I think it's just the opposite. The vast majority of people who voted for him knew that he would back off some of these stances and didn't have a problem with it. He's still a way better option in their minds than a Clinton presidency.

I also enjoy this whole "Trump clearly didn't know how politics works" line of thinking just because he's backing off some of his hard-line stances. I'd argue the exact opposite. He knows EXACTLY how politics works.

Trump knows how politics works.

Trump knows not how government works.

So you weren't fooled by the hit list of hyperbole, and neither was the majority who voted for him, but that he was able to fool enough to win him the election and that makes him the smartest man in the room?

Agreed. But that's why you surround yourself with people that know how government does work.

Three months ago, I was sitting around with friends discussing this exact scenario. For all the bravado, it was clear even back then that Mr. Trump wasn't going to hold to a good chunk of his assertions. Most of the 'outrage' is from people still grumpy that he won the election. The same silent voters that surprised everyone and put him in office are the same people who are quietly sitting back and not surprised by any of these adjustments.

I thought people voted for Trump because he wasn't a typical politician who would tell you what you want to hear and then do the complete opposite when elected.

Trump is doing what Trump does - he's firing shit into the air and then once people are terrified he's taking a slightly more moderate stance and by doing so people are relieved and ignore the fact that what he is doing isn't what they want.

He does this continually - he's now seen as presidential if he stops ranting on twitter for more than 24 hours, he's seen as having railed against racists because he said he didn't approve despite having hired one in an influential position ... its an interesting if slightly terrifying strategy.

(I also think that he has a strategy of hiring in people around him who are naturally terrifying/incompetent to some extent in order to protect himself and make him be seen as the voice of reason who is ensuring that the more extreme situations aren't happening ... by doing so its easy for him to steer things where he wants them to go and remain somewhat impervious to flack, if he wants to do something racist - he has Bannon as the scapegoat, fancy picking on LGTBQ people, put your hand up Mr Pence etc ...)

His desire to control the media either through intimidation, by public comments and complaints, by refusing a media pool, by not having press conferences, but only controlled video or social media releases scares the shit out of me.

It's like authoritarian leader 101 right there.

And for some reason the people that supported him are all in on this strategy too? I see posts talking about good for him, he need privacy too, he shouldn't have to be beholden to the press. But what they fail to realize is that the press reports to the people and the president is fully beholden to the people. I can give some leeway here and there, but to completely rewrite the rules for a power grab is one more step down the primrose path.

How do you know his 60 million voters are all not surprised? I would think many of them who shouted "lock her up" and "build the wall" and booed Obamacare would be at least mildly disappointed or concerned.

He isn't beholden to the press nor the public for going to dinner. That was, best I noticed, the original notice of "not business as usual". Honestly, deep down, I'd say even plenty of media wouldn't mind not having to cover that sort of stuff either.

I don't think there is a rolly-eye emoji big enough for this comment. So going into it, a vast majority of the 60 million individuals who voted for Trump knew whole hardheartedly that the "Drain the Swamp", "Lock Her Up", "Build A Wall" etc. movement was just a farce and would never come to fruition. Yea, not buying that.

The 'going to dinner' side of things I don't object to at all - I do find his tone with any dissenting opinion which might be contrary to his own somewhat worrying however, attempting to brow beat the press and denigrate any which speak out in concern about his actions isn't going to further reassure those of us who find him somewhat worrying.

My issues are largely that he obviously has huge conflicts between what is best for the US and what might make him a profit within his corporations, he also appears to be hiring in people who might very negatively affect minority aspects of the US population both LBGTQ and immigrant ...

(economically I think his plans are messed up and will in time lead to a huge deficit which the Republicans will then use to attempt to further undermine Medicare and Welfare, but that is a separate issue and largely ideological in nature)

They may not, but just going to dinner is one thing, saying you're in for the night, then sneaking out the back door to avoid being followed is another. Like I said, that's just part of the effort to manipulate. As president elect, the rules are different.

