The Trump Presidency

[Schmelzer]

You didn't test the media involved, from which Trump received his major support.

So what? I have read your sources, and found a claim which I found unbelievable, and have checked it. The check has shown that the claim was indeed wrong. There is no more need to check the other claims of this clearly unreliable source.

You even described your chosen source media - a single issue of the New York Times - as my choice instead of yours. Why?

It was your source which made that curious 63% pro Trump in NYT claim. It was my choice to check this particular claim. I have no time to check all the claims of all your links, you are not that important. I have not questioned the most important "type of support" you described, namely a lot of writing about Trump. Of the type of Stürmer writing a lot about Jews, but I have even acknowledged that even this type of "support" maybe helpful if you are only one of ten or so candidates. Why should I test claims I have no problem to accept?

Your test of your chosen media was silly - you didn't even include a Clinton comparison, a major feature, and you refused to consider context (granted, you didn't have any idea what it was, but that ignorance was something you needed to take into account).

I tested what I have read - and this claim (63% pro Trump) was not about Clinton comparison, but about Trump.

Your statistical reasoning was goofy - you extrapolated from a sample of one day to an entire campaign season. That doesn't even work for the NYT, let alone Trump's media support.

This would need time. Pay me some money, say 300 \$ per day studied, I will study the NYT for the whole campaign, and maybe other media too. The "study" your source cited has not done this for free, why you think I have to do it?

And what remains is the usual "you are stupid". Presenting me as not getting the point of that Johnson example.

Your point was that Trump used Twitter to avoid journalists distorting what they reported from interviews. You were wrong about that. Trump used Twitter to get lies promulgated on the major media, past the editorial filters. He created distortion via Twitter - the opposite of avoiding it.

Is there any other point than telling me that Trump is the bad guy, and the media are the good guys?

I was arguing about the technical point. That is, if you want to communicate your original message, in the form you prefer, to the masses, using twitter is a good idea. The journalists have, in this case, much less possibility to apply various techniques, like to make choices what to quote, and to quote out of context. Ok, Trump used this technique to communicate his lies, and to avoid that the journalists find out the truth by quoting him out of context and by choosing what to quote. Better?

So you weren't talking about Trump? Because none of that applies to Trump. Trump was not dealing with a hostile press, ...

In this particular sentence I was talking about a general technique to fight hostile journalists. A technique everyone can apply, if one, for whatever reason, appears in the focus of hostile journalists: Use the internet, say, twitter, to communicate. Don't give any interviews, except if you have a lawyer supporting you who makes a contract about this interview which gives you all the rights, inclusive an own copy of the whole material, the right to distribute the original yourself, and other rights to prevent the usual media manipulation techniques.

Sorry, but I have checked your claim of the press being not hostile. It appeared to be fake news. The point that Trump, as a media professional, was able to use a hostile press, using professional techniques, like the ones of your swinef... example, does not make the press less hostile.

 

[iceaura]

So what? I have read your sources, and found a claim which I found unbelievable, and have checked it.

Based on your posting here, you did none of that except disbelieve a claim you found. And you were wrong to do that - the claim was sound.

It was your source which made that curious 63% pro Trump in NYT claim. It was my choice to check this particular claim

You didn't do that.

I have not questioned the most important "type of support" you described, namely a lot of writing about Trump.

Writing was not what I described. Major media TV, is what I described. Manipulated by the net and Twitter, fed by the media pros in the corporate authoritarian think tanks, and gaga in their boosting of Trump.

I didn't name a single written source of media support for Trump, and I specifically told you that the NYT was not included - because, as I pointed out, Trump voters by and large don't read anything, let alone the New York Times.

This would need time. Pay me some money, say 300 \$ per day studied, I will study the NYT for the whole campaign, and maybe other media too. The "study" your source cited has not done this for free, why you think I have to do it?

Dude, you're the one trying to make the argument. The people you in your ignorance decided not to believe did that work - and you see what they found.

Presenting me as not getting the point of that Johnson example.

