Lets see if we can keep this thread a little more civil.

I found this interview very interesting.  A lot of soft balls thrown at Trump, he explained his back pedalling on his more extreme issues as a lot of his claims as opening bids for negotiation purposes.  Which .. whatever .. I still think that those are insincere claims he used to get elected.

He does now come across way more presidential then he did prior to the election.  A lot of his noise, yelling, and rhetoric has been scaled back.

Do respect this one though:

Quote

 

Lesley Stahl: Are you gonna take the salary, the president’s salary?

Donald Trump: Well, I’ve never commented on this, but the answer is no. I think I have to by law take $1, so I’ll take $1 a year. But it’s a -- I don’t even know what it is.

Donald Trump: Do you know what the salary is?

Lesley Stahl: $400,000 you’re giving up.

Donald Trump: No, I’m not gonna take the salary. I’m not taking it.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-donald-trump-family-melania-ivanka-lesley-stahl/

Trump is back to claiming he doesnt know Putin, never met him, has no deals.  And he's being savaged for it since he's admitted knowing him and his son admitted that they made a ton of money from Russia.  You'd think Trump would be smart enough to stop acting like a thin skinned child on twitter.

This Russian thing is going to provide Trump, with some problems down the road.   Plenty of Republicans in both the house and Senate view Putin as simply a KGB thug and virtual dictator - this mutual admiration society, or bromance, is already causing teeth in Washington to grind.  Protecting family investments in Russia - awash with both underworld and government crooks, is not going to play well - ever with his deluded base.  

Trump admires Putin as a "strong man who is not afraid" and simply wishes he had that sort of set up himself - with no worries about irritating things like free speech, polls,  mass demonstrations, media criticism, or SNL skits.......

 

Edited February 7, 20178 yr by do or die

The SNL skits are tremendous.  Almost makes me want to watch SNL again.  The Spicer one was gold and supposedly Spicer was really upset and Trump actually views it as Spicer's fault that he was played by a woman.  So ofcourse now the talk is a woman playing Trump or Bannon in a skit with Rosie Oddonell a possibility.  Its hilarious in how much it bothers Trump.

If I was Spicer I would have played it like I enjoyed it and it was all in good fun.  The Trump White House takes itself far too seriously and is far too thin skinned.  Trump is going to order a strategic missile strike on NBC.

Yup, been a number of reports about how truly rattled the White House is, about that skit.  Including the "insult" of having a actual woman playing Spicer.   Of course given Trump's past sexist remarks - no real surprise.    

The ongoing surprise is how Trump.... who portrays himself as this rough, tough, two-fisted, straight shooting son of a gun......actually has skin like used onion paper - the slightest criticism, of any kind..... sends him directly to his Twitter, crying like a 10 year old.....

 

 

On 2/5/2017 at 2:32 PM, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I don't like to post consecutively multiple times, but this is really brilliant:

SNL Spicer skit

 

 

 

 

This may have been the funniest, most biting, most accurate skit on SNL for years.

1 minute ago, tracker said:

This may have been the funniest, most biting, most accurate skit on SNL for years.

I was almost in tears... it was so awesome.

About two weeks before Trump was sworn into office, a bipartisan committee met for a CIA briefing regarding Trump and Putin/Russia involvement in the election and possible influence over Trump's presidency. The meeting was "sub rosa" and all the attendees had to swear to keep secret the content. One Democratic congressman came out and said that he could not discuss the infromation but he was "shaken" and wanted an investigation but was voted down by the Republican members of the committee.

And just to confirm what most already know:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/politics/kfile-gorka-on-fake-news/index.html

 

Quote

 

WH official: We'll say 'fake news' until media realizes attitude of attacking the President is wrong

 

(CNN)Sebastian Gorka, deputy assistant to President Donald Trump, said Monday that the administration will continue using the term "fake news" until the media understands that their "monumental desire" to attack the President is wrong.

"There is a monumental desire on behalf of the majority of the media, not just the pollsters, the majority of the media to attack a duly elected President in the second week of his term," Gorka, a former Breitbart editor who also holds a PhD in political science, told syndicated conservative radio host Michael Medved.

"That's how unhealthy the situation is and until the media understands how wrong that attitude is, and how it hurts their credibility, we are going to continue to say, 'fake news.' I'm sorry, Michael. That's the reality," he added.

 

 

 

This is so frightening - I hope there is going to be litigation action every time they claim fake news when in fact it is not. Sue the shit out of the Administration.

With Bannon and these other Breitbart flunkys.....could expect nothing else.    If you have ever glanced at Breitbart News, online.....then you already know what you need to know.....

Scary, indeed....

 

And Trump has said he would consider publishing the names of every undocumented alien who commits a crime. Why not- it worked for Hitler scapegoating the Jews.

