What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[LaCroix]

#freedom

there have been so many posts that I don't know where to start. I could just do like twenty replies all in a row, or make a mega post, but I'm more inclined to just hit it from here on. we have work to do, mr. president.

[11B4V]

#freedom

there have been so many posts that I don't know where to start. I could just do like twenty replies all in a row, or make a mega post, but I'm more inclined to just hit it from here on. we have work to do, mr. president.

#GETBENT

[DGuller]

there have been so many posts that I don't know where to start.

Take all the time you need to figure that out.

[citizen k]

Democrat resistance is building.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/republican-town-halls-obamacare/

New Yorkers protest Democrats siding with GOP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nidUrfd1FK0

Protesters block Devos from school
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqL0d5YDsio

[LaCroix]

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/318514-trump-admin-seen-as-more-truthful-than-news-media-poll

yi, you asked awhile back, "how is the media biased?"

the warren situation is a clear example. you had NYT and lots of other reputable news companies reporting some pretty interest things. let's look at this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-coretta-scott-king.html?_r=0

let's ignore the flowery language of the following: "emerged on Wednesday in a coveted role: the avatar of liberal resistance in the age of President Trump." (coveted by whom? the "avatar" of liberal resistance? how has she emerged, and a few days later now the story has died down a bit, is she still the avatar of liberal resistance?)

For Ms. Warren's supporters, it was the latest and most visceral example of a woman muzzled by men who seemed unwilling to listen.

what? out of nowhere it comes out with this accusation of sexism.

Critics saw something else: a senator who has rankled members of both parties with her nose for the spotlight lobbing a far-too-early salvo in the next presidential race.

"A lot of that's about 2020 politics," Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, grumbled on MSNBC.

this is like fox news's liberal commentator--it's a counterpoint to cover its ass and make it seem unbiased. I direct you to the use of the word "grumbled."

Mr. McConnell's coda has already been repurposed as a sort of rallying cry. Across social media, Ms. Warren's allies and supporters posted with the hashtag #shepersisted, calling to mind some Democrats' embrace of the term "nasty woman" after Mr. Trump deployed it to describe Hillary Clinton during a debate. Appearing with Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire in October, Ms. Warren reminded Mr. Trump that "nasty women vote."

this is more of the sexism message that permeates throughout the article. unsupported, it makes direct comparisons to trump (republican congress is not trump) saying an actually sexist remark. who called this to mind--the reporter? the editor? wtf does this come from?

prompting some activists to raise charges of sexism.

and this is something that I've been seeing a lot of lately. you take a few comments by a group and you report it using language that isn't untrue/is supported by facts but that really drives home or suggests a point or message that isn't supported by the facts. "oh, some activists are saying this is sexism" = anyone can say something. you could have obama say anything and some could call it racist, those activists' calling obama racist is not going to be mentioned as an aside. (if it makes headlines and the whole story is about, sure).

"What the public needs to see from Democrats right now is more backbone and more standing on principle," said Adam Green, a co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. "Elizabeth Warren continues to be the model for good behavior."

here's another thing I've noticed articles like doing. you take a random quote from some dickhead in the outskirts of political ideology and you insert it in a piece to say what the journalist wants said.

She signed off with a familiar message: "Keep fighting."

literally ends with a political message meant to bolster the reader, who clearly is a democrat from how this thing reads.

the articles are "biased" because you've got editors approving writers making a story for readers, and they've all probably in agreement on the message. it's not intentional or conscious, probably at least for most of those involved. but it still results in twisted reporting that's not really true. people were actually even talking about warren being a viable candidate for 2020 immediately after she got censured. it's ridiculous.

some people might not trust media because they just generally don't read much of the media they don't trust, but honestly the amount of anti-trump and now anti-republican shit that's being thrown out the american people has gotten so ridiculous that it's no wonder people are getting turned off. there's this disconnect between what a segment of the population (democrats) believe and what the rest of the population believes. that's why you get these poll numbers that show great percentages believing the media is dishonest, and the immigration ban is maybe ok. these two things might seem to some like they're crazy notions that would be held by anyone who's sane, but that's not the case. the views of a lot of average, sane americans who do in fact read the news just are being ignored.

[FunkMonk]

Lol Donald can't take the heat lmao

[LaCroix]

plus, exhibit B -- I was censured. there was no megaphone. where were my supporters

checkmate

[LaCroix]

also lol at the bitching about warren being reprimanded for breaking some rule, then screaming about kellyanne breaking some rule

[11B4V]

Lol Donald can't take the heat lmao

No he can't. Can't take the pressure and three weeks in.

[Eddie Teach]

plus, exhibit B -- I was censured. there was no megaphone. where were my supporters

You're on the wrong forum for that.

[bogh]

also lol at the bitching about warren being reprimanded for breaking some rule, then screaming about kellyanne breaking some rule

Problem being that Warren didn't actually break a rule (as the rule applies to Senators, not nominees) and got punished, whereas Conway clearly broke a law and wasn't punished. So not so lol really.

[CountDeMoney]

Now we know who the phone call leaker was.

Or the scapegoat anyway.

My money is on Der Furor and his inner circle were getting tired of constantly being badgered by the CISO about using his unsecured and compromised personal cellphone that he Tweets with in violation of the Presidential Records Act, his Galaxy S3 that is so obsolete it doesn't even receive security updates anymore.  You know, the one with the microphone.  You know, that he keeps in his pocket when he's receiving NSC briefings.  But hey, emails, amirite?


We're all going to die.

[Eddie Teach]

Neither was really "punished". Which is ok, that's small shit.

[LaCroix]

Problem being that Warren didn't actually break a rule (as the rule applies to Senators, not nominees) and got punished, whereas Conway clearly broke a law and wasn't punished. So not so lol really.

those enforcing the rule interpreted it as applying to her, and a broad reading could make the rule apply to her. assuming kellyanne said something she shouldn't have said, which I think is arguable, then it's a question of how narrowly the rule can be interpreted so as to free her from punishment. I haven't read the rule, but I can safely say not punishing her is legit

[bogh]

Problem being that Warren didn't actually break a rule (as the rule applies to Senators, not nominees) and got punished, whereas Conway clearly broke a law and wasn't punished. So not so lol really.

those enforcing the rule interpreted it as applying to her, and a broad reading could make the rule apply to her. assuming kellyanne said something she shouldn't have said, which I think is arguable, then it's a question of how narrowly the rule can be interpreted so as to free her from punishment. I haven't read the rule, but I can safely say not punishing her is legit

Yeah. The people enforcing rules in either case are clearly not capable of enforcing them in a reasonable and balanced manner, wielding them like tools of political partisanship. Zero respect for the intent of the rules isn't something to cheerlead or LOL at.