It's not just that one moment. It's the culmination of what he's done, said, and how he's behaved.

I certainly hope you're right, otherwise not sure there was much point in electing him. Both groups have been catered to absurdly in recent years & it's well past time for corrections to more rational levels.

Sweep, sweep, sweep all those shitbags back under the rug from where they came, right?

I think the vast majority of people who voted for him don't care what his stance is on political issues.

I think the word Jon is looking for is "uppity."

Betsy DeVos for Sec of Education? Bleh

Gosh yes, heaven forbid that the concept of 'equality' be taken seriously ... I know you're not in favor of the constitution and such ;)

(end sarcasm)

PS - Seriously Jon, while i differ hugely from you on politics, I'm somewhat disappointed that you appear not to believe in equality for your fellow person ... nothing that the LBGTQ community have achieved takes away from anyone else and it purely is a movement towards giving them the protections and rights that everyone else has had for years.

And Nikki Haley is Ambassador to the UN.

I think it's fairly safe to start printing those Haley 2024 stickers now.

And who exactly has been nominated or appointed that has government experience?

Not the new DoE head, that's for sure. But then when you want to dismantle a department, I guess that's what you do.

Really good choice, imo.

yy, sounds great!

Michigan spends $1B on charter schools but fails to hold them accountable

Why? She has no government or education experience.

lol

Nigel Farage wanted to make the UK great again and now he's planning to emigrate to the United States.

Good article from the New York Times on Trump in Scotland. I saw a documentary on this about 9 or so months before a Trump presidency ever seemed like a thing that could actually happen.

This guy just loves his social media.

Now he's claiming he won the popular vote due to all the "millions of people who voted illegally". Another clear case of him trying to misdirect everyone. First it was blast SNL to cover up his steep multiple million dollar settlement.

Now it's claim all the votes were illegal to begin with so how can a recount actually matter since any votes that do turn up were likely illegal in the first place.

Soooo how many idiotic and scary tweets does he need to send out before people stop thinking he's some mastermind.

He's just an idiot. There's no plan. He thinks stupid things, has no impulse control, no understanding of basic american values and kneejerk posts every thought that goes into his childlike brain.

It's frightening.

Aren't the DeVos family a major contributors to various voucher initiatives and bills that attempted to privatize schools? Don't know that I want someone with that agenda in this position.

Arne Duncan was a charter school finance guru and Obama's basketball buddy. He had no background in actual education. Sadly, out of 10 secretaries of education, only 2 (Terrel Bell and John King Jr.) had any meaningful experience with education. It's nothing but a crony position.

Duncan ran the Chicago schools for almost eight years before becoming Secretary.

Duncan's "running" of Chicago schools was built on inflating test scores by closing low performing schools and handing them over to the charter organization he worked for before that. He's a CEO, not an educator, and he ran Chicago schools that way. There's also little to no evidence that his closing and reopening of schools actually improved the results for any of the students involved.

His time as Secretary of Education ended like this:

The ugly charter school scandal Arne Duncan is leaving behind

I'm not saying he was good, but he did have a background in education.

No, he didn't. He had a background as a CEO who closed schools to pump up city test scores. He never studied education. He never worked in education in any position other than chief of staff/CEO. He was a CEO and only a CEO for Chicago Public Schools trying to solve financial problems with no regard for the actual education of the students. My hours spent playing Football Manager are as relevant to a real coaching position as his job as CEO was to setting education policy.

But its so icky. The thought of those.. Those.. Things.. Being free to enjoy their love lives as they see fit.. It makes the skin crawl. Its not enough to rest assured that they are certainly headed straight to hell, no sir. They must experience hell here first. /s

If you want to argue he had no education experience because his education experience doesn't count, you win. Congratulations.

Seriously. What a strange argument.

So, CM is incorrect to say that Duncan had no background in education, but he should have just noted that Duncan was bad at it. Cool beans.

