games on track again rather than increased personal interest in social justice, is that really a positive thing? I am just not sure that professional athletes are capable of changing social attitudes quite as much that they and some others think they can. Those changes take time. It remains to be seen whether pro athletes as a group can have a noticeable effect on those changes.

Sometimes it takes pain to engender a change. A repeat criminal offender who only ever gets a slap on the wrist is not motivated to shape up. A spell in the klink tends to drive home the lesson, even if only to avoid the same penalty in future.

If sports fans still get to enjoy their circuses, the protesting can safely be ignored. But if the fun stops, they might be motivated to be more active in support, if for no other reason than to bring back the games.

 

[Lurch]

In times of great strife people need some outlet. If those people want to quit to cause 'awareness' even after years of constant 'awareness', then I think the sport will suffer.

Im my fathers boyhood village, the Nazis were in charge, but the skating and sailing races continued- no delay, no boycott. The people needed it so that just for a brief time, they could be transported back to normal times. the show must go on, as they say.

Who will be that valve for our society?
No sports
No movies
No plays
No concerts
No weddings
No parties
No amusement parks
No indoor dining
No travel......

Many are isolated without family near.
Do you think they will appreciate hearing for the umpteenth time that they need to be 'aware" of racism? Is there someone who has not heard it yet who would have some epiphany of change because basketball is cancelled??

Jeez; cry me a river. Then maybe it's high time to finally act on the underlying problems that are screwing up so much of society. Not burying heads in sand with distracting circuses.

 

[Solitaire]

Fairly certainly a lot less. Bias does exist, but... it's well worth remembering
that the MSM (and democrats in general) are held to a dramatically higher
standard and use a fundamentally different business model when it comes
to how they attract and maintain an audience compared to Fox and far right
media outlets.

I just found an article on that subject in the Boston Review.

 

[Firestone]

Thanks to the time difference, I couldn't watch the RNC live.

From what I read this morning, apparently Trump failed to break Fidel Castro's "longest speech ever" record with his acceptance speech.