Sean Spicer's WHOIS data is public for everyone to see.

http://mashable.com/2017/02/07/sean-spicer-who-is

Edited February 7, 20178 yr by FrostyWinnipeg

2 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

 

This is so frightening - I hope there is going to be litigation action every time they claim fake news when in fact it is not. Sue the shit out of the Administration.

That's a slippery slope though because it would then allow the Administration to sue the shit out of the media every time they post blatant lies.  Trump gives up enough fodder on a daily basis to report the straight goods, but that hasn't been good enough for some over-zealous Trump-hating reporters out there.  Every time someone like Josh Rogin of the Washington Post goes over the line it just legitimizes Trump's claims about fake news, and then he just tars everyone with the same brush.  The "real" news gets lost in the shuffle.  This may actually be a strategy of the Trump team, but it's a shame that so many in the media are falling into the trap.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/13176/list-washington-posts-josh-rogin-has-big-fake-news-john-nolte

 

3 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

That's a slippery slope though because it would then allow the Administration to sue the shit out of the media every time they post blatant lies.  

If they are blatant lies, so be it.  Thi sadministration needs to stop it's dangerous attack on the 4th estate and the people better start demanding they stop or else there will be very little in the way of holding thi sadministration accountable.

 

Edited February 8, 20178 yr by wanna-b-fanboy

This is a prime example of what is wrong with the republican party. The frightening aspect of all this... The Republicans control 3/3 branches of the Government. I weep for our neighbours to the south.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/politics/sean-duffy-white-terrorism-cnntv/index.html

 

Quote

 

Duffy: 'There's a difference' on white terror and Muslim terror

(CNN)Rep. Sean Duffy said Tuesday "there is a difference" between terror acts by white people and those committed by Muslims.

CNN's Alisyn Camerota asked on "New Day" about President Donald Trump's recent immigration and travel ban, which was aimed at fighting threats of radical Islam.

"Why isn't the President talking about the white terrorists who mowed down six Muslims praying at their mosque," she asked.

"I don't know," the Wisconsin Republican replied, referencing the mass shooting at a mosque in Quebec City last month. "There's a difference."

"You don't have a group like ISIS or al Qaeda that is inspiring people around the world to take up arms and kill innocents. ... That was a one off, Alisyn," Duffy added.

Camerota mentioned 1995's Oklahoma City bombing before asking if the Trump surrogate believed that white terrorists exist. But Duffy said those incidents do not compare.

 

 

 

 

From The Hill:

Quote

 

The Trump administration will continue to use the term "fake news" to push back on what Sebastian Gorka, a deputy assistant to President Trump, described as media outlets' "monumental desire" to "attack a duly elected president."

"There is a monumental desire on behalf of the majority of the media — not just the pollsters — the majority of the media to attack a duly elected president in the second week of his term," Gorka told conservative radio host Michael Medved, whose show is syndicated across the country.

"That's how unhealthy the situation is, and until the media understands how wrong that attitude is, and how it hurts their credibility, we are going to continue to say 'fake news.' "

 

The rest of the article is here: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/318286-trump-adviser-admin-will-continue-to-say-fake-news

Its interesting that Kellyann went on CNN and said CNN was *not* fake news.  Almost like she's distancing herself.  These people must realise how absurd they all look and its killing their credibility.  Wouldnt surprise me to hear of some sort of internal intervention where certain senior people demand Trump get off of twitter.

2 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Its interesting that Kellyann went on CNN and said CNN was *not* fake news.  Almost like she's distancing herself.  

Nope. Just give it a little time, she will once again denounce CNN as fake news. Then walk it back, For some reason, this administration is able to play both sides of every issue: the lie and then walk it back to gain a bit of credibility... Lie again, walk it back to gain a bit of credibility. rinse and repeat. It's designed to cloud the subject matter and not have any real consensus on anything- if no one knows what's going on, it is easier to create your own narrative/reality.

The Great Gaslighting of USA is going on- and it is going to be compelling to watch it unfold...

3 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Nope. Just give it a little time, she will once again denounce CNN as fake news. Then walk it back, For some reason, this administration is able to play both sides of every issue: the lie and then walk it back to gain a bit of credibility... Lie again, walk it back to gain a bit of credibility. rinse and repeat. It's designed to cloud the subject matter and not have any real consensus on anything- if no one knows what's going on, it is easier to create your own narrative/reality.

The Great Gaslighting of USA is going on- and it is going to be compelling to watch it unfold...

True.  Kellyann is very very good at pivots and walking back.  But she's losing credibility.  They are all coming across as liars.

Just now, The Unknown Poster said:

True.  Kellyann is very very good at pivots and walking back.  But she's losing credibility.  They are all coming across as liars.

I don't really recall when she had any credibility and they have been liars for... ****, as far as I can remember.

3 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I don't really recall when she had any credibility and they have been liars for... ****, as far as I can remember.