Technically, it's arguable if Duncan's background was good or bad.

On the other hand whenever he does it there is some scandal or other going on which has actual substance to it which the media then manages to forget about in their excitement about his latest idiocy.

This time around its the conflict of interest with him retaining control of his business empire while becoming president ... but instead of focusing on that the media is now all twitchy about a vote recount.

That, to me, is the genius (unintentional or not) of the GOP. They realized that the media does not have a liberal or a conservative bias. The media has an eyeball bias.

And stupid shit like Jill Stein inspired recounts and who is booing whom at Hamilton gets eyeballs. Actual news like the President-Elect's conflicts of interest, gets pushed off the front page.

Trump is perfect for this strategy.

He's the Zaphod Beeblebrox of the US.

That you describe it as arguable already tells me all I need to know.

What, that I actually exist in reality?

Of course it's arguable. There is a reason why Duncan was hired as SecEd (and had broad bipartisan support in the Senate - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...695&s_pos=list ) - people liked what he did with Chicago's schools. Here's a writer for Time Magazine in 2008 applauding him:

Will Arne Duncan Shake Up America's Schools? - TIME

You faithfully argue the left ideology without fail, Imran. So when you don't automatically toe the party line and make Duncan out to be the most amazing awesome thing to come around, it stands out to me.

Like Mizzou Bball Fan in the baseball thread: if he says something bad about the Royals (or not filled with superlatives), it tells me a lot.

I kind of struggle to understand 'the left ideology' being the same as 'automatically [toeing] the party line'? As if Sanders supporters aren't on the left. Or the Democratic Party doesn't have factions.

I'm also not entirely sure how saying Duncan's legacy in Chicago is arguably good or bad makes him out to be "the most amazing awesome thing to come around".

Just sounds incredibly hyperbolic and overwrought to me.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

I know I'm Chairman Mao, but that description doesn't fit Imran well at all, IMO.

And the next ridiculous tirade is here...Now he needs PROOF that his ridiculous claims are in fact ridiculous when it comes to all this voter fraud that went against him. I'm pretty sure all the fact checking during the campaign took care of any further need to go through this exercise.

Meanwhile, he's selling tree ornaments for $149 and tumblers for $35. Forget a news network, he needs his own QVC.

Don't make it more complicated than it is. I am just saying when someone whom I view as very predisposed to particular beliefs suddenly espouses a stance that is not in line with that (i.e. you not being 100% behind Duncan's track record), it suggests to me he must be pretty crappy, if even the loyalists aren't right there behind him.

You appear to be reaching heavily. Most liberals don't like Duncan at all. He made a ton of enemies among teachers' unions. However, as I am not one that is all against charter schools (which tends to be rare in Democratic circles), I don't think that is necessarily a bad mark against him.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Doesn't this allow you to write off everyone not consistent with your ideology? If liberals like X, he/she must be a political hack, and if liberals don't like X, he/she must be incompetent.

Good piece on the decapitation strategy being used by the U.S.

ISIS’s second-in-command hid in Syria for months. The day he stepped out, the U.S. was waiting. - The Washington Post

Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 29, 2016

Good luck with that, buddy!

Elaine Chao expected to be Trump's Transportation secretary - POLITICO

So Trump is going to drain the swamp by appointing The Bride of Swamp Monster to a cabinet position?

(She's the Wife of Mitch McConnell)

3:55 AM. Somebody put this toddler in check. Such a classic example of an individual who has never been told "NO" his entire life.

Typically on this board we see it play out in sports with athletes that have been catered to their entire life and eventually crash out once they are finally forced to leave the confines of the AAU atmosphere.

Now, Trump places himself as the defender of the flag. And that's all we talk about.

Would punishing someone for burning the flag violate the First Amendment? Of course it would. Does he care about that? Of course he does not.

Is he really happy to be talking about this instead of his deals with foreign governments? Of course he is.

