The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
His tweets aren't the only source of news obviously, but they are the primary way that the current POTUS communicates. There's plenty of other news that comes from inside the cabinet, Congress etc but it rarely comes directly from the top.

And the current POTUS is a proven professional bullshitter with a stellar trackrecord, so there's no reason to take what he says about anything seriously. He can cry 'fire and fury' one day and the next day do a rimjob on Kim Jong Un.

You could also stop watching TV, radio etc. Ultimately, Twitter is just a delivery mechanism that gets amplified on twitter and elsewhere. You can still get the substance of what he's saying on TV, but the TV news spend considerable time getting much of their Trump info from the things he himself says ....on twitter.

And what does Trump info have anything to do with the actual abominations his administration is carrying out? Are we any wiser about what the likes of DeVos, Price etc... are doing reading 'Trump info'? Do we need 'Trump info' to know that what ICE is doing is masterminded by Stephen Miller?

I've not watched TV or listen to radio for years. I've stopped frequenting the Trump thread here altogether, as well as most forms of social media. It doesn't affect my ability to know about the current administration 'policies'.
 
And the current POTUS is a proven professional bullshitter with a stellar trackrecord, so there's no reason to take what he says about anything seriously. He can cry 'fire and fury' one day and the next day do a rimjob on Kim Jong Un..

That's not the media's role. They are in the business of reporting and contextualizing information.
 
That's not the media's role. They are in the business of reporting and contextualizing information.
Your initial assertion is that we trawl through Trump's tweets to 'glean policy'. I've shown that it is demonstrably false.

The overall point here is that if you choose to involve yourself in public discourse, through whatever medium, and say stupid shit, people will dig it up and they will laugh at you.
 
Your initial assertion is that we trawl through Trump's tweets to 'glean policy'. I've shown that it is demonstrably false.

The overall point here is that if you choose to involve yourself in public discourse, through whatever medium, and say stupid shit, people will dig it up and they will laugh at you.

I said the media look at Trump's comments, which come primarily from Twitter. Therefore it has to be regarded as a legitimate delivery mechanism. You can still get your news from whichever source you like, but the media don't have the luxury of ignoring Trump's public comments on social media just because its not a previously traditional form of communication.
 
I said the media look at Trump's comments, which come primarily from Twitter. Therefore it has to be regarded as a legitimate delivery mechanism. You can still get your news from whichever source you like, but the media don't have the luxury of ignoring Trump's public comments on social media just because its not a previously traditional form of communication.
No, the original point was about how we are not supposed to take Peterson's tweets as proofs of his stupidity because he's published books or do podcasts, and the comparison with Trump, which took a detour when you say we read his tweets to 'glean policy'. I've proven that it is not the case and in any case when people trawl through his tweets to look at comments he made in 2012 or such, it is mostly to show his hypocrisy in criticising Dems/Obama/whoever, not to 'glean policy'.
 
No, the original point was about how we are not supposed to take Peterson's tweets as proofs of his stupidity because he's published books or do podcasts, and the comparison with Trump, which took a detour when you say we read his tweets to 'glean policy'. I've proven that it is not the case and in any case when people trawl through his tweets to look at comments he made in 2012 or such, it is mostly to show his hypocrisy in criticising Dems/Obama/whoever, not to 'glean policy'.

Predictably, you have proven nothing. We are discussing Trump's tweets in the present and how they convey his policy in the present. Everyone knows that the current POTUS' preferred method of communication is twitter, and as such, the media are going to cover his tweets in the same vein as they would a speech or a press conference. The substance of what he is saying is taken with the same degree of legitimacy irrespective of the delivery mechanism.
 
Predictably, you have proven nothing. We are discussing Trump's tweets in the present and how they convey his policy in the present. Everyone knows that the current POTUS' preferred method of communication is twitter, and as such, the media are going to cover his tweets in the same vein as they would a speech or a press conference. The substance of what he is saying is taken with the same degree of legitimacy irrespective of the delivery mechanism.
Did we find out about the Comey firing through his tweets? Yes or No?

Did we find out about the healthcare bill through his tweets? Yes or No?

Did we find out about ICE separating families through his tweets? Yes or No?