Well she was the one that would be sent out after Trump said stupid things to "clarify".  I think the media treated her with respect and credibility throughout the campaign.  She is a master at this.  She comes across very nice and professional.  But she has lost credibility.  Especially since the made up Bowling Green Massacre nonsense.  She's finished.

It's all about undermining the media. If they cast enough doubt, no one will believe anything the media says. Also, by legitimizing fake news sites like Brietbart and Alex Jones, they're further eroding media.

As KBF said, the mainstream media is also doing it to themselves by allowing questionable "reporting" to come out of their organizations. It plays right into their hands.

Eventually, people won't know what to believe, at which point, the administration becomes the only voice. They already speak directly to the public via social media, reporting whatever and however they want.

9 minutes ago, JCon said:

It's all about undermining the media. If they cast enough doubt, no one will believe anything the media says. Also, by legitimizing fake news sites like Brietbart and Alex Jones, they're further eroding media.

As KBF said, the mainstream media is also doing it to themselves by allowing questionable "reporting" to come out of their organizations. It plays right into their hands.

Eventually, people won't know what to believe, at which point, the administration becomes the only voice. They already speak directly to the public via social media, reporting whatever and however they want.

Yeah but Im not sure thats sustainable.  its preaching to the choir.  Because everytime Trump tweets, there are far more tweets ripping him for it.  And they range from reasonable and true to crazy and aggressive.  But ultimately, the words get lost in the noise.  Trump-ites will filter out the opposition but everyone else wont.  So Trump will only be speaking to his people.  If thats enough to sustain him then its a good strategy but I dont think it is.

1 minute ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Yeah but Im not sure thats sustainable.  its preaching to the choir.  Because everytime Trump tweets, there are far more tweets ripping him for it.  And they range from reasonable and true to crazy and aggressive.  But ultimately, the words get lost in the noise.  Trump-ites will filter out the opposition but everyone else wont.  So Trump will only be speaking to his people.  If thats enough to sustain him then its a good strategy but I dont think it is.

But it's the noise that dilutes the impact of the media. If everyone is talking, no one is listening.

And, how can you possibly believe everything you read on social media or in the media, right?

One the most poignant things I read was about the impact on youth. If Twitter and Facebook are filled with the non-stop political discourse that's been going for the past year, the youth are likely to leave and go to Snapchat and Instagram. It's just too overwhelming. Once they're not engaged, they're less likely to vote and affect change.

7 minutes ago, JCon said:

But it's the noise that dilutes the impact of the media. If everyone is talking, no one is listening.

And, how can you possibly believe everything you read on social media or in the media, right?

One the most poignant things I read was about the impact on youth. If Twitter and Facebook are filled with the non-stop political discourse that's been going for the past year, the youth are likely to leave and go to Snapchat and Instagram. It's just too overwhelming. Once they're not engaged, they're less likely to vote and affect change.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/02/06/16-fake-news-stories-reporters-have-run-since-trump-won/

interesting read and very poignant.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/opinions/reasoning-with-trump-voters-mallicote/index.html

 

Quote

We should, however, address their stated rationale for voting the way they did. So to those good and decent people who voted for Donald Trump, here is what I wrote on Facebook and would like to say today:

You voted for Trump because Hillary Clinton was going to be in Wall Street's pocket. Trump wants to repeal Dodd-Frank and eliminate the Fiduciary Rule, letting Wall Street return to its pre-2008 ways.

You voted for Trump because you thought the Clinton Foundation was "pay for play." Trump has refused to wall off his businesses from his administration, and personally profits from payments from foreign governments.

You voted for Trump because of Clinton's role in Benghazi. Trump ordered the Yemen raid without adequate intel, and tweeted about "FAKE NEWS" while Americans died as a result of his carelessness.

You voted for Trump because Clinton didn't care about "the little guy." Trump's cabinet is full of billionaires, and he's taking away your health insurance so he can give them a multi-million-dollar tax break.

You voted for Trump because he was going to build a wall and Mexico was going to pay for it. American consumers will pay for the wall via import tariffs.

You voted for Trump because Clinton was going to get us into a war. Trump has provoked our enemies, alienated our allies and given ISIS a decade's worth of recruiting material.

You voted for Trump because Clinton didn't have the "stamina" to do the job. Trump hung up on the Australian Prime Minister during a 5 p.m. phone call because "it was at the end of a long day and he was tired and fatigue was setting in."

You voted for Trump because foreign leaders wouldn't respect Clinton. Foreign leaders, both friendly and hostile, are openly mocking Trump.

You voted for Trump because Clinton lies and "he tells it like it is." Trump and his administration lie with a regularity and brazenness that can only be described as shocking.

Let's be honest about what really happened.

The reality is that you voted for Trump because you got conned. Trump is a grifter and the American people were the mark. Hey, it happens, and there's no shame in being taken in by a pro. But now that you know the score, quit insisting the conman is on your side.

 

Edited February 9, 20178 yr by wanna-b-fanboy