Jump to content

Alternative Facts, Broken Promises & Wolves


DrmDoc
 Share

Recommended Posts

The media repeated Trump's lies all the way to the White House. It doesn't work. Rather than journalist waking up at 3am every morning to look for Trump tweets to report on they (media) need to start withholding airtime and print less Trump and his team addresses real matters. Allowing Trump to force them (media) to devote billions worth of headlines to things that are fake only benefits Trump. The evidence of this is obvious. He lied his way through the primary and then the general. All along the media pointed out the lies and fact checked him. It didn't hurt him. All the additional coverage had a normalizing effect which actually made his alternative facts seem more legitimate because they were so often covered and repeated.

 

Now, in an interview with the associated press released Sunday, Trump set a new standard of hubris even for himself — comparing his ratings prowess to one of the darkest days in U.S. history: Sept. 11, 2001.

“It's the highest for 'Face the Nation' or as I call it, 'Deface the Nation,' " Trump told the AP's Julie Pace, referring to the CBS News Sunday political talk show. “It's the highest for 'Deface the Nation' since the World Trade Center — since the World Trade Center came down.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/04/24/trump-boasts-of-highest-tv-ratings-since-the-world-trade-center-came-down/?utm_term=.e31da377792c#comments

 

Inboasting about his TV ratings Trump is provided strong anecdotal evidence for a point I attempted to make a couple months ago. Fact checking Trump doesn't work. All press is good press. So long as Trump can control the topic he doesn't care if the headlines are positive or negative. Rather than the meida giving Trump headline after headline when he lies about wiretaps, Susan Rice,and etc the media should just ignore it. By reporting on it they are allowing Trump to control the narrative. There are so many issues that simply get zero attention because everyone is too busy giving their type to Trump lies. Meanwhile Trump loves it!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump ridicules Warren with Pocahontas reference. Yet another reason why he is so undeserving of the presidency.

 

Interestingly enough, guns were banned at that NRA conference. Is blanket gun control discretion around the 2nd Amendment is okay for them, but not others?

 

Were there no challenges to the policy? What were they afraid of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump ridicules Warren with Pocahontas reference. Yet another reason why he is so undeserving of the presidency.

in 2004 after Bush was re-elected I was sitting in my car listening to the news on the radio.Flipping through the stations I heard Sean Hannity telling his audience not to celebrate too long because they were needed back in the trenches asap to stop Hillary Clinton in 2008, "the Battle to stop Hillary starts right now!" I heard similar statements from Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage.

 

Conservatives are good at the long game. They are good at spending years attacking someones character so that they seem too damaged overtime. I preferred Obama to Clinton but in all honestly I must admit that the constant drumming of Hillary Clinton helped Obama in the primary. He was new and the right hadn't spent years assassinating his character. The water wasn't dirty around Obama like it already was around Clinton. I think the same can be said for Bernie Sanders in 2016. The Right had not and did not invest in impugning Sanders which allow Sanders to seem more honest, new, and clean. People grow fatigued of the same old arguments. The right takes advantage of that.

 

Currently the right see Warren as trouble. They see her as formidable in 2020 so they are beating it into their supporter heads now that she is bad. They will surely throw loads of money against her in 2018 hoping to damage her senate re-election bid.By the time 2020 rolls around they (the right) hope Warran will seem divissive and scandal ridden. I think it is also worth considering that Trump and his people seldom to never attack Bernie Sanders. When they do mention Sanders it is normally in the context of how poorly he was treated by the DNC. This is intentional. They want Sanders to remain an unsoiled scandal free character that hopefully will divide progressives.

Edited by Ten oz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

in 2004 after Bush was re-elected I was sitting in my car listening to the news on the radio.Flipping through the stations I heard Sean Hannity telling his audience not to celebrate too long because they were needed back in the trenches asap to stop Hillary Clinton in 2008, "the Battle to stop Hillary starts right now!" I heard similar statements from Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage.

 

Conservatives are good at the long game. They are good at spending years attacking someones character so that they seem too damaged overtime. I preferred Obama to Clinton but in all honestly I must admit that the constant drumming of Hillary Clinton helped Obama in the primary. He was new and the right hadn't spent years assassinating his character. The water wasn't dirty around Obama like it already was around Clinton. I think the same can be said for Bernie Sanders in 2016. The Right had not and did not invest in impugning Sanders which allow Sanders to seem more honest, new, and clean. People grow fatigued of the same old arguments. The right takes advantage of that.

