Trump Effects

[Airbrush]

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-obama-criticism-gold-star-families-2017-10

"...During a press conference on Monday, Trump suggested that Obama did not call Gold Star families when he was president after a reporter asked whether Trump had reached out to the families of those killed in a special forces raid in Niger.

"President Obama and other presidents, most of them didn't make calls," Trump added. "I call when it's appropriate."

During his administration, Obama faced criticism from the right for taking pains to honor the families of fallen soldiers, as some critics said he didn't have the stomach for war."

Most other presidents didn't make calls?!  This is insane on the face of it.  How can Trump know what "most" presidents did?  Later he admitted "someone told him" that Obama didn't make phone calls to gold star families.  This is TOO delusional for a president.  If something SHOULD be true in HIS mind, that makes it true?!  Impeach the scoundrel!

Edited October 17, 2017 by Airbrush

[Airbrush]

"Nearly half of voters, 46 percent, believe the news media fabricate news stories about President Donald Trump and his administration, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll.

"Just 37 percent of voters think the media do not fabricate stories, the poll shows, while the remaining 17 percent are undecided.

"More than three-quarters of Republican voters, 76 percent, think the news media invent stories about Trump and his administration, compared with only 11 percent who don’t think so. Among Democrats, one-in-five think the media make up stories, but a 65 percent majority think they do not. Forty-four percent of independent voters think the media make up stories about Trump, and 31 percent think they do not."

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/18/trump-media-fake-news-poll-243884

What do you think about that?  It scares the hell out of me!  What are some examples of "made-up" stories?

 

 

[John Cuthber]

28 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

What do you think about that? 

It tells me that you can fool all of the people some of the time.

It also suggests that Republicans are less aligned with the truth than the two other groups.

[Ten oz]

13 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

"Nearly half of voters, 46 percent, believe the news media fabricate news stories about President Donald Trump and his administration, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll.

"Just 37 percent of voters think the media do not fabricate stories, the poll shows, while the remaining 17 percent are undecided.

"More than three-quarters of Republican voters, 76 percent, think the news media invent stories about Trump and his administration, compared with only 11 percent who don’t think so. Among Democrats, one-in-five think the media make up stories, but a 65 percent majority think they do not. Forty-four percent of independent voters think the media make up stories about Trump, and 31 percent think they do not."

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/18/trump-media-fake-news-poll-243884

What do you think about that?  It scares the hell out of me!  What are some examples of "made-up" stories?

 

 

We all are intellectually lazy to a certian extent about things we don't follow closely. It is easier to just split the difference between the pro and con of issues we don't know much about than it is to do the homework and come to a real conclusion. Trump says nearly all media is fake while all media insists it is not. The intellectually lazy person splits the difference and accepts that sometimes it is fake. The difference between what claims lands one in territory where news is in fact being fabricated to some extent. Everyone isn't passionate about politics. Everyone isn't following closely. So it is easy to just accept that at least some of Trump's claims are probably true. He is the President after all and if he was pathologically lying surely something would bedone about it right; so the lazy thinking goes. We all do it with different things to varies degrees. In this case it show how powerful denial can be and to a point justifies Trump's constant counter attacking even when he is clearly wrong.

[John Cuthber]

13 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

He is the President after all and if he was pathologically lying surely something would bedone about it right;

By whom?

After all, he is the president.

14 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

it show how powerful denial can be and to a point justifies Trump's constant counter attacking even when he is clearly wrong.

Are you saying he's justified in lying, because some people will believe it and go on to do things that are bad for them (like the people who voted against their own healthcare funding?

Wouldn't it be better if he- well-  you know- kind of- told the truth?

He's not even prepared to be honest about being honest.

The fact that it's a very effective way to get power does not (even "to a point") justify outright lying.

[Airbrush]

My invitation stands for all believers that the "media makes-up [negative] stories" about Trump.  It must mean negative stories, right?  It doesn't count to have made-up stories about Trump's brilliance from Fox News, how what looks like chaos is actually Trump playing 4 dimensional chess.   Please post them here, so the truth or fiction can be debated.  I would start a discussion called "Made-Up Stories About Trump" but I suspect there won't be much.  If this question gets an overwhelming response with lots and lots of made-up stories about Trump, then I think it deserves a discussion dedicated to it, right?

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

So it is easy to just accept that at least some of Trump's claims are probably true.  He is the President after all and if he was pathologically lying surely something would be done about it right; so the lazy thinking goes.  We all do it with different things to varies degrees.  In this case it show how powerful denial can be and to a point justifies Trump's constant counter attacking even when he is clearly wrong.

Very true and very sad.

Edited October 22, 2017 by Airbrush

[Ten oz]

12 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

By whom?