You didn't get it. If you had, you wouldn't have screwed up your assessment of the NYT's Trump coverage. And you wouldn't have repeated this comical stupidity:

I tested what I have read - and this claim (63% pro Trump) was not about Clinton comparison, but about Trump.

Tip: Next time you are trying to argue against an informed and thoroughly researched claim about America's major TV stations and their behavior over the course of the entire Trump campaign, don't present your own confessedly incompetent evaluation of a single day's issue of a New York newspaper as your "evidence" for whatever fool thing you've taken it into your head to believe this time.

Is there any other point than telling me that Trump is the bad guy, and the media are the good guys?

I have said absolutely nothing anyone could possibly interpret as the media involved in this being good guys.

What is your problem: Can't read? Can't think? Hidden agenda?

I was arguing about the technical point. That is, if you want to communicate your original message, in the form you prefer, to the masses, using twitter is a good idea.

You were not.
You started out telling me I was confused in my claim that Trump used Twitter to major media advantage. You dropped that, without acknowledging the ignorance it revealed.
Then you tried to claim that Trump was using Twitter instead of interviews and the like to avoid media distortion and lies about what he said. That was a good joke, but I suspect accidental.
That's what you were arguing about - not technicalities of hypothetical situations, but actual Trump behavior.

Sorry, but I have checked your claim of the press being not hostile. It appeared to be fake news.

No, it didn't. My claim checked out perfectly.
Also: that wasn't my claim; you didn't check my claim; and my claim wasn't news - it was information for you, common knowledge among informed Americans.

Trump won the Presidency largely on the striking and unprecedented advantage he possessed in helpful and favorable media coverage - over everyone, not just Clinton.

 

[Quantum Quack]

"The BBC has reported UK police have stopped sharing information about the bombing with US authorities."

src: www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-25/manchester-attack-officials-say-us-leaks-damage-trust/8557010

Someone in the White House again leaking info?
Security services wouldn't do it surely?

Incredible to think that international intelligence sharing concerning Daesh is being restricted due to inappropriate disclosure....

There is no doubt that intelligence sharing will be severely inhibited in future... 1/ "Lap top" by Trump to Russia, 2/ leaks to NYT of bomb evidence ( Manchester)

What is wrong with the NYT?
Are they nuts!

 

[geordief]

"The BBC has reported UK police have stopped sharing information about the bombing with US authorities."

src: www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-25/manchester-attack-officials-say-us-leaks-damage-trust/8557010

Someone in the White House again leaking info?
Security services wouldn't do it surely?

Incredible to think that international intelligence sharing concerning Daesh is being restricted due to inappropriate disclosure....

There is no doubt that intelligence sharing will be severely inhibited in future... 1/ "Lap top" by Trump to Russia, 2/ leaks to NYT of bomb evidence ( Manchester)

What is wrong with the NYT?
Are they nuts!

It needs to be investigated and heads should roll. A second leak following a complaint after such a serious event . We should all be in the same boat.

 

[Quantum Quack]

It needs to be investigated and heads should roll. A second leak following a complaint after such a serious event . We should all be in the same boat.

They certainly need to nail the persons responsible and take action against the NYT for being so foolish.

 

[Karina Foster]

Trump will become the 45th president of The United States of America in just a few days, and his presidency promises to be unprecedented on a number of fronts. He begins his presidency with a 40% approval rating.

"Trump will enter the Oval Office on Friday with his image upside down. Just 40 percent say they have a favorable impression of him, and 54 percent view him unfavorably -- with 41 percent saying they have a strongly unfavorable impression of him. That's starkly different from current views of President Barack Obama, whose favorable rating is at 61 percent." http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ald-trump-approval-rating-20170117-story.html

In comparison:

Obama had a 84% approval rating
Clinton had a 67% approval rating
Bush II had a 61% approval rating

Unfortunately, I think it only gets worse from here. Republicans in Congress appear to be in disarray and confusion. No one seems to understand Trump's healthcare plan. Neither the CBO or congressional Republicans know what it is. There is confusion at home and abroad. That's not a good thing. Foreign leaders are fearful and confused, Putin excepted, and Trump's own party is in a state of confusion.