 

Currently the right see Warren as trouble. They see her as formidable in 2020 so they are beating it into their supporter heads now that she is bad. They will surely throw loads of money against her in 2018 hoping to damage her senate re-election bid.By the time 2020 rolls around they (the right) hope Warran will seem divissive and scandal ridden. I think it is also worth considering that Trump and his people seldom to never attack Bernie Sanders. When they do mention Sanders it is normally in the context of how poorly he was treated by the DNC. This is intentional. They want Sanders to remain an unsoiled scandal free character that hopefully will divide progressives.

 

That's a good analysis and one I haven't considered. I think Warren would be a stronger candidate against Trump but, unfortunately, the Democrats in general are a weak bunch. Their continual capitulation to Republican strategies and policy efforts, indifferent to the mandate of their constituent base, makes Democrats appear particularly ineffectual.

In case you haven't read, here's 100 days of Trump whoppers according to FactCheck.org.

Edited by DrmDoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That's a good analysis and one I haven't considered. I think Warren would be a stronger candidate against Trump but, unfortunately, the Democrats in general are a weak bunch. Their continual capitulation to Republican strategies and policy efforts, indifferent to the mandate of their constituent base, makes Democrats appear particularly ineffectual.

In case you haven't read, here's 100 days of Trump whoppers according to FactCheck.org.

I agree.There are a few reasons for this. For starters Democrats as a matter of platform believe in compromise while Republicans do not. Democrat philosophy also accepts that change can be slow and incremental while Republcans believe the righteous (themselves) deserve what they deserve right now at this minute and always. Race plays a big factor too. It is simply easier to ignore minorities and women in our society. This is still a society that listens more closely, takes more seriously, pays more attention to, and etc things white males say and want. Lastly Democrats are inclusive and attempt to not to alienate anyone while Republicans are exclusive and proudly alienate people.

 

It is actually comical to me. I so often hear Democrats talking about the need to reach out to coal miners and rural males in the Mid West. Dems have conceded that messaging over the last few years has alienated people in the dust bowl. Meaningwhile Republican aren't afraid of their messaging. They aren't affraid chanting "drill baby drill" will alienate environmentalists, aren't afraid chanting "build the wall" will alienate hispanics, aren't afraid chanting "all lives matter" will alienate black lives matters, aren't afraid "grab them by the p#@!$" will alienate women. Democrats consistantly get more votes overall yet accept that they are somehow out of touch. Dems suffer from low self esteem while the republican's self esteem is through the roof. Even during Obama's years it was this way. Obama was a popular and successful President yet many Democrats were afraid of being too supportive of the ACA allowing Republicans to dominate the conversation and label it Obamacare. Same goes for everything from the GM bailout to Iran deal. Dems were lukewarm at best and afraid to be too strong in their support. Republcans were very loud in their opposition and it clearly intimidated Democrats in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree.There are a few reasons for this. For starters Democrats as a matter of platform believe in compromise while Republicans do not. Democrat philosophy also accepts that change can be slow and incremental while Republcans believe the righteous (themselves) deserve what they deserve right now at this minute and always. Race plays a big factor too. It is simply easier to ignore minorities and women in our society. This is still a society that listens more closely, takes more seriously, pays more attention to, and etc things white males say and want. Lastly Democrats are inclusive and attempt to not to alienate anyone while Republicans are exclusive and proudly alienate people.

 

It is actually comical to me. I so often hear Democrats talking about the need to reach out to coal miners and rural males in the Mid West. Dems have conceded that messaging over the last few years has alienated people in the dust bowl. Meaningwhile Republican aren't afraid of their messaging. They aren't affraid chanting "drill baby drill" will alienate environmentalists, aren't afraid chanting "build the wall" will alienate hispanics, aren't afraid chanting "all lives matter" will alienate black lives matters, aren't afraid "grab them by the p#@!$" will alienate women. Democrats consistantly get more votes overall yet accept that they are somehow out of touch. Dems suffer from low self esteem while the republican's self esteem is through the roof. Even during Obama's years it was this way. Obama was a popular and successful President yet many Democrats were afraid of being too supportive of the ACA allowing Republicans to dominate the conversation and label it Obamacare. Same goes for everything from the GM bailout to Iran deal. Dems were lukewarm at best and afraid to be too strong in their support. Republcans were very loud in their opposition and it clearly intimidated Democrats in my opinion.