After all, he is the president.

Are you saying he's justified in lying, because some people will believe it and go on to do things that are bad for them (like the people who voted against their own healthcare funding?

Wouldn't it be better if he- well-  you know- kind of- told the truth?

He's not even prepared to be honest about being honest.

The fact that it's a very effective way to get power does not (even "to a point") justify outright lying.

By whom.....No one. That is the point I was making.  I was referencing misguided thinking.

 

I suppose it all depends on ones definition of justified. I personally think Trump is illegitimate. Not only did he receive millions of less votes, his party undemocratically oppress voter turn out, but he also accepted the help of a foriegn aggressor and continues to provide cover for their attack on our system of govt. That said "ends justify the means" is a popular saying in this nation where various hyper capitalistic mindsets hold winning above all else. Trump won, he is in the White House, his SCOTUS pick is on the bench, and all that. Trump's denials and lies have been extremely effective at delivering him and his supporters victory. Of course it is disgusting but it has worked and he and his supporters couldn't be happier about it and don't care about the ethical side of it one bit.

 

[Silvestru]

40 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

he also accepted the help of a foriegn aggressor and continues to provide cover for their attack on our system of govt.

What are you talking about here?

[Airbrush]

6 hours ago, Silvestru said:

What are you talking about here?

Russia.

"During a meeting with members of the Senate Finance Committee at the White House Wednesday morning, he again denied the account [about his phone call to Mrs. Johnson].  

"Didn't say what that congresswoman said," Mr. Trump said. "Didn't say it at all. She knows it, and she now is not saying it. I did not say what she said."  Mr. Trump said he had a "lovely" conversation with the widow, but declined to say what "proof" he had of the conversation.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-told-la-david-johnson-widow-that-he-knew-what-he-was-getting-into-congresswoman-says/ 

Interesting how Trump's denial could not use the personal pronoun "I".  That sounds so much like a child lying.  "Didn't say that...." and "Didn't say it at all."

When a normal adult is HONESTLY and emphatically denying something they would more likely use the personal pronoun "I" in the initial denial, for emphasis.  Just saying "didn't do it" is a way to rationalize what he said.  I do believe his intention was to console the widow, but his "wise-guy" manner of speaking in fragments sounds too gangster.  That is out of his control.  He just does NOT have a way with words.  Also Trump should know that it is very likely that the widow did not vote for him, statistically speaking.

When chief of staff Kelly described the situation, he did NOT deny Trump said "he knew what he signed up for, but I guess it hurt anyhow...." but made it sound ok to say that.

Edited October 23, 2017 by Airbrush

[DrmDoc]

6 hours ago, Silvestru said:

What are you talking about here?

Isn't it obvious?  The Russians of course and their continual interference in our electoral processes.  Trump has accepted their aid with their interference and he has tried to impede investigation of their efforts through the firing of James Comey.  

[Ten oz]

32 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

Russia.

"During a meeting with members of the Senate Finance Committee at the White House Wednesday morning, he again denied the account [about his phone call to Mrs. Johnson].  

"Didn't say what that congresswoman said," Mr. Trump said. "Didn't say it at all. She knows it, and she now is not saying it. I did not say what she said."  Mr. Trump said he had a "lovely" conversation with the widow, but declined to say what "proof" he had of the conversation.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-told-la-david-johnson-widow-that-he-knew-what-he-was-getting-into-congresswoman-says/ 

Interesting how Trump's denial could not use the personal pronoun "I".  That sounds so much like a child lying.  "Didn't say that...." and "Didn't say it at all."

When a normal adult is HONESTLY and emphatically denying something they would more likely use the personal pronoun "I" in the initial denial, for emphasis.  Just saying "didn't do it" is a way to rationalize what he said.  I do believe his intention was to console the widow, but his "wise-guy" manner of speaking in fragments sounds too gangster.  That is out of his control.  He just does NOT have a way with words.  Also Trump should know that it is very likely that the widow did not vote for him, statistically speaking.

When chief of staff Kelly described the situation, he did NOT deny Trump said "he knew what he signed up for, but I guess it hurt anyhow...." but made it sound ok to say that.

Pronouns aside I think when a normal person HONESTLY extends condolences they do not want to cause anyone additional hardship. Regardless of the initial intentions Trump is clearly causes further pain to this family. It is very ugly that this continues. 

