The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Lathum]

yeah, that was a WTF moment. Does he really think people will buy he didn't know what he was saying.

That being said, he is doing better than I thought.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think the fact that the unemployment rate has gone down five consecutive months and is better now than a lot of predictions thought it would be by the end of 2021 is significant there. We'll see what the winter holds but I think economically we've done much better than I expected.

I'm shocked. However, let's see where this goes next year. A lot of the economy has so far been propped up by the $2.2T from CARES and $3.5T from the Fed. The annual GDP is around $20T so that's more than 1/4th of the economy. If the GOP suddenly re-discovers deficit Jesus and tries to cut off any government aid to crush the Dems in 2022, there's still a chance for a nasty(ier) fall.

Also, it's been a very uneven recession. College degree jobs are basically where they were before COVID. But some segments of the population have been decimated: those with lower income jobs, those with jobs with lower education requirements, women, and minorities.

SI

[BishopMVP]

I think that rate has also been tied in more heavily than some want to admit to the extra unemployment benefits. Not everyone making an hourly wage is an idiot, and some made the economically smarter (or at least fairly revenue neutral) short term choice to abstain from a job.

We'll see how it plays out - it's clear that entire sectors are basically done, but other new opportunities have arisen. The Dem version of +benefits isn't sustainable medium term, but if it's an option it'll slightly delay the economic paradigm shift.

[Brian Swartz]

I think the unevenness is going to hang around, but the overall picture is more important. One of those situations where the better the economy as a whole does, the better the most affected parts of the population will be able to find different opportunities.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Kellyanne, you aren't going to fix this yourself. If you haven't already, get some professional help. I don't give a flip about you (or George) but your daughter needs professional help and/or much better parenting which you haven't provided.

Claudia Conway, 15, says her oxygen levels are low amid COVID-19 battle | Daily Mail Online

I assume Caroline Giuliani hasn't gone through near the trauma Claudia has with her 2 parents actively against each other politically. Going public by writing a piece for Vanity Fair is reasonable.

Attention Required! | Cloudflare

In a personal essay published by Vanity Fair, Rudy Giuliani’s daughter, Caroline, torched her dad and his support for President Donald Trump, and urged Americans to vote for Joe Biden. Giuliani said she came out in support of Hillary Clinton in 2016 after realizing her private arguments with her dad were pointless.

[Lathum]

WTF was that Roe V Wade answer.

Oh, and the red glasses lady about to go viral

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by stevew

Did Christie die yet?

No but he has a message for ya

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/15/polit...ent/index.html

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I assume Caroline Giuliani hasn't gone through near the trauma Claudia has with her 2 parents actively against each other politically. Going public by writing a piece for Vanity Fair is reasonable.

Attention Required! | Cloudflare

Rudy fucked anything that moved and treated her mother like yesterday's garbage. I'm not surprised the daughter is a bit angry.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I think that rate has also been tied in more heavily than some want to admit to the extra unemployment benefits. Not everyone making an hourly wage is an idiot, and some made the economically smarter (or at least fairly revenue neutral) short term choice to abstain from a job.

We'll see how it plays out - it's clear that entire sectors are basically done, but other new opportunities have arisen. The Dem version of +benefits isn't sustainable medium term, but if it's an option it'll slightly delay the economic paradigm shift.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think the unevenness is going to hang around, but the overall picture is more important. One of those situations where the better the economy as a whole does, the better the most affected parts of the population will be able to find different opportunities.

There are a lot of places the economy could improve as a whole so I'm open to the idea that this may be better in the long run.

Of course, what I fear will happen (is happening/has already happened) that we're just getting a greater and greater consolidation of wealth at the top. And that is bad for everyone (except those at the top, of course). Even those in the top half to about top 10%, most of those jobs depend on having a robust middle class. If that's decimated, those other jobs dry up pretty fast. There's no need for the millions of accountants, nurses, managers, retail sales, AAs, etc if there are only relatively few people who can afford those services.

SI

[Edward64]

Interesting to see how this plays out. It seems Trump & Dems are okay with $2.2T+ bill but McConnell is not. If Trump & Pelosi agree on a deal it would put a lot of pressure on McConnell and GOP senators looking for Trump support this cycle.

