Trump Administration Meltdown Thread...

[rass]

#lockherup

hahahahaha

[mister d]

"Yeah. We knew he was kidding. We were just playing along. We didn't really want her in jail. Ha ha. Got you."

[Johnnie]

Actually, no.



Top comment:

#NOV22

TRUMP: I dont wish to pursue charges against Hillary

HILLARY: PHEW ....

OBAMA: OH OK Hillary your good, (No Pardon)

#JAN 21

TRUMP: YEAH I CHANGE MY MIND, NO PARDON FOR YOU. GET HER BOYS....

[mister d]

So its all a scam to avoid being pinned to the narrative he personally wrote?

[Johnnie]

He can do no wrong, basically. He's smarter than you. He's playing 4D chess in space and you're playing checkers.

[Steve of phpBB]

Per investment manager Jeff Gundlach, who predicted Trump's victory:

Median worker wages for men, for instance, have dropped by 4.6% since 1973. At the same time, the top 5% of wage earners have seen a 51.4% real increase in their purchasing power.

Meanwhile, the share of wealth for the bottom 90% of households has fallen from 36% to 23%, as the share of the top 0.1% has soared from 7% to 22% over the past 20 years.

And yet these people keep voting for Republicans, who have made it their main goal to oppose anything that would help stop this or help out the people who are suffering.

[Gunpowder]

Why doesn't anyone with a big platform ask the Trump administration to tell them how and where CNN lied? Give them a week.

Reminds me of the time someone asked Cruz exactly how Obama was destroying America, he froze and stumbled his way through some meaningless platitudes. It was hilarious and I can't seem to find the video.

[rass]

This is still my favorite Cruz video (not this specific version from the telegraph with the dumb music but I can't find anything better quickly):

[Joe K]

Per investment manager Jeff Gundlach, who predicted Trump's victory:

Median worker wages for men, for instance, have dropped by 4.6% since 1973. At the same time, the top 5% of wage earners have seen a 51.4% real increase in their purchasing power.

Meanwhile, the share of wealth for the bottom 90% of households has fallen from 36% to 23%, as the share of the top 0.1% has soared from 7% to 22% over the past 20 years.

And yet these people keep voting for Republicans, who have made it their main goal to oppose anything that would help stop this or help out the people who are suffering.

I don't think it's accurate to say that "these people keep voting Republicans." I'm pretty sure that lower income voters as a whole go pretty overwhelmingly Democratic. The tendency of pundits to focus on the "white working class" ignores that millions of working class voters are black, Latino, etc. Overall, the GOP does far better with high income voters than they do with low income voters.

[Steve of phpBB]

Per investment manager Jeff Gundlach, who predicted Trump's victory:

Median worker wages for men, for instance, have dropped by 4.6% since 1973. At the same time, the top 5% of wage earners have seen a 51.4% real increase in their purchasing power.

Meanwhile, the share of wealth for the bottom 90% of households has fallen from 36% to 23%, as the share of the top 0.1% has soared from 7% to 22% over the past 20 years.

And yet these people keep voting for Republicans, who have made it their main goal to oppose anything that would help stop this or help out the people who are suffering.

I don't think it's accurate to say that "these people keep voting Republicans." I'm pretty sure that lower income voters as a whole go pretty overwhelmingly Democratic. The tendency of pundits to focus on the "white working class" ignores that millions of working class voters are black, Latino, etc. Overall, the GOP does far better with high income voters than they do with low income voters.

We may be talking about different groups of people. I do agree that down at the very lowest end of the income scale, even whites vote Democratic. But I thought you were talking about issues that faced people higher on the income scale. The median wage is the guy in the middle, and obviously the "bottom 90%" is not limited to the lowest incomes. As I understand it, white people in the 40-60 percentile of income vote Republican. Do you know if that is correct?

I saw today a report showing a strong correlation between Pennsylvania/Ohio counties that went from Obama to Trump and Pennsylvania/Ohio counties with a big heroin problem. That's all pretty far removed from Utah, geographically, but I was wondering where on the income scale the heroin problem is being felt. Is it just the bottom 20%? The bottom 60%? (I figure it's more likely the latter.)

[Gunpowder]

It's probably lower than you think.