I've never seen anything like it. You can't believe anything Trump says. No one knows what he means. Trump's advisers are fond of telling people that they shouldn't believe everything Trump says, but they should take him seriously. This is a very strange, silly, and dangerous world we live in.

This thread is intended as a forum to discuss the Trump presidency. Below is a SNL skit. It's funny as they always are, but there is some truth in it too.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/donald-trump-press-conference-cold-open/3454408?snl=1

 

[Karina Foster]

Trump will become the 45th president of The United States of America in just a few days, and his presidency promises to be unprecedented on a number of fronts. He begins his presidency with a 40% approval rating.

"Trump will enter the Oval Office on Friday with his image upside down. Just 40 percent say they have a favorable impression of him, and 54 percent view him unfavorably -- with 41 percent saying they have a strongly unfavorable impression of him. That's starkly different from current views of President Barack Obama, whose favorable rating is at 61 percent." http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ald-trump-approval-rating-20170117-story.html

In comparison:

Obama had a 84% approval rating
Clinton had a 67% approval rating
Bush II had a 61% approval rating

Unfortunately, I think it only gets worse from here. Republicans in Congress appear to be in disarray and confusion. No one seems to understand Trump's healthcare plan. Neither the CBO or congressional Republicans know what it is. There is confusion at home and abroad. That's not a good thing. Foreign leaders are fearful and confused, Putin excepted, and Trump's own party is in a state of confusion.

I've never seen anything like it. You can't believe anything Trump says. No one knows what he means. Trump's advisers are fond of telling people that they shouldn't believe everything Trump says, but they should take him seriously. This is a very strange, silly, and dangerous world we live in.

This thread is intended as a forum to discuss the Trump presidency. Below is a SNL skit. It's funny as they always are, but there is some truth in it too.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/donald-trump-press-conference-cold-open/3454408?snl=1

I personally believe Trump is a dangerous man. He is a smart agressive business man but he is not a polition. What he is is a vain opinionated megalomaniac whose ego is greater than his bank balance.
Running a business and running a country. , the worlds most powerful country are two very different jobs requiring diplomacy, not verbally voicing personal religious or racial views and putting the country and its people first. Recently he has shared nationally volitile info with Vladimir Putin before the American Congress and its people.

 

[Schmelzer]

Based on your posting here, you did none of that except disbelieve a claim you found. And you were wrong to do that - the claim was sound.

Ok, feel free to believe that the 63% pro-Trump of NYT is "sound". I have checked it and found it unreliable.

Major media TV, is what I described.

Maybe. Feel free to believe them. I will not make you any free offers to check TV sources, too boring. If you make a special offer, not below 400\$ per hour, maybe.

I didn't name a single written source of media support for Trump, and I specifically told you that the NYT was not included - because, as I pointed out, Trump voters by and large don't read anything, let alone the New York Times.

Whatever. It was your source which made the 63% pro-Trump claim about NYT. This particular claim was so contrary to what I expect from NYT, so that I checked it for myself, out of my own interest. You see, I read your sources, and look there for information which is new for me, in contradiction to what I believe.

The people you in your ignorance decided not to believe did that work - and you see what they found.

How much they have been paid to make this work? I don't know, but I'm sure they have got some payment. I have done what I have done for free - but our of personal interest, to correct, if necessary, my opinion about NYT. It was not necessary.

Tip: Next time you are trying to argue against an informed and thoroughly researched claim about America's major TV stations and their behavior over the course of the entire Trump campaign, don't present your own confessedly incompetent evaluation of a single day's issue of a New York newspaper as your "evidence" for whatever fool thing you've taken it into your head to believe this time.

Feel free to continue to believe this fake study - it obviously supports your own beliefs. I presented the results of my own check here, for free, to see if you have something to comment. You have not, your counterarguments were irrelevant, you did not even question the results of this day. (These are usually the most interesting points - what it not questioned.)