No idea who is going to win this one. But talks continuing is good. I'm leaning towards passing something soon to help the unemployed and economy/markets. And after Feb, pass another one if needed.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/15/mnuc...th-pelosi.html

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Thursday that the White House won’t let differences over funding targets for Covid-19 testing derail stimulus talks with top Democrats.

Later, President Donald Trump said that he would raise his offer for a stimulus package above his current level of $1.8 trillion. House Democrats have passed a $2.2 trillion bill.

“I would. Absolutely I would. I would say more. I would go higher. Go big or go home, I said it yesterday,” the president told Fox Business.

[PilotMan]

The most prestigious medical journal in the US; The New England Journal of Medicine, has posted its first editorial in its 200+ yr history. I wonder what they had to say that was so important?

https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMe2029812

[CrimsonFox]

There isn't any radical left.

[Lathum]

Can’t make this shit up.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/...328730625?s=21

[Ksyrup]

HA! I can't believe that's not down yet. Or is this a double hoax?

[Ben E Lou]

Boomers seem particularly bad at detecting satire. My father in law has an unimpeachable academic record (Duke undergraduate and med school, John’s Hopkins residency,) but he and several others in his age bracket have reacted with consternation multiple times at the over-the-top content of Babylon Bee articles I’ve posted on FB, complete with “lol” emojis and/or a comment from me along the lines of “The Bee does it again!” Is satire a “new” form of humor that goes over their heads? Is it that they grew up in an era where they assumed everything they read to be true? What’s the deal?

[Butter]

100% they're just bad at detecting satire, and also they are more prone to believe anything bad or stupid about Democrats, so if it's that, they'll just absorb into their worldview without thinking twice.

I'm not gonna say I haven't been guilty of believing a headline for a moment until I see the byline of a satirical site in the past.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Butter

100% they're just bad at detecting satire, and also they are more prone to believe anything bad or stupid about Democrats, so if it's that, they'll just absorb into their worldview without thinking twice.

I'm not gonna say I haven't been guilty of believing a headline for a moment until I see the byline of a satirical site in the past.

It hasn’t just been bad stuff about Dems. The Bee does a good bit of satire of Christian sub-culture. I’ve probably posted more of that than political satire from there, with the same confused/concerned reactions.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Boomers seem particularly bad at detecting satire. My father in law has an unimpeachable academic record (Duke undergraduate and med school, John’s Hopkins residency,) but he and several others in his age bracket have reacted with consternation multiple times at the over-the-top content of Babylon Bee articles I’ve posted on FB, complete with “lol” emojis and/or a comment from me along the lines of “The Bee does it again!” Is satire a “new” form of humor that goes over their heads? Is it that they grew up in an era where they assumed everything they read to be true? What’s the deal?

I have thought about this a decent amount because my Mother in Law believes everything she sees despite evidence to the contrary. I remember us getting in to a horrific argument over the doctored Pelosi video.

They grew up in an era where the only way you got your news was at 6 or 11 from Cronkite, Rather, Brokaw, etc...or in the newspaper. There was very little opinion pieces, no instant video updates, etc...I think because of this they can't blur the line between opinion and news, and trust what they see. If it confirms their biases all the better.

[miked]

I watched Fox News for 5 minutes last night as I was flipping through. There was some guy shouting about Biden emails coming out, and him needing to step down from the ticket because he was compromised. With the Giuliani news and the Trump 450B debt to foreign unknowns, I thought he was being satirical. When you are constantly pounded with misinformation that gives you confirmation bias, you have lost all sense in real vs satire.

[JPhillips]

Saw Trump camp complaining about NBC questions, so I looked them up:

When did you get sick
Should you wear a mask
Do you believe in herd immunity
Why share a Bin Laden conspiracy
Do you denounce QAnon
Will you accept losing

— Rory Cooper (@rorycooper) October 16, 2020

Trump regularly gets softball questions that become hand grenades because he's a dangerous sociopath who believes in multiple conspiracy theories.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Boomers seem particularly bad at detecting satire. My father in law has an unimpeachable academic record (Duke undergraduate and med school, John’s Hopkins residency,) but he and several others in his age bracket have reacted with consternation multiple times at the over-the-top content of Babylon Bee articles I’ve posted on FB, complete with “lol” emojis and/or a comment from me along the lines of “The Bee does it again!” Is satire a “new” form of humor that goes over their heads? Is it that they grew up in an era where they assumed everything they read to be true? What’s the deal?