[DC47]

Per investment manager Jeff Gundlach, who predicted Trump's victory:

Median worker wages for men, for instance, have dropped by 4.6% since 1973. At the same time, the top 5% of wage earners have seen a 51.4% real increase in their purchasing power.

Meanwhile, the share of wealth for the bottom 90% of households has fallen from 36% to 23%, as the share of the top 0.1% has soared from 7% to 22% over the past 20 years.

And yet these people keep voting for Republicans, who have made it their main goal to oppose anything that would help stop this or help out the people who are suffering.

They may have misplaced faith in Trump, who is a black box as far as I can tell. Unreadable as to policy in most instances. But they correctly read Hillary Clinton. No candidate for president in recent years who was not actually running for re-election stood more clearly for "more of the same" -- which has been tough on the working class -- from an economic point of view.

Support for global trade deals. Goldman Sachs speeches. Clinton Foundation generating corporate cash for Clintons. Massive corporate campaign donations. Among so many other things.

Was it really stupid for so many in the working class to roll the dice with Trump, who at least clearly stated the problems they face and said he'd make resolving them a high priority? When the option was Clinton?

[Joe K]

Per investment manager Jeff Gundlach, who predicted Trump's victory:

Median worker wages for men, for instance, have dropped by 4.6% since 1973. At the same time, the top 5% of wage earners have seen a 51.4% real increase in their purchasing power.

Meanwhile, the share of wealth for the bottom 90% of households has fallen from 36% to 23%, as the share of the top 0.1% has soared from 7% to 22% over the past 20 years.

And yet these people keep voting for Republicans, who have made it their main goal to oppose anything that would help stop this or help out the people who are suffering.

I don't think it's accurate to say that "these people keep voting Republicans." I'm pretty sure that lower income voters as a whole go pretty overwhelmingly Democratic. The tendency of pundits to focus on the "white working class" ignores that millions of working class voters are black, Latino, etc. Overall, the GOP does far better with high income voters than they do with low income voters.

We may be talking about different groups of people. I do agree that down at the very lowest end of the income scale, even whites vote Democratic. But I thought you were talking about issues that faced people higher on the income scale. The median wage is the guy in the middle, and obviously the "bottom 90%" is not limited to the lowest incomes. As I understand it, white people in the 40-60 percentile of income vote Republican. Do you know if that is correct?

I saw today a report showing a strong correlation between Pennsylvania/Ohio counties that went from Obama to Trump and Pennsylvania/Ohio counties with a big heroin problem. That's all pretty far removed from Utah, geographically, but I was wondering where on the income scale the heroin problem is being felt. Is it just the bottom 20%? The bottom 60%? (I figure it's more likely the latter.)

I would guess that white people in the 40-60th percentile break Republican, but I'm not sure. Trump didn't do as well as Romney with more educated voters but I'd guess that GOP support usually correlates pretty strongly with income level (at least among white voters). I'm just not sure where the break even point is.

My point was more that there's a tendency to treat working class voters and minority voters as entirely distinct blocs when in fact there's a lot of overlap there. (The same could be said of African-American voters and Evangelicals.) So while the case could be made that a lot of white voters are voting GOP against their own economic interests, I think that lower-middle income voters as a whole favor the Democratic Party in national elections.

[Steve of phpBB]

Was it really stupid for so many in the working class to roll the dice with Trump, who at least clearly stated the problems they face and said he'd make resolving them a high priority? When the option was Clinton?

Yes.

Seriously - Goldman Sachs speeches? How many were there? Three? Twelve? So because she talked to rich people a few times, we're going to vote for a self-proclaimed billionaire instead? One who is notorious for screwing over small business owners and employees?

And the Clinton Foundation? Because Hillary and Bill raised millions of dollars to save lives in Africa, we are going to vote for the guy who has never raised a finger to help anyone but himself?

[Steve of phpBB]

Interesting look at the data here:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/edu ... for-trump/

[Rush2112]

Was it really stupid for so many in the working class to roll the dice with Trump, who at least clearly stated the problems they face and said he'd make resolving them a high priority? When the option was Clinton?

