freitasm: Good read Our dishonest president.

LA Times Editorial Board, nothing held.

That editorial goes a long way to answer those who wonder what the purpose of this thread and its continuation is.

I read somewhere today that the collective wealth of his cronies, I mean his cabinet sorry, is the richest ever in American history.

And they give a poop about joe average American? Ok...

I don't think any of the players come off well from all this.
Democrats ran a primary where a candidate with a minority beat a candidate with a clear majority from the voting public (DNC Chair had to resign over it after the election). And let's remember that candidate was running some pretty obvious pay-to-play, hence the Clinton Foundations sudden loss of "sponsors".

Media plainly didn't want Trump (rightly) but just gave up any sense of balance or objectivity in pursuit of that end. Even if you agree with US mainstream media's political position, this was the campaign where they cast aside any pretense they aren't partisan (once upon a time media tried to be objective or at least balanced). From now on their credibility is shot, it's all just PR now.

US labour has been massively undercut by exporting jobs to countries with poor worker and environmental protections. They talk about "Jobs Americans Won't Do" but thirty years ago there were no such thing. You *could* make a living and support a family working in a factory or a shop.

Living wages should have been a huge Democratic platform, but consistent failure to act meant Trump could steal that platform. What do Dems have left if they won't support US labour? 

Trade protections are a great idea for US workers - loss of those is (for instance) one reason black unemployment is 50%. Jobs black communities had are now exported (and the people getting those jobs aren't enriched by it, *they* aren't making $50k US a year). The idea that US workers will pay 15% more for their TVs is a short term pain. If you'd asked 30 years ago if Americans wanted cheap shoes and electronics, but they and their neighbours would lose their jobs, no one would have signed up for it.

But solid policies are now shackled to this guy who also wants to gut the EPA, ignore climate change, maintain multipay healthcare...

TheLastTherapist:

 

I don't think any of the players come off well from all this.
Democrats ran a primary where a candidate with a minority beat a candidate with a clear majority from the voting public (DNC Chair had to resign over it after the election). And let's remember that candidate was running some pretty obvious pay-to-play, hence the Clinton Foundations sudden loss of "sponsors".

Media plainly didn't want Trump (rightly) but just gave up any sense of balance or objectivity in pursuit of that end. Even if you agree with US mainstream media's political position, this was the campaign where they cast aside any pretense they aren't partisan (once upon a time media tried to be objective or at least balanced). From now on their credibility is shot, it's all just PR now.

US labour has been massively undercut by exporting jobs to countries with poor worker and environmental protections. They talk about "Jobs Americans Won't Do" but thirty years ago there were no such thing. You *could* make a living and support a family working in a factory or a shop.

Living wages should have been a huge Democratic platform, but consistent failure to act meant Trump could steal that platform. What do Dems have left if they won't support US labour? 

Trade protections are a great idea for US workers - loss of those is (for instance) one reason black unemployment is 50%. Jobs black communities had are now exported (and the people getting those jobs aren't enriched by it, *they* aren't making $50k US a year). The idea that US workers will pay 15% more for their TVs is a short term pain. If you'd asked 30 years ago if Americans wanted cheap shoes and electronics, but they and their neighbours would lose their jobs, no one would have signed up for it.

But solid policies are now shackled to this guy who also wants to gut the EPA, ignore climate change, maintain multipay healthcare...

 

For each of those criticisms of Clinton - please go read this:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

She lost for a few reasons:

She was a woman.

Russia hated her.

She was continuing with the policies of a black man who was hated for being black - including being hated by the present POTUS for being black.

You're claiming that the black unemployment rate is 50%.  That's abject BS. 

Trade protections do not create jobs.

I liked Bernie too - but everything you've said is tinged with the stain of the anti-liberal Trumpist / Putin campaign BS.

Media hated Trump because he has a fascist attitude to free media.

I am convinced that Hilary did not get the vote of the majority because she is a woman and was following a black President. Racists and misogynists couldn't allow that.

TheLastTherapist:

I don't think any of the players come off well from all this.
Democrats ran a primary where a candidate with a minority beat a candidate with a clear majority from the voting public (DNC Chair had to resign over it after the election). And let's remember that candidate was running some pretty obvious pay-to-play, hence the Clinton Foundations sudden loss of "sponsors".

Rikkitic:

 

freitasm: Good read Our dishonest president.

LA Times Editorial Board, nothing held.

 

That editorial goes a long way to answer those who wonder what the purpose of this thread and its continuation is.

 

 

 

I don't see how. 

I read the article. I agree with any bad mouthing of him, but I found the article clearly biased. When I got to "It survived slavery. It survived devastating wars. Most likely, it will survive again." Well, thats over the top. Comparing past serious long term issues to Trump is giving him far too much credit. Ive said that before here.

Maybe this thread is just about bad mouthing him? Thats all that seems to happen.I get ticked off for repeating my thoughts. 3 or 4 times, whereas the bad mouthing is in every page, after page after page? I found that very weird to be honest. Bullying if I dont agree, which rings a faint bell.

I can see where the article is going, but it seemed sensationalist to me. End of the day he has sensationally under achieved his nastiness. His inability to put forward anything half sensible, and his inability to get anything of policy through his own people, to me, outweighs his nastiness and faults. . 

tdgeek:

 

End of the day he has sensationally under achieved his nastiness. 

 

 

Really?

He may be failing miserably on a legislative agenda, but he's every bit the same evil piece of sh!t he's been for (at least) the past decade and doing very well at it.

King Donald has installed himself, with a large number of his family and friends, in castle Washington and castle Florida as "leaders of the free world", while they're stuffing their pockets with loot.

He's distracted and playing the Putinesque "whataboutism" game - take a look at his tweets this morning where he's trying to deflect attention from corruption in his castle - by again attacking the "enemy" he already defeated.

And 38 +/- 3% of the US population "approve".

Fred99:

 

tdgeek:

 

End of the day he has sensationally under achieved his nastiness. 

 

 

 

Really?

 

 

 

He may be failing miserably on a legislative agenda, but he's every bit the same evil piece of sh!t he's been for (at least) the past decade and doing very well at it.

 

King Donald has installed himself, with a large number of his family and friends, in castle Washington and castle Florida as "leaders of the free world", while they're stuffing their pockets with loot.

 

He's distracted and playing the Putinesque "whataboutism" game - take a look at his tweets this morning where he's trying to deflect attention from corruption in his castle - by again attacking the "enemy" he already defeated.

 

And 38 +/- 3% of the US population "approve".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oops my bad, it was late. I meant he is sensationally underachieved as POTUS in every respect, despite his nastiness. The nastiness, while entertaining and also offensive, also in many respects, is just that. It doesnt translate into concerning actions concerning the world at large. There is no action, and his manner brings his credibility to zero, and that of the US, but thats all it does. I see that with the approval, that translates into 25% of his voters do not now approve. 

Is that what the dork uses on his hair? 

gzt: Trump meets Xi Jingping this week. Expect more trolling from Trump and 'leaks' from Spicer about how tough Trump is, and winning, and also painting stuff with gold paint makes America great because gold paint is dazzling. Look at that.

He says he will sort North Korea if China doesn't. Not sure if thats after ISIS or not. Ill put money on that the meeting will end with "It was a great meeting" then once Xi is gone, normal transmission will resume. I wonder if trade tariffs will come up in the meeting? Hope so. About time he talks to these leaders with what he talks to the media with, for a change