Humor has also gotten better and more subtle.

Watch some old comedy. With very few exceptions, it's not that funny. And, more to the point, it really hit you over the head. You couldn't miss that it was "supposed" to be funny.

All the stuff that we take for granted in comedy now: subtlety/4th wall breaking/bending-the-line-between-real-and-fake is relatively new.

So I think when they see a parody that does not include Moe Howard hitting Larry in the face with a pie, they have a harder time realizing that it's comedy.

[JPhillips]

A decent guy, but what a stupid choice.

Scoop w/ @ErinatThePost: Turned off by President Trump, Maryland’s GOP governor Larry Hogan casts write-in vote for Ronald Reagan... https://t.co/U36tp4WXEz

— Robert Costa (@costareports) October 16, 2020

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Lathum

They grew up in an era where the only way you got your news was at 6 or 11 from Cronkite, Rather, Brokaw, etc...or in the newspaper. There was very little opinion pieces, no instant video updates, etc...I think because of this they can't blur the line between opinion and news, and trust what they see. If it confirms their biases all the better.

I agree with this, but I also see quite a bit of the phenomena from those in their 20s and 30s. That's not as easily explained (or corrected).

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I agree with this, but I also see quite a bit of the phenomena from those in their 20s and 30s. That's not as easily explained (or corrected).

My speculation would be because they grew up only getting their media/news online through social media so that is the outlet they trust. The concept of sitting down every night at 6 or having to wait until the next morning to see who won a ballgame is alien to them.

Most of us here, mid 30s to mid 50s grew up in a unique time where we literally saw the information explosion first hand, and were really the first ones to embrace it. Sure now our parents have facebook, etc...but in the late 90s early 2000s a lot of tech was still alien to them. I think it positions us uniquely to see just what is going on in terms of media manipulation, etc...

That being said there is also always going to be a healthy dose of confirmation bias.

[Ksyrup]

I think some of it is tied to what I posted in the Random Thoughts thread about so much stuff flying by on people's timelines. It's easy to mistake one type of comment/story for another. I bet at least 90% of commenters don't do anything but read the headline, don't click the link. Think of how ridiculous some of the topics being covered by the news are (by comparison to years ago), and it's all kinda the same thing - it's hard to tell at a quick glance sometimes what is real and what is not. And many people skimming through aren't paying attention to who is posting it, just the content.

[albionmoonlight]

There's no going back, but I think that sports and politics reporting were a lot better when you didn't have huge media apparatuses that depend on 24 hour programming.

"Last night, LeBron brushed past KD and didn't acknowledge him. We have a panel of 6 guys who are going to scream at each other for the next 8 hours about what it might mean!"

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I think some of it is tied to what I posted in the Random Thoughts thread about so much stuff flying by on people's timelines. It's easy to mistake one type of comment/story for another. I bet at least 90% of commenters don't do anything but read the headline, don't click the link. Think of how ridiculous some of the topics being covered by the news are (by comparison to years ago), and it's all kinda the same thing - it's hard to tell at a quick glance sometimes what is real and what is not. And many people skimming through aren't paying attention to who is posting it, just the content.

This is right on. There have been plenty of times I've seen someone post a clickbait sort of title, clicked the link, and the story is far different than you'd expect. Then the fun part is when you mention what the story actually says - the original poster will either go one of two ways: 1) oh, I didn't read the article, thanks for clarifying, 2) doubling down on the headline and acting like you are bad for reading the story and clarifying what it says.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

This is right on. There have been plenty of times I've seen someone post a clickbait sort of title, clicked the link, and the story is far different than you'd expect. Then the fun part is when you mention what the story actually says - the original poster will either go one of two ways: 1) oh, I didn't read the article, thanks for clarifying, 2) doubling down on the headline and acting like you are bad for reading the story and clarifying what it says.

Or "Well, maybe Trump didn't actually eat a baby. But it sure says something that Trump is so horrible that it is believable that he would eat a baby."

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

There's no going back, but I think that sports and politics reporting were a lot better when you didn't have huge media apparatuses that depend on 24 hour programming.