[Outrider]

Also from Airbrush's article (which I'll repost to save confusion) more evidence of Trump's childish way of thinking. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-told-la-david-johnson-widow-that-he-knew-what-he-was-getting-into-congresswoman-says/

Quote

After being asked if he called the families of the slain soldiers, Mr. Trump  suggested his predecessors did not call the families of dead soldiers. After backlash from officials from the Obama and Bush administrations, who confirmed they did in fact make such calls, Mr. Trump suggested former President Obama did not call White House chief of staff John Kelly, whose son was killed in Afghanistan in 2010. While a White House official said Tuesday that Mr. Obama did not call Kelly, White House records show that Kelly and his wife attended a closed-door breakfast with Mr. Obama and the first lady for Gold Star families, CBS News' Margaret Brennan reported Tuesday. 

I probably don't have to explain this but when accused of failing to do something we ought to have done we either explain why the accuser is wrong or apologize. Pointing the finger at others isn't really an option. 

[Ten oz]

This is just another case where Trump has been caught lying and his supporters simply don't care. Ends justify the means to his supporters. I also think it is worth noting that the family is of color and his ire is directed at women. There is a clear tend.

[Silvestru]

13 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

Isn't it obvious?  The Russians of course and their continual interference in our electoral processes.  Trump has accepted their aid with their interference and he has tried to impede investigation of their efforts through the firing of James Comey.  

Guys, I really hope you wont get offended. I am not an american so of course I trust you know better the inner workings of this situation but reading some comments I feel like this looks too much like  House of cards president Francis Underwood.

I am not excluding the possibility that Russia interfered with the election but as an outsider, these sound to me like big conspiracy theories. 

Do you guys have any valid source? article? something? (No Fox news stuff)

[iNow]

Evidence of Russian interference, or that the president fired his FBI director specifically for investigating it and has repeatedly sewn doubt like a climate change denier about all expert findings and testimony, caught in lies practically every time he speaks?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/us/2016-presidential-campaign-hacking-fast-facts/index.html

https://www.wired.com/story/russia-election-hacking-playbook/

Also, keep in mind it’s still under investigation. More evidence will be forthcoming shortly. 

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, Silvestru said:

Guys, I really hope you wont get offended. I am not an american so of course I trust you know better the inner workings of this situation but reading some comments I feel like this looks too much like  House of cards president Francis Underwood.

I am not excluding the possibility that Russia interfered with the election but as an outsider, these sound to me like big conspiracy theories. 

Do you guys have any valid source? article? something? (No Fox news stuff)

I am only bothering to respond because you bothered to concede that you don't know and provided a reason for how it could be possible that you don't know.

This is the declassified version of the intelligence community's report on Russian activities and elections in the November election based on information known as of Dec. of 2016. Since that time much more has been learned as there is currently House and Senate intelligence investigations ongoing  and an independent prosecutor investigating but that report is a good start and provides more than enough proof to counter your "big conspiracy theories" comment:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/the-intelligence-community-report-on-russian-activities-in-the-2016-election/2153/

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

Also, keep in mind it’s still under investigation. More evidence will be forthcoming shortly. 

The Intelligence assessment from all our Intelligence agencies to include past and present leadership appointed by both Democrat and Republican is that Russia interfered. The Senate (majority Republican) already voted 98-2 on sanctions against Russia in response to the interference. Yet Trump himself continues to call the whole thing Fake News and claim it never happened. That alone, Trump's denials, provides Russia cover and aids future interference. I agree that more info will come but what we already know is jaw dropping. Trump and his supporters have raised the bar for what evidence must look like to the level of basically saying unless audio & video is released of the pee tape with Putin in the room talking about the DNC hacks Trump is innocent. Never mind Trump's refusal to acknowledge what is knowm or act to prevent such from happening again. Never mind Kushner, Sessions, and others lying on security clearance forms. Forget all about Trump Jr knowinly arranging to meet with someone who representedthemselves as Russian intelligence. Who cares about all the social media ad buys in swing states linked directly to Russia. The list goes on and on and on.

Edited October 24, 2017 by Ten oz
formatting

[Silvestru]

11 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I am only bothering to respond because you bothered to concede that you don't know and provided a reason for how it could be possible that you don't know.

Thank you oh mighty one!

Concede what? I never made any assertion that I know anything about the Trump administration.

Thanks for:

17 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

bothering to respond

... 

 

[Ten oz]

8 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

Thank you oh mighty one!

Concede what? I never made any assertion that I know anything about the Trump administration.

Thanks for:

... 

 

I provided the evidence you requested and you choose to respond with sarcasm? Perhaps you don't really care about the evidence; which is what I feared was the case. Shame on me for letting you waste my time. I'll know better the next time you pretend to not understand something.

[Silvestru]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I provided the evidence you requested and you choose to respond with sarcasm? Perhaps you don't really care about the evidence; which is what I feared was the case. Shame on me for letting you waste my time. I'll know better the next time you pretend to not understand something.