 

If Democrats believe in compromise, then why are they promoting the idea that they need to resist everything Trump proposes regardless of the actual things he is proposing even if it is ideologically aligned with what the Democrats want (a la infrastructure deals)?

 

If the Democrats are so inclusive, why did Barack Obama refer to people who vote Republican as their enemies?

 

Example:

 

 

Last week, in an interview with Univision radio, Obama urged Hispanic votes for Democrats, and said: "If Latinos sit out the election instead of, 'we're going to punish our enemies and we're going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us' -- if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's going to be harder."

 

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/11/obama-i-shouldnt-have-used-the-word-enemies/1#.WQTuLrpFzF4

 

Thanks to your rhetoric, I can safely say that Barack Obama was promoting a racist charge against white males guised as a hit on Republicans, since "only" white males vote Republican.

 

If Republicans dominated the conversation on the ACA, why did it get through with zero Republican votes? Scroll down on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act. Zero Republican votes on the Affordable Care Act. Republicans were literally blocked out of the negotiation process from the beginning.

 

Ten oz, I feel like you have some legitimate criticisms, but the underlying bias through which you present your criticisms is so strong that I feel like it is a distortion of reality.

Edited by Capayan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If Democrats believe in compromise, then why are they promoting the idea that they need to resist everything Trump proposes regardless of the actual things he is proposing even if it is ideologically aligned with what the Democrats want (a la infrastructure deals)?

 

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't resisting everything the president proposes regardless of public benefit a tactic first employed by the Republicans and continued throughout Obama's presidency--including Obama's tremendously qualified and universally praised final Supreme Court nominee?

 

If the Democrats are so inclusive, why did Barack Obama refer to people who vote Republican as their enemies?

 

 

It seems to me that Obama was merely acknowledging their position in the eyes of then Republican presidential nominee and now president of the United States, Donald Trump. As I recall, he considered Mexicans "bad hombres" and even disparaged a federal judge of Mexican heritage. Although I don't presume to know your mind, it's quite clear from your post that you may not be aware of or concern with certain realities yourself.

Edited by DrmDoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If Democrats believe in compromise, then why are they promoting the idea that they need to resist everything Trump proposes regardless of the actual things he is proposing even if it is ideologically aligned with what the Democrats want (a la infrastructure deals)?

 

If the Democrats are so inclusive, why did Barack Obama refer to people who vote Republican as their enemies?

 

Example:

 

 

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/11/obama-i-shouldnt-have-used-the-word-enemies/1#.WQTuLrpFzF4

 

Thanks to your rhetoric, I can safely say that Barack Obama was promoting a racist charge against white males guised as a hit on Republicans, since "only" white males vote Republican.

 

If Republicans dominated the conversation on the ACA, why did it get through with zero Republican votes? Scroll down on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act. Zero Republican votes on the Affordable Care Act. Republicans were literally blocked out of the negotiation process from the beginning.

 

Ten oz, I feel like you have some legitimate criticisms, but the underlying bias through which you present your criticisms is so strong that I feel like it is a distortion of reality.

What infastructure spending has Trump actually presented?

 

Parties are made up of thousands of politicians. There will also be loose qoutes to use to trying and make a point. Just a couple weeks back Paul Ryan said he didn't want Trump to work with Democrats on Healthcare. Ultimately Trump has only been in 100 days and he can't even get his own party to support many of his proposals. I see no point in going tit for tat regarding compromise with Trump when his own party sunk his healthcare plan and won't even bring his other promises like term limits up for Congress members up for a vote. For examples of compromises lets look at Bush's first term. He got Democratic support on Tax cuts, Education, Healthcare, and etc.

 

In 2001 Bush's Tax cut saw 14 Democrat senators vote "yea".

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00170

 

In 2001 Bush's No Child left Behind education bill saw 43 Democratic senators vote "yea".