"Last night, LeBron brushed past KD and didn't acknowledge him. We have a panel of 6 guys who are going to scream at each other for the next 8 hours about what it might mean!"

Absolutely. It would have happened sooner than later, but the first Gulf War threw us into that 24 hour news cycle and basically required so much "analysis" of what used to be 30 minutes of national news every night that it overtook the primary purpose for news stations. And it just feeds the "National Enquirer" psyche of humans to want to believe the most outrageous crap that a "news" outlet feeds them.

[Ben E Lou]

I'm leaning more toward what albion said about humor in general, though, at least for the folks I'm talking about. I've had cases of people *definitely* reading the article and even posting a quote from it. It's not all just flybys. In many cases, they're missing satire as humor entirely. However, albion's post also made me think of how many of my friends have said "my parents have no sense of humor," and I'm also now recalling listening recently to some stand-up comedy on Pandora by some back-in-the-day folks like Redd Foxx that popped up on my comedy station before I thumbs-downed all of it. It's just...not all that funny to our generation. Mostly "a guy walks into a bar..." type stuff. (Side note, it's interesting how today's simple change from "a man was walking down the street" to "I was walking down the street" makes a gigantic difference in comedy...)

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Or "Well, maybe Trump didn't actually eat a baby. But it sure says something that Trump is so horrible that it is believable that he would eat a baby."

I've had both conservatives and liberals do this when called out on something that was demonstrably false. Most recent one was a memed Ben Carson "quote" that was from a radio show that simply never happened. It was a horrific "quote" about slavery, fully "sourced" with a date that he was on a radio show and said it. It took me like 20 seconds of googling to find the show transcript for the date in question and determine that Carson was neither on the show, nor was the word "Carson" anywhere in the transcript for that date. (I can't recall with certainty who the host was, but I *think* it was Michael Savage.) And yeah, the guy's response was "WELL, IT'S JUST LIKE SOMETHING HE WOULD SAY!" Truth didn't even matter as long as he could do a gotcha on the other side. (FWIW, in the Carson incident, it was a millennial former YoungLifer. In the right-wing cases, it has always been boomers.)

[JediKooter]

trump couldn't win a home run derby if they moved the fences in 2ft from home plate because he would be complaining about the tee they put the ball on.

[tarcone]

So my daughter has to stay away from college for 14 days, but the President can go to rallies. Ah, division.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

trump couldn't win a home run derby if they moved the fences in 2ft from home plate because he would be complaining about the tee they put the ball on.

Some people are just complainers.

Worked with a guy who won $200 cash at a company function and complained all night long that they gave it to him in ones.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Some people are just complainers.

Worked with a guy who won $200 cash at a company function and complained all night long that they gave it to him in ones.

These are some of the most irritating people I can think of. There's no pleasing people like that no matter what you do.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Some people are just complainers.

Worked with a guy who won $200 cash at a company function and complained all night long that they gave it to him in ones.

Do you work at a strip club?

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A decent guy, but what a stupid choice.

Scoop w/ @ErinatThePost: Turned off by President Trump, Maryland’s GOP governor Larry Hogan casts write-in vote for Ronald Reagan... https://t.co/U36tp4WXEz

— Robert Costa (@costareports) October 16, 2020

I think that's three Republican governors who said they won't vote for him.

It just shows how strong a connection to someone's party can be. There must be many who don't like him but just could never, ever, vote for an evil Democrat. If those people decide they're going to stay home, or vote for Ronald Reagan or John Wayne, that's at least a statement of some kind. We know about the "shy Trump voter" who was underrepresented in polls, I wonder if there's a significant number of people ingrained in Republican culture through their families, communities, and churches, but who will quietly stay home on election day, or vote another way privately

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Well. Here it is:

@thedailybeast
EXCLUSIVE: According to multiple sources familiar with the president's thinking, Trump has told close associates that he wishes to counter-program the Biden town hall and score higher TV viewership numbers, and then use such a contrast to humiliate Biden


I mean, if he gets a ratings win, it's because his voters are tuning in. I'm not watching either because I knew who I was voting for months ago. That's not a humiliation for Biden, it's more a sign that Trump has a 30% cult and most other voters are not still undecided.