And predictably, you've missed the point people were discussing while running on a tangent of your own making. The original point were very simple: Peterson say a lot of stupid shit on his Twitter feed and people look them up and laugh at them, or to show his fanboys that their emperor has no clothes. The fact that he's also publishes books, does interviews or podcasts have no bearing on the substance of what he says on those tweets, and the people who dig those up aren't being some sort of hypocrite that Pogue was suggesting. The same applies to Trump. They are both people with public interest, they say stupid thing on Twitter and they get laughed at. The comparison ends there. If you fail to grasp that then there's nothing more to discuss.
 
Did we find out about the Comey firing through his tweets? Yes or No?

Did we find out about the healthcare bill through his tweets? Yes or No?

Did we find out about ICE separating families through his tweets? Yes or No?

And predictably, you've missed the point people were discussing while running on a tangent of your own making. The original point were very simple: Peterson say a lot of stupid shit on his Twitter feed and people look them up and laugh at them, or to show his fanboys that their emperor has no clothes. The fact that he's also publishes books, does interviews or podcasts have no bearing on the substance of what he says on those tweets, and the people who dig those up aren't being some sort of hypocrite that Pogue was suggesting. The same applies to Trump. They are both people with public interest, they say stupid thing on Twitter and they get laughed at. The comparison ends there. If you fail to grasp that then there's nothing more to discuss.

This is all irrelevant to my point since we have already established that twitter isn't the only way information is conveyed, but that it is the primary way he communicates with both the media to the public, and is therefore taken as a legitimate form of Trump's communications. That's the central point in all of this.
 
This is all irrelevant to my point since we have already established that twitter isn't the only way information is conveyed, but that it is the primary way he communicates with both the media to the public, and is therefore taken as a legitimate form of Trump's communications. That's the central point in all of this.


He's not communicating info, he's stirring up shite with his tweets. He specifically writes them and chooses words with the press in mind. It's 95% WUM.
 
He's not communicating info, he's stirring up shite with his tweets. He specifically writes them and chooses words with the press in mind. It's 95% WUM.

I agree, but the media still have to cover his tweets like any other public statement he makes. If he says he has four SCOTUS finalists or is going to meet Putin in Helsinki then that's news and has to be covered as if he said it at a presser.
 
I agree, but the media still have to cover his tweets like any other public statement he makes. If he says he has four SCOTUS finalists or is going to meet Putin in Helsinki then that's news and has to be covered as if he said it at a presser.


No not really. If they stopped covering it he wouldn't do it and then maybe we might get some actual press conferences where the cnut has to answer questions.
 
No not really. If they stopped covering it he wouldn't do it and then maybe we might get some actual press conferences where the cnut has to answer questions.

That wouldn't happen since his tweets are also his way of communicating directly to his base, which the media are going to cover as well. Fortunately, they are gradually figuring out how to sift through the wum tweets and the legitimate ones, which is a sign of progress from a year ago when any controversial comment he made was blown up for the entire news cycle.
 
It's amazing outside of the States. You should try it!
Australia's a nice place but like in the States you're not really allowed to drink in public. So that's a letdown.


I liked that in Italy. Buying a beer from the shop and the bloke even offering to open it for me so I could drink it right away.
 


Someone turn his TV off.


His vendetta against the very services he is supposed to be leading is as clear a sign of his guilt as anything. If he had nothing to hide, he'd be relaxed and keen to support the investigation in order to clear his name.

It's clear as day he knows full well that they're going to completely expose his fraudulent and criminal activities and his only hope is that he has a rabid base of followers that make taking any action against him an impossible task for GOP Congressmen and Senators. He knows if they lose both houses, his goose is well and truly cooked.
 
I liked that in Italy. Buying a beer from the shop and the bloke even offering to open it for me so I could drink it right away.
You'd more or less kill the Danish summer (or the few days we get a year) if we weren't allowed to bring drinks to the park/beach/wherever.
 
No open container law in Savannah. You can walk around drinking all you want.

I have always found that to be the dumbest law around - why do you have to 'hide' your booze in a paper bag when you are clearly drinking a beer? We can drink openly over here any time we want.
 
I always assumed that you could drink freely anywhere bar a few places. I've been to quite a few different countries and never had a problem...
 
People like @Carolina Red put doubts in my mind but I turned down projects to go to South Carolina and North Carolina. I've worked at NJ, CT and now IL. If my visa gets approved, I have an opportunity to go to Atlanta, GA and I'm not sure about it yet. Although my friends tell me Atlanta is as progressive as any metro city.
 