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00371

 

In 2001 only a single lone Democrat voted against the Patriot Act which actually gave Bush more power.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313

 

in 2003 Bush's tax cut saw 3 Democrat Senators vote "yea". This is significant because the bill would have failed with those 3 votes.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00179

 

In 2003 Bush's Iraq Resolution saw 29 Democrat senators vote "yea".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#United_States_Senate

 

In 2003 Bush's Medicare drug plan saw 10 Democrat senators vote "yea".

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00459

 

 

Yes, Democrats are inclusive. Democrats have a considerably more diverse voting base amongst races, religions, genders, education, income, etc, etc, etc. I won't even both with a citiation here because it is too obvious. Democrats have a large umbrella.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I don't believe in "It's too obvious for a citation" here is a citation: http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2-party-affiliation-among-voters-1992-2016/

 

Republicans win whites overall and white men by a lot. They also win white evangelical Protestants, white mainline Protestants, Mormons and white Catholics. They also win whites over 35.

 

They are approximately tied (within a point or two) with Democrats for white women, Catholics, and white Millenials.

 

Democrats win with women overall, blacks, black Protestants, Hispanics, Hispanic Catholics, non-whites over every age cohort, Jewish voters and the religiously unaffiliated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think when talking about white Millennials the exit polls indicated that there is ~ 5% advantage for Republicans (presumably more when looking at white male Millennials). It has been reduced from 7% in 2012. The data sets are a bit different as, I believe the Pew poll was based on survey of registered voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

135.7 million people voted in 2016.

 

Whites made up 70% of all voters, 95 million. Trump received 58%, 55 million. Trump received a total of 62.9 million votes. 87% of Trump's voters were white.

 

Blacks made up 12% of all voters, 16.3 million. Trump received 8%, 1.3 million. Trump received a total of 62.9 million votes. 2% of Trump's voters were black.

 

Hispanic made up 11% of all voters, 14.9 million. Trump received 29%, 4.3 million. Trump received a total of 62.9 million votes. 7% of Trump's voters were Hispanic.

 

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/groups-voted-2016/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016

 

Clintion received 37% of the total White vote, 35.1 million. Clinton received 65.85 million votes. 53% of Clinton voters were White.

 

Clintion received 88% of the total Black vote, 14.3 million. Clinton received 65.85 million votes. 22% of Clinton voters were Black.

 

Clintion received 65% of the total Hispanic vote, 9.7 million. Clinton received 65.85 million votes. 15% of Clinton voters were Hispanic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beyond his moronic tweets, Trump has a penchant for making vacuous statements to the press. Most recently, Trumps claim that Andrew Jackson (7th president of the U.S.) was "really angry" with our country's Civil War. A more knowledgeable and apt statement should probably have suggested Jackson turning in his grave at the time of that war because Jackson had been dead some 16 years prior. The depths of Trump's apparent ignorance makes his election to the presidency even more astounding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have any doubts regarding the mindset of this administration, consider this Huffington Post article on the legal precedent Trump's Justice Department chose to support its illegal Muslim travel ban. Their reliance on segregationist Supreme Court rulings from an era of despicable racial discrimination and social intolerance is undoubtedly without the slightest visage of moral conscience. The ruling was wrong then and it's wrong now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Distraction rules the day. Healthcare is hated. Son in law is handing out visas to business prospects like Halloween candy. Muslim ban blocked by courts. Russia investigation won't shut up. Yates testifies. Pressure applies. What rules the day is lies... until... "Look over there!!! We fired Jim Comey over questionable reasons!"

 

Don't be distracted. Stay on target...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in yet another twist Trump fired the FBI director Comey.

 

Unfortunately, Trump's Nixonian tactics hasn't fooled anybody other than his staunchest supporters who will likely remain under his Svengali-like thrall well after his, hopefully, imminent impeachment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's nice to hear the words "Trump" and "impeachment", like the light at the end of a long dark nightmare tunnel.