The dude is a media genius.

Not to mention we don't really revoke people's citizenship for general crimes.

And how quickly we forget or have selective memory about the 2005 Flag Protection Act, which would have made flag burning with intent to incite violence or disturb the peace illegal and punishable by up to a year in jail and/or a $100,000 fine.

Co-sponsored by...........NY Dem. Senator Hillary Clinton

Actions - S.1911 - 109th Congress (2005-2006): Flag Protection Act of 2005 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Hmmm, don't see any mention of revoking citizenship in that proposed bill.

Since I was against that then, do I still get to be against it now?

It's a crime to incite violence or disturb the peace now even if you don't burn a flag along with it. The act of burning a flag for protest doesn't convert those criminal activities into constitutionally protected ones. Though burning the flag couldn't itself be the only evidence of the intent to do one of those things.

Edit: And it's REALLY hard to prove intent to actually incite violence - calling for violence in the abstract is not enough (which is why Trump couldn't be prosecuted for some of his campaign bluster). So there really wasn't anything to that Flag Protection Act, it didn't make illegal any new activity, it was just for show. But it was still kind of symbolically hostile to that form of protesting, so I can see why people would oppose it.

Of course not ;).

Btw, I'm sure no one has actually read the bill (well, aside from molson in his post above this one).


Attempt to ban the burning of the flag when it's purpose was for inciting violence or intimidation (or burning a US owned flag) - basically using the yelling fire in a crowded theater idea of some speech isn't constitutionally protected. Though, even there, I'm not sure I'd back this law.

One of the countless reasons that so many of the posts about Hillary from her supporters during the election started with "Hillary is a deeply flawed candidate BUT"

There's no selective memory here. I'm disgusted by the fact that Hillary sponsored this bill in 2005 and equally disgusted that Trump would suggest the same today.

What is meant by, "knowingly converting" under 3?

"Theft by conversion" is my guess. That's where you legally obtain someone else's property and 'convert' it to your own use. Usually it is used in regards to rentals. I guess in this case if you borrowed a flag from the government and then destroyed it, the law would apply.

And I hold no concerns that either of them will pass a law that mandates that.

In other words, much ado about nothing.

I think the plain meaning of that term is that context is just another way of saying stealing. To make sure they cover the situations where a U.S. flag that is the properly of the U.S. government, is hanging in some public place, and it's burned right there.

So sub-section 3 just makes stealing/converting property of a flag a special kind of stealing/converting. It doesn't create a new criminal activity. (or wouldn't have if it passed).

The ado really isn't about flag burning.

Ding ding ding

I know. It's about all the stupid people who continue to allow Trump to control the message and media through saying silly things. He does it for a reason and the actual message is rarely why he's doing it.

The rulebooks are being rewritten because people give him far too much power and he knows it.

With all the stuff about "fake news", Washington Post looks bad here.

'Washington Post' 'Blacklist' Story Is Shameful, Disgusting - Rolling Stone

Yeah, it is well known that the de facto leader of the free world never really had much power or influence until Trump came along.

The fact is each president has been gaining more and more executive power by misusing the real intent of executive orders. IMO some presidents like Obama at least used it for more noble purposes but still completely opposite it's intent. The problem is that for every 1 person like myself that is outraged when either side uses them there are 100 partisans that will get riled up when Obama or Bush or whomever uses them but not the other side. Now we get Trump where I think most people will grow tired of how much power he thinks he is supposed to have. Who is to blame? The clueless American public.

Really pulling for the local guy, Tim Ryan, to unseat Pelosi. Will not happen, at least not this cycle.

I'm guessing he's worse than Nancy Pelosi, then?

All for it.

If you love being American and want your voice heard, raise that flag up high and protest under it's protection. Put it under your feet and yeah...fuck off...

If you love being American perhaps you should love the Constitution too?

The 2nd amendment IS the constitution. All the rest is just fluff.

He's just a guy.