And... whoops

Initial Nielsen ratings show Biden garnered more viewers than Trump at their simultaneous town halls. Biden drew 12.7 million viewers from 8-9 p.m. on ABC. On NBC alone, Trump got 10.4 million viewers in the same time slothttps://t.co/Rnru3RjJSq

— Emma Kinery (@EmmaKinery) October 16, 2020

SI


[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

I think that's three Republican governors who said they won't vote for him.

It just shows how strong a connection to someone's party can be. There must be many who don't like him but just could never, ever, vote for an evil Democrat. If those people decide they're going to stay home, or vote for Ronald Reagan or John Wayne, that's at least a statement of some kind. We know about the "shy Trump voter" who was underrepresented in polls, I wonder if there's a significant number of people ingrained in Republican culture through their families, communities, and churches, but who will quietly stay home on election day, or vote another way privately

Isn't the math simpler for those in elected office? They're getting a ton of their money from the party and if they do that, it's a lot harder to keep getting elected.

SI

[cuervo72]

Nowhere else to go for Hogan in Maryland, so he probably figures it a) keeps. him distanced from Trump and b) voting for a D can't be used against him if/when he runs for the R nomination.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Do you work at a strip club?

No, unfortunately.

The company I worked for had about 200 employees and we had quarterly town halls. The owner of the company would always do things like that for comedy.

[JPhillips]

I'd respect him more if he voted for a living Republican. Reagan is a cowardly choice.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

And... whoops

Initial Nielsen ratings show Biden garnered more viewers than Trump at their simultaneous town halls. Biden drew 12.7 million viewers from 8-9 p.m. on ABC. On NBC alone, Trump got 10.4 million viewers in the same time slothttps://t.co/Rnru3RjJSq

— Emma Kinery (@EmmaKinery) October 16, 2020

SI


trump keeps losing by almost 3 million. Too bad for him there is no Electoral Nielson ratings.

[Kodos]

[NobodyHere]

Well you got to figure in that millions of illegal immigrants tuned in to watch Biden.

[albionmoonlight]

Something I'd never thought of before that I just saw.

I'm in favor of expanding the size of the House because reps would be more responsive if they had less constituents.

But this plan would have the bonus effect of diluting the effect of the Senate on the EC.

More reps means that those 100 EC spots mean less as a proportional matter than they do now.

The Constitution sets a limit--no more than one rep per 30,000 people--but that would be over 10,000 representatives. So I don't think you need to go nearly that far.

But maybe set it to 1 rep per 300,000 people. That would be about 1,000 reps right now.

So, my thoughts on what the Dems should do as a structural matter if the pull off the triple in November. None of these require a Constitutional Amendment.

Eliminate Filibuster

Expand SCOTUS, Federal Circuit Courts, and Federal District Courts

Expand size of House

Institute New Voting Rights Act and strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to declare it unconstitutional

Declare that all residents 18 and over can vote in federal elections.

Declare that all federal elections must have verifiable paper-trail ballots (and give the states the money for the equipment)

Do it early. In the age of the 24 hour news cycle, it will be forgotten by the time 2022 comes around.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Well you got to figure in that millions of illegal immigrants tuned in to watch Biden.

And dead people.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Well you got to figure in that millions of illegal immigrants tuned in to watch Biden.

And the radical leftists that voted more than once.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A decent guy, but what a stupid choice.

Not sure what was a realistic outcome that would classify as less "stupid" than this. He was elected twice as a Republican. He is actively campaigning for Republicans. He is seemingly shaping up as a leading voice for the post-Trump Republican Party and what it could be about.

How would it be sensible for him to endorse, or even just announce that he himself is voting for, the Democratic challenger?

He's not one of these guys already resigned to drifting into yet another "roll-up-our-sleeves-America" non- or bi- or post-partisan coalition in some grand, expensive way to conjure up 1% support - he's trying to remain a winner as a Republican.

To me - Reagan is the safest way to easily communicate that he's still GOP, just not this and he believes in the stuff that triggered a revival of the party to begin with. For what it's worth, in 2016 he announced he had written in his own father, a former GOP Congressman who was among the first to turn on Nixon leading up to the Watergate final chapters.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, I could see Hogan as trying to run for President in 2024. And this vote is a symbolic future political gesture.