Sir, I am reading the article that you provided as we speak. Much appreciated, really but It's like I asked you for food and you threw a burger on the floor disrespectfully.

I got what I wanted just not how I was supposed to. 

Edited October 24, 2017 by Silvestru

[DrmDoc]

7 hours ago, Silvestru said:

Guys, I really hope you wont get offended. I am not an american so of course I trust you know better the inner workings of this situation but reading some comments I feel like this looks too much like  House of cards president Francis Underwood.

I am not excluding the possibility that Russia interfered with the election but as an outsider, these sound to me like big conspiracy theories. 

Do you guys have any valid source? article? something? (No Fox news stuff)

American politics is a quagmire and ignorance of its intricacies isn't unusual even among our citizenry who should be more informed or at least display as much interest as that shown by the citizens of foreign nations, like yourself, commenting here in this forum.

[Ten oz]

4 hours ago, Silvestru said:

Sir, I am reading the article that you provided as we speak. Much appreciated, really but It's like I asked you for food and you threw a burger on the floor disrespectfully.

I got what I wanted just not how I was supposed to. 

This from October of 2016 (a year ago):

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there."

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national

 

This issue was even a central focus during the televised debates between Clinton and Trump. It has gone on for over a year and you are in a political forum about Trump referencing it as seeming like a "big conspiracy" and asking for evidence which can be easily found with simply searches. 

[Ten oz]

Company

Announcement: RT and Sputnik Advertising

By Twitter PublicPolicyThursday, 26 October 2017

   

Twitter has made the policy decision to off-board advertising from all accounts owned by Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik, effective immediately. This decision was based on the retrospective work we've been doing around the 2016 U.S. election and the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that both RT and Sputnik attempted to interfere with the election on behalf of the Russian government. We did not come to this decision lightly, and are taking this step now as part of our ongoing commitment to help protect the integrity of the user experience on Twitter.

Early this year, the U.S. intelligence community named RT and Sputnik as implementing state-sponsored Russian efforts to interfere with and disrupt the 2016 Presidential election, which is not something we want on Twitter. This decision is restricted to these two entities based our internal investigation of their behavior as well as their inclusion in the January 2017 DNI report. This decision does not apply to any other advertisers. RT and Sputnik may remain organic users on our platform, in accordance with the Twitter Rules.

https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/topics/company/2017/Announcement-RT-and-Sputnik-Advertising.html

[Ten oz]

 On Tuesday, a research alliance representing two professional associations of criminologists lodged a formal statement of concern with Attorney General Jeff Sessions and acting FBI Director Christopher Wray over a number of data tables that were missing from the FBI’s 2016 Crime in the United States report. FiveThirtyEight obtained a copy of the letter, which was signed by Peter Wood, chair of the Crime & Justice Research Alliance, a joint project of the American Society of Criminology and the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and which called for the FBI to “immediately revise the 2016 report to make this data available.” (You can read the full letter here.)

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/criminologists-are-asking-jeff-sessions-to-release-fbi-crime-data/

[CharonY]

Several reports hinted at and in this report the findings regarding Trump voters have been summarized:

 

Quote

Contrary to what some have suggested, white millennial Trump voters were not in more economically precarious situations than non-Trump voters. Fully 86 percent of them reported being employed, a rate similar to non-Trump voters; and they were 14 percent less likely to be low income than white voters who did not support Trump. Employment and income were not significantly related to that sense of white vulnerability.

So what was? Racial resentment.

Even when controlling for partisanship, ideology, region and a host of other factors, white millennials fit Michael Tesler’s analysis, explored here. As he put it, economic anxiety isn’t driving racial resentment; rather, racial resentment is driving economic anxiety. We found, as he has in a larger population, that racial resentment is the biggest predictor of white vulnerability among white millennials. Economic variables like education, income and employment made a negligible difference.

Quote

As Schaffner, MacWilliams, and Nteta wrote in their paper, there’s growing evidence that 2016 was unique — in that racism and sexism played a more powerful role than in recent presidential elections. “Specifically, we find no statistically significant relationship between either the racism or sexism scales and favorability ratings of either [previous Republican candidates] John McCain or Mitt Romney,” they wrote. “However, the pattern is quite strong for favorability ratings of Donald Trump.”

As such, it is small wonder that Trump fans the fires of racial resentment.

[interested]

On 10/16/2017 at 3:07 PM, DrmDoc said:

Tillerson likely thinks privately that the world already knows what he refuses to deny he said, which is that Trump is indeed a moron.  If he has any measure of integrity, to deny that sentiment would make Tillerson a colossal lair and no better than his boss.

That is a relief I had him down as an idiot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbecile Moron is a big improvement on being an idiot.