The problem with seeing a light at the end of a long dark tunnel is that it's often hard to tell whether it's actually daylight or just an on-coming train.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something is wrong with Trump's letter about WHY he fired Comey. Trump said that Comey should be fired even though Comey notified Trump on "three separate occasions" that Trump was NOT under investigation. What is the basis for that? Is there a public record of Comey notifying Trump of this? Is that even a likely event? Why would Comey, who we know from his own testimony under oath, IS investigating coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, why would Comey tell Trump in person that Trump is not under investigation? The more you think about this the more absurd it seems. The fact no cable news that I am aware of has mentioned this baffles me. It seems to me that for Comey to say that to Trump is unbelievable. I hope Comey testifies about this strange explanation from Trump.

 

Trump fires the man who is investigating him, and Jeff Sessions, who is supposed to be recused in this, is supporting the absurd explanation that Comey was too hard on Clinton about her emails.

 

Just one more example of the questionability of Trump's ability to be president. Trump is no longer dealing with crises, he is creating them! When is the tipping point when republicans realize they've had enough?

Edited by Airbrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something is wrong with Trump's letter about WHY he fired Comey. Trump said that Comey should be fired even though Comey notified Trump on "three separate occasions" that Trump was NOT under investigation, what is the basis for that? Is there a public record of Comey notifying Trump of this? Is that even a likely event? Why would Comey, who we know from his own testimony under oath IS investigating coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, why would Comey tell Trump in person that Trump is not under investigation? The more you think about this the more absurd that seems. Were Trump and Comey at a party and Comey said "Hi Donald, how are you? Oh, by the way I am not investigating you." The fact no cable news that I am aware of has noticed this baffles me. It seems to me that for Comey to say that to Trump is unbelievable. I hope Comey testifies about this strange comment.

 

Everything I've read so far says this was a specious claim with deep roots in alternative fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something is wrong with Trump's letter about WHY he fired Comey. Trump said that Comey should be fired even though Comey notified Trump on "three separate occasions" that Trump was NOT under investigation, what is the basis for that? Is there a public record of Comey notifying Trump of this? Is that even a likely event? Why would Comey, who we know from his own testimony under oath IS investigating coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, why would Comey tell Trump in person that Trump is not under investigation? The more you think about this the more absurd that seems. The fact no cable news that I am aware of has mentioned this baffles me. It seems to me that for Comey to say that to Trump is unbelievable. I hope Comey testifies about this strange explanation from Trump.

 

Actually, there was quite a bit of discussion on that topic on CNN's Anderson 360 regarding the legality of such notifications by Comey. The consensus, as I perceived, was that such notifications to probably targets of FBI investigations, including the president, is highly improper--which is no surprise given Comey's improper interference during this past presidential elections.

Edited by DrmDoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something is wrong with Trump's letter about WHY he fired Comey. Trump said that Comey should be fired even though Comey notified Trump on "three separate occasions" that Trump was NOT under investigation. What is the basis for that? Is there a public record of Comey notifying Trump of this? Is that even a likely event? Why would Comey, who we know from his own testimony under oath, IS investigating coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, why would Comey tell Trump in person that Trump is not under investigation? The more you think about this the more absurd it seems. The fact no cable news that I am aware of has mentioned this baffles me. It seems to me that for Comey to say that to Trump is unbelievable. I hope Comey testifies about this strange explanation from Trump.

 

Trump fires the man who is investigating him, and Jeff Sessions, who is supposed to be recused in this, is supporting the absurd explanation that Comey was too hard on Clinton about her emails.

 

Just one more example of the questionability of Trump's ability to be president. Trump is no longer dealing with crises, he is creating them! When is the tipping point when republicans realize they've had enough?

Trump gave Nunes fake information to mislead the House Intelligence Committee and public, Trump has openly attacked​ (via Twitter and his press secretary) witnesses in route to testify, now Trump has fired the FBI during his investigation into possible connection between administration officials and Russia. This is obstruction of justice. This isn't​ complicated to see. Our checks and balances simply don't work. Trump has broken the law and it is plain to see. It is illegal to intentionally interfere with a official investigation. Trump has provided false info, intimidated witnesses, and now fire investigators.

Edited by Ten oz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the Lester Holt interview yesterday, Trump claimed that Comey told him "on three separate occasions" that Trump is not under investigation. When will we hear Comey's version of this? Why don't they just call Comey and ask him? Or is this something that can only be addressed under oath?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.