Exit polls taken during the November 8 election showed that 41 per cent of Trump’s 61m votes were cast by people who made less than $50,000 a year, and one of his first initiatives will be to roll back the overtime rule require companies to pay time and a half for workers making 47k or less. Not sure how fucking them over is helping resolve any problems aside from reduced profit margin.

[P.D.X.]

No candidate for president in recent years who was not actually running for re-election stood more clearly for "more of the same" -- which has been tough on the working class -- from an economic point of view.

Yeah the economy growth and steady dropping of unemployment under Obama has been terrible. Let's fix that and cut taxes on the most wealthy, you know, to help out the working class.

[DC47]

Was it really stupid for so many in the working class to roll the dice with Trump, who at least clearly stated the problems they face and said he'd make resolving them a high priority? When the option was Clinton?

Yes.

Seriously - Goldman Sachs speeches? How many were there? Three? Twelve? So because she talked to rich people a few times, we're going to vote for a self-proclaimed billionaire instead? One who is notorious for screwing over small business owners and employees?

Her comments, which she wouldn't reveal, revealed some damning (to the working class) positions on globalization. The money she got paid was huge. And this was just a drop in the bucket. The Clintons were worth $130M last I heard -- no doubt this is rising fast. They are clearly part of the super wealthy class that vacations in the Hamptons and is surrounded with servants. Don't expect many members of the working class to believe they have somehow "earned" this.

And of course, there are so many other indicators of Hillary Clinton favoring the upper class and being favored by them.

And the Clinton Foundation? Because Hillary and Bill raised millions of dollars to save lives in Africa, we are going to vote for the guy who has never raised a finger to help anyone but himself?

The secret emails revealed a pay to play scheme that privately enriched the Clintons while also helping to fund the Foundation. This is clearly a mixed bag. But it also clearly indicates that the Clintons were making a very rich living by playing ball with the .01%, in addition to corrupt foreign dictatorships with horrible human rights records.

Was Trump as bad? Many people in the working class would say no. They'd see him as a successful businessman who ruffled some feathers over 50 years in a very tough business, and earned the money he got. Unlike the Clintons. Moreover, they have some hope that Trump will be the billionaire who actually stands up for them. A powerful force who, for a change, is really on their side.

Obviously, this was Trumps major campaign theme. And it worked quite well. Witness the shocking turnaround in the rust-belt states, loaded with working class voters. It is not stupid for members of the working class to believe that Trump working on their behalf is more likely than getting what they want from a continuation of the current game via voting for the ultimate insider, establishment candidate. Whatever he really is (does anyone really know?), Trump didn't look like the upper class establishment's crony as he ran for president.

Please note that I am not arguing that, in practice, Trump will actually be the working man's savior. I doubt Trump will do very much that he said he would do. He'll probably be far more moderate in his economy-related actions. To some extent, circumstances (e.g., true costs, understanding more about options) will force this.

Also please note I am not in any way a Trump partisan. I never even considered voting for him. My interest in this discussion is better understanding my country. Not defending Trump's character or arguing that he will be great for our country.

[DC47]

Interesting look at the data here:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/edu ... for-trump/

Nice work by Silver. But as he also says:

"Educational attainment may be a better indicator of long-term economic well-being than household incomes. Unionized jobs in the auto industry often pay reasonably well even if they don’t require college degrees, for instance, but they’re also potentially at risk of being shipped overseas or automated."

Being from auto country in Ingham County in Michigan, he should know this quite well, and give it more credence than he does. And further note that people are also motivated by concerns for their childrens' future. Parents without college degrees are far more likely to have children who won't attain them. Their risk is multi-generational. And well grounded in both past results -- as indicated in the material I cited above -- and reasonable concerns about the future (e.g., automation taking over 'good working class jobs' like driving a truck.)

[Johnnie]

Anyone else laugh at Brooke Baldwin and her emotional breakdown over Charles Kaiser's use of the N-word on CNN?

I hope she never watches that one Louis CK bit about it!

[govmentchedda]

Was it really stupid for so many in the working class to roll the dice with Trump, who at least clearly stated the problems they face and said he'd make resolving them a high priority? When the option was Clinton?

Yes.

Seriously - Goldman Sachs speeches? How many were there? Three? Twelve? So because she talked to rich people a few times, we're going to vote for a self-proclaimed billionaire instead? One who is notorious for screwing over small business owners and employees?