Five things to know about Rep. Tim Ryan

I'm gonna need a better source than the USA Today. Gotta link to Breibart or something? :)

It's just a flag...blah, blah, blah...it's our flag, buddy!

So the next 4 years, this thread is going to be a bunch of elitist liberals being condescending?

Everyone who says something I don't agree with is an elitist liberal.

With our current president-elect, it's going to be pretty hard NOT to be condescending.

It's gonna be pretty hard not to be entertaining.

Damn elitist liberals with all their "bringing up two centuries of Supreme Court precedent" to show why you just can't decide to revoke someone's citizenship. Why can't they just go by feeling and embrace knee jerk reactions?

Bah. This is the HRC circle jerk moved to this thread.
Now it is the "we lost, but we are still better than you"-fest

:)

When Jim looks directly into camera pic.twitter.com/F6sJuFmQQk

— Jarett Wieselman (@JarettSays) November 30, 2016

Poor Mitt.

You're 100% correct. It is our flag. Every Americans flag whether they are white, black, brown, purple, straight, gay, etc.

It's also an act (one that I would never take upon myself) that one of the most praised conservative judges lauded as an expression of free speech. You know that item us Americans like to refer to as the First Amendment. Direct quotes below.


“If I were king, I wouldn’t go about letting people burn the American flag. However, we have a First Amendment which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged, and it is addressed, in particular to speech critical of the government. I mean, that was the main kind of speech that tyrants would seek to suppress.”

“Burning the flag is a form of expression,” Scalia continued. He later added that burning a flag is an action that “expresses an idea."

So basically he would say Trump is akin to a Tyrant.

Big publicity win for Trump. He complained in a debate in September that Carrier was moving their factory and 1,400 jobs to Mexico. He's apparently worked out a deal for them to stay in the U.S.

Carrier says it has deal with Trump to keep jobs in Indiana | Fox News

If I'm a CEO I immediately announce a plan to move to Mexico and see what I can get from Trump.

Very curious what this deal is (and how he can make it without actually being president yet).

Basically.

Though, I've been watching "The Crown" on Netflix and somewhat jealous at this moment at the non-political Head of State they have over there in Britain. And I wonder whether or not the term elite can be reclaimed as a point of pride like the right likes to do at times (aka "deplorable"). Of course it can't be a wishy-washy elitism that shies away when someone goes off on elites - it has to be muscular - an affirmative ownership. And, to be fair, it has to be a different kind of elite than just rich people making deals to get theirs... it has to be a elite that cares about public service - like George H.W. Bush or Winston Churchill.

It would be like me telling my kid to eat broccoli, them telling me no, with my response being just finish up and I'll give you a big piece of cake and moving forward you can have all the cake you want.

Good for those 1400 individuals who get to keep their job, but subsidizing work is not the answer as it's going to lead to what JPhillips wrote above. Now all my kids want cake.

Trump is going to be a shitty president no doubt. However I would love to hear how this particular deal is any different than business as usual in DC? Rake Trump over the coals all you want (especially since he is an "outsider") but if this is now suddenly a come to Jesus moment for some of our resident liberals that our government is corrupt and beholden to businesses both large and small than they need to pay closer attention.

The liberals complaints about Trump combined with the conservative complaints about Obama are reality. I think Fox News coverage of anything blue and CNN/MSNBC of anything Red is pretty close to how things really work.

:confused:

It's like people have forgotten all about Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

Hard to say how it's different if we don't know what the deal is.

(Although I'll admit that I don't know how the federal government typically makes deals with individual companies.)

Without released terms this is just conjecture, but from what I've read the deal is really between Indiana and Carrier. I hate the way states bargain for companies, as it ends up being a competition between states that can least afford the giveaways.

But if Trump is going to get into this game with Ford and Carrier and whomever, I'd bet all sorts of outsourcing deals get announced. If you're a manufacturer why wouldn't you try to see what you can get?