For my own interest, the check is sufficient. For you, the situation may be different - even if only because you don't know if my choice of the date was really random.

 

[joepistole]

I personally believe Trump is a dangerous man. He is a smart agressive business man but he is not a polition. What he is is a vain opinionated megalomaniac whose ego is greater than his bank balance.
Running a business and running a country. , the worlds most powerful country are two very different jobs requiring diplomacy, not verbally voicing personal religious or racial views and putting the country and its people first. Recently he has shared nationally volitile info with Vladimir Putin before the American Congress and its people.

I mostly agree Karina, however Trump isn't a smart businessman. He's an incompetent businessman, and he's a spoiled and pampered man whose worldview has been shaped by Fox News, Brietbart, and other right wing extremist and propaganda outlets. We don't know how much Trump is worth because his financials remain murky. But based on what has been reported, assuming it to be true, Trump's net worth is equivalent to the value of one or two high rise New York buildings. That's not much considering what he inherited. I don't think Trump has ever been smart. I see no evidence that Trump has ever been smart. He keeps repeating his mistakes. He doesn't learn.

 

[spidergoat]

I disagree, Trump has made some really smart deals in his business life, and these have made him a very rich man. That doesn't mean he's a good president.

 

[spidergoat]

They certainly need to nail the persons responsible and take action against the NYT for being so foolish.

The problem isn't the reporting of news, but the leaks. You can't blame a newspaper for doing their job.

 

[geordief]

The problem isn't the reporting of news, but the leaks. You can't blame a newspaper for doing their job.

You can in this case. Did the NYT not realize this was sensitive information? Do they get a fool's pardon? There was published leak ,followed by a complaint ,followed by another published leak.

Fool me once ......

"Leaks of the investigation into the Manchester attack to the US media were "reprehensible" and will be stopped, the top US diplomat in the UK has said"

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40048565

 

[joepistole]

I disagree, Trump has made some really smart deals in his business life, and these have made him a very rich man. That doesn't mean he's a good president.

Oh, you mean like his repeated bankruptcies spanning the course of 2 decades? That's not a sign of business acumen. Trump was born rich. That's his biggest business success. His daddy bailed him out of his many business failures.

"Lost contracts, bankruptcies, defaults, deceptions and indifference to investors—Trump’s business career is a long, long list of such troubles, according to regulatory, corporate and court records, as well as sworn testimony and government investigative reports. Call it the art of the bad deal, one created by the arrogance and recklessness of a businessman whose main talent is self-promotion.


He is also pretty good at self-deception, and plain old deception. Trump is willing to claim success even when it is not there, according to his own statements. “I’m just telling you, you wouldn’t say that you're failing,” he said in a 2007 deposition when asked to explain why he would give an upbeat assessment of his business even if it was in trouble. “If somebody said, ‘How you doing?’ you're going to say you're doing good.” Perhaps such dissembling is fine in polite cocktail party conversation, but in the business world it’s called lying.

And while Trump is quick to boast that his purported billions prove his business acumen, his net worth is almost unknowable given the loose standards and numerous outright misrepresentations he has made over the years. In that 2007 deposition, Trump said he based estimates of his net worth at times on “psychology” and “my own feelings.” But those feelings are often wrong—in 2004, he presented unaudited financials to Deutsche Bank while seeking a loan, claiming he was worth $3.5 billion. The bank concluded Trump was, to say the least, puffing; it put his net worth at $788 million, records show. (Trump personally guaranteed $40 million of the loan to his company, so Deutsche coughed up the money. He later defaulted on that commitment.)" http://www.newsweek.com/2016/08/12/donald-trumps-business-failures-election-2016-486091.html

Yeah, I don't call that a successful businessman. Trump's "business success" was being born into a very wealthy family. Trump's "business success" was the result of being bailed out by his father. Trump isn't by any means a Gates, Buffet, or Bloomberg who are business successes.