Her comments, which she wouldn't reveal, revealed some damning (to the working class) positions on globalization. The money she got paid was huge. And this was just a drop in the bucket. The Clintons were worth $130M last I heard -- no doubt this is rising fast. They are clearly part of the super wealthy class that vacations in the Hamptons and is surrounded with servants. Don't expect many members of the working class to believe they have somehow "earned" this.

And of course, there are so many other indicators of Hillary Clinton favoring the upper class and being favored by them.

And the Clinton Foundation? Because Hillary and Bill raised millions of dollars to save lives in Africa, we are going to vote for the guy who has never raised a finger to help anyone but himself?

The secret emails revealed a pay to play scheme that privately enriched the Clintons while also helping to fund the Foundation. This is clearly a mixed bag. But it also clearly indicates that the Clintons were making a very rich living by playing ball with the .01%, in addition to corrupt foreign dictatorships with horrible human rights records.

Was Trump as bad? Many people in the working class would say no. They'd see him as a successful businessman who ruffled some feathers over 50 years in a very tough business, and earned the money he got. Unlike the Clintons. Moreover, they have some hope that Trump will be the billionaire who actually stands up for them. A powerful force who, for a change, is really on their side.

Obviously, this was Trumps major campaign theme. And it worked quite well. Witness the shocking turnaround in the rust-belt states, loaded with working class voters. It is not stupid for members of the working class to believe that Trump working on their behalf is more likely than getting what they want from a continuation of the current game via voting for the ultimate insider, establishment candidate. Whatever he really is (does anyone really know?), Trump didn't look like the upper class establishment's crony as he ran for president.

Please note that I am not arguing that, in practice, Trump will actually be the working man's savior. I doubt Trump will do very much that he said he would do. He'll probably be far more moderate in his economy-related actions. To some extent, circumstances (e.g., true costs, understanding more about options) will force this.

Also please note I am not in any way a Trump partisan. I never even considered voting for him. My interest in this discussion is better understanding my country. Not defending Trump's character or arguing that he will be great for our country.

Very well said. The fact that Trump offered nothing more than slogans did not matter to his voters.

[Johnnie]

General Mattis is the fucking man:

On the issue of torture, Mr. Trump suggested he had changed his mind about the value of waterboarding after talking with James N. Mattis, a retired Marine Corps general, who headed the United States Central Command.

“He said, ‘I’ve never found it to be useful,’” Mr. Trump said. He added that Mr. Mattis found more value in building trust and rewarding cooperation with terrorism suspects: “‘Give me a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers, and I’ll do better.’”

“I was very impressed by that answer,” Mr. Trump said.

Torture, he said, is “not going to make the kind of a difference that a lot of people are thinking.”

[degenerasian]

the honest and trustworthy question that always ask in polling can be interpreted two ways.. telling the truth or telling is like it is.

Perhaps Genuine is a better word. During the election many people found Trump genuine and Hillary fake.

[degenerasian]

Anyone else laugh at Brooke Baldwin and her emotional breakdown over Charles Kaiser's use of the N-word on CNN?

I hope she never watches that one Louis CK bit about it!

yeah CNN has become ridiculous. How does a "journalist" not understand context? The professor is trying to argue Bannon is a racist. That's why he's on your show. I like the fact that he used that word, not because I approve of the term or I think that it is right, but the shock value of actually getting people to understand the magnitude of what was said is necessary. If you PC his quote then it is effectively hiding the views cretinous figure who is currently in a high position in the White House.

[Johnnie]

Anyone else laugh at Brooke Baldwin and her emotional breakdown over Charles Kaiser's use of the N-word on CNN?

I hope she never watches that one Louis CK bit about it!

yeah CNN has become ridiculous. How does a "journalist" not understand context? The professor is trying to argue Bannon is a racist. That's why he's on your show. I like the fact that he used that word, not because I approve of the term or I think that it is right, but the shock value of actually getting people to understand the magnitude of what was said is necessary. If you PC his quote then it is effectively hiding the views cretinous figure who is currently in a high position in the White House.

Unfortunately the quote was misattributed, so that is a let down, but the overall point of it being so triggering to her because of PC culture remains. Liberal white people really fucking need to get the fuck over themselves when it comes to this.

I love that it happened. I love that it happened live on air. I love that it happened with a black man opposite him in the segment. I love that that black man is a Trump supporter. I just want a follow up from Samuel L. Jackson comparing that black man to his character from Django. #prayforBrookeBaldwinsdelicatesensibilities

[Ryan]

Getting a girl named Nikki from South Carolina to represent us to the world? Come on Donny, you're supposed to be unpredictable!

[Johnnie]

Getting a girl named Nikki from South Carolina to represent us to the world? Come on Donny, you're supposed to be unpredictable!

I know, right? Should have been a girl named Loredana.

[L-Jam3]

I'm not trying to threadjack, but since when is it not okay to say the N-word when quoting someone? Especially since using the actual word shows the force of how repugnant the word is, and how repugnant those who use it in a hateful way are.

And damn, that woman Brooke Baldwin ends a lot of declaratory sentences with question marks.

[Steve of phpBB]

Perhaps Genuine is a better word. During the election many people found Trump genuine and Hillary fake.

Which shows how stupid it is for media and whatever to talk about stuff like that. Trump wasn't genuine. I'm not sure if he said a single honest thing the entire campaign.

It's just that frustrated morons tend to take rudeness as "telling it like it is."

[degenerasian]

So remember last week when Ben Carson didn't want a cabinet position because he didn't have any government experience? Apparently about to be named HUD director. Looking forward to the Washington Monument being turned into a grain tower.

[Ryan]

Pretty convinced there are at least 8 Ben Carsons

[Steve of phpBB]

So remember last week when Ben Carson didn't want a cabinet position because he didn't have any government experience? Apparently about to be named HUD director. Looking forward to the Washington Monument being turned into a grain tower.

Carson has lots of experience with housing, does he? Or development?

[A_B]

No, but he's as urban as they're gonna get. And he's whiter than hood.

[DaveInSeattle]

General Mattis is the fucking man:

On the issue of torture, Mr. Trump suggested he had changed his mind about the value of waterboarding after talking with James N. Mattis, a retired Marine Corps general, who headed the United States Central Command.

“He said, ‘I’ve never found it to be useful,’” Mr. Trump said. He added that Mr. Mattis found more value in building trust and rewarding cooperation with terrorism suspects: “‘Give me a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers, and I’ll do better.’”

“I was very impressed by that answer,” Mr. Trump said.

Torture, he said, is “not going to make the kind of a difference that a lot of people are thinking.”

Wait...giving a "couple of beers" to a Muslim terrorist is going to work? Really?

[DaveInSeattle]

Just in time for the Holidays!

[Joe K]

General Mattis is the fucking man:

On the issue of torture, Mr. Trump suggested he had changed his mind about the value of waterboarding after talking with James N. Mattis, a retired Marine Corps general, who headed the United States Central Command.

“He said, ‘I’ve never found it to be useful,’” Mr. Trump said. He added that Mr. Mattis found more value in building trust and rewarding cooperation with terrorism suspects: “‘Give me a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers, and I’ll do better.’”

“I was very impressed by that answer,” Mr. Trump said.

Torture, he said, is “not going to make the kind of a difference that a lot of people are thinking.”

Wait...giving a "couple of beers" to a Muslim terrorist is going to work? Really?

Mattis was clearly speaking figuratively and was making an accurate and important point. There's a lot of literature saying that humane interrogations in which the questioner builds a rapport with the suspect yield better intelligence. Now I doubt Trump will actually listen to Mattis but that's about the most encouraging think he's said all year.

[Steve of phpBB]

Just in time for the Holidays!

A hundred and fifty bucks! That's a lot for all of those poor downtrodden members of the white working class.

[Moreta]

DeVos for Education. I keep telling myself it's only 4 years but the slog to recover from the damage done in these four years is going to be horrible.

[Johnny Carwash]

I don't think I'd heard of her before, but was thinking literally just a few minutes earlier how there is no living person named Betsy who is a good person.

Apparently she's also party of the family that founded Amway, so she should be used to running things in a way that only benefits the top 10%.

[brian]

Literally one of the most anti-gay families in America. Makes Mike Pence seem like Liza Minnelli.