If Trump would have taken his inheritance and invested in the Standard & Poor's 500 it would be worth 4 billion dollars today. Deutsche Bank puts Trump's net worth at 788 million dollars. From what we know of Trump's golf courses, they don't appear to be profitable and the golf courses are a significant portion of Trump's portfolio.

Yeah, I don't call that success.

 

[birch]

I mostly agree Karina, however Trump isn't a smart businessman. He's an incompetent businessman, and he's a spoiled and pampered man whose worldview has been shaped by Fox News, Brietbart, and other right wing extremist and propaganda outlets. We don't know how much Trump is worth because his financials remain murky. But based on what has been reported, assuming it to be true, Trump's net worth is equivalent to the value of one or two high rise New York buildings. That's not much considering what he inherited. I don't think Trump has ever been smart. I see no evidence that Trump has ever been smart. He keeps repeating his mistakes. He doesn't learn.

yeah, i wouldn't call four bankruptcies that smart. in his case, that's just welfare for the rich. oops, that conservative hypocrisy again.

 

[joepistole]

Trump is preparing a "war room" to combat the special prosecutor.

(CNN)The White House is preparing to establish an internal, war room-like operation aimed at developing a rapid-response and communications strategy in an attempt to keep up with the special counsel's Russia investigation.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/25/politics/trump-white-house-russia-probe/index.html

And the appeals courts rule against Trump's executive orders:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/25/politics/4th-circuit-travel-ban/index.html

 

[karenmansker]

Trump is preparing a "war room" to combat the special prosecutor.

(CNN)The White House is preparing to establish an internal, war room-like operation aimed at developing a rapid-response and communications strategy in an attempt to keep up with the special counsel's Russia investigation.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/25/politics/trump-white-house-russia-probe/index.html

And the appeals courts rule against Trump's executive orders:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/25/politics/4th-circuit-travel-ban/index.html

I note that your "source" is CNN . . . hardly a reliable source for news truth . . . . . but OK for fake news, I suppose (IMO) . . . if that's what one is seeking!

 

[spidergoat]

Yeah, I don't call that a successful businessman.

All that matters is the bottom line. He's at least a multi-millionaire. I've read about some of his business decisions and some of them were quite profitable. He's a major player in the NY real estate market, you can't deny it. Sure, some decisions resulted in a bust, that's just how business works.

 

[spidergoat]

You can in this case. Did the NYT not realize this was sensitive information? Do they get a fool's pardon? There was published leak ,followed by a complaint ,followed by another published leak.

Fool me once ......

"Leaks of the investigation into the Manchester attack to the US media were "reprehensible" and will be stopped, the top US diplomat in the UK has said"

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40048565

It's not even illegal. It's not the job of the NYT to keep information secret.

 

[joepistole]

I note that your "source" is CNN . . . hardly a reliable source for news truth . . . . . but OK for fake news, I suppose (IMO) . . . if that's what one is seeking!

Well for folks of your ilk anything outside the wacko right wing isn't a "reliable source of news truth". But for the rest of us who live in the real world, the main stream media is a reliable source of news. Now if you can prove otherwise, please do. Please prove CNN is "hardly a reliable source of news truth". One wacko citing another isn't credible evidence of anything but one right wing wacko citing another.

 

[joepistole]

All that matters is the bottom line. He's at least a multi-millionaire. I've read about some of his business decisions and some of them were quite profitable. He's a major player in the NY real estate market, you can't deny it. Sure, some decisions resulted in a bust, that's just how business works.

I don't think you are getting it Spidergoat. If all that matters is the bottom line, Trump's a failure. What you have read is Trump's press. Trump is very good at self promotion. But that's about it. If Trump had just kept up with his peers, if Trump had just been average, with his inherited wealth he would be worth 4 billion dollars today. But he hasn't. The best guess is he isn't even a billionaire. Per Deutsche Bank, he is worth less than a quarter of what he should be worth if he were just an average businessman getting average results.