Drain the swamp etc etc:
Washington Post said:
Trump has embraced the big-money donor world he once shunned

There was the exclusive dinner at the Georgetown home of a tobacco heir and the soiree at the McLean residence of the developer of the Watergate complex. More recently, men in suits and women in cocktail dresses sipped drinks in the luxurious ballroom of Washington’s Trump International Hotel.

At each gathering, the guest of honor was President Trump. And the people there to celebrate him were some of his wealthiest supporters, who in the case of the hotel fete wrote six-figure checks to hear him crack jokes and discuss his agenda in a rarefied setting.

Even as Trump holds court in large arenas filled with thousands of cheering supporters, he also has been giving rich financiers and business executives up-close access, helping cultivate the kind of big-money outfit he once derided. The effort is intended to boost his favored candidates in this year’s midterms — and to bolster his own reelection prospects.

The money is flowing to America First, an independent operation stocked with former Trump aides that aims to scoop up $100 million through two entities, with the bulk of the funds so far flowing to a nonprofit arm that is not required to disclose the names of its donors.

The chase for wealthy backers is exactly what Trump denounced on the campaign trail in 2016, saying it made candidates “psychologically” beholden to donors and declaring it was “not going to happen with me.”

“Somebody gives them money — not anything wrong — just psychologically when they go to that person, they’re going to do it,” he said in a January 2016 CNN interview. “They owe them.”

But as president, Trump is now immersing himself in that world, wooing figures such as investor and former ambassador Ronald Weiser and Oklahoma oil executive Harold Hamm over New York strip steak and arugula salad.

His allies cast it as a pragmatic move, making the same argument that aides to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton did when she embraced big-money support in her bid.

“He understands the nature of the political landscape today,” Sean Spicer, former White House spokesman and senior adviser to America First Action, the super PAC, said of Trump. “You can’t unilaterally disarm if the other side is going to utilize super PACs.”

They say it does not conflict with Trump’s oft-repeated pledge to “drain the swamp” because the rich donors are simply trying to help Trump achieve his aspirations for the country, not get something out of him.

“The donors aren’t D.C. They’re from all over the country, mostly from flyover states,” said Doug Deason, a Dallas investor who is on the finance committee of the America First groups. “They’re looking to get our country back to the states and away from the federal government.”

The White House did not respond to requests for comment.

Among the Trump loyalists who have financially benefited from the effort are former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and ex-Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke, who campaigned for Trump.

Their firms, along with ones run by former campaign spokeswoman Katrina Pierson and former campaign digital media director Brad Parscale, all earned at least tens of thousands of dollars each since 2017, the super PAC’s federal filings show.

A firm founded by Marty Obst, an adviser to Vice President Pence, also provided fundraising consulting services. Pence for months zipped across the country as the public face of America First, speaking at rallies and raising millions of dollars at fundraising dinners.

Group officials say America First was modeled as a Trump-focused corollary to Organizing for Action, formed after the 2012 campaign by President Barack Obama’s allies to support his legislative agenda.

Their stated goal is to keep GOP control of Congress in 2018 and to get Trump reelected in 2020. But exactly how they’ll get there remains nebulous.

America First groups say they have raised $46.1 million — less than half their goal. The groups have focused their electoral spending on the special elections in Alabama, Pennsylvania and Georgia this cycle.

As for the midterms, America First Action has helped a pro-Trump Republican incumbent in New York fend off a primary challenger. The super PAC says it is holding off on the bulk of its spending, waiting to see how it can complement outside spending from other major GOP groups as November approaches.

Some longtime GOP donors and strategists are skeptical, privately noting that they expected the groups to be more actively fundraising and spending by this point in a midterm election year.

White House officials have privately complained to super PAC officials that there has not been as good of a turnout as they wanted at some events, and that some of the prime beneficiaries appear to be Trump loyalists who have left the administration, a White House official said.

They have joked that the super PAC is a “lifestyle PAC,” with large salaries going to “the island of misfit toys,” in the words of one White House official, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about internal discussions.

Meanwhile, America First is drawing a fan club of supporters in the orbits of cable news punditry, social media and former Trump aides and surrogates — united by their adoration of the president and affinity for expressing it on Instagram.

“We don’t have a political director or a policy director. We don’t need one. We’re for everything the president is for, and we’re against everything the president is not,” said Roy W. Bailey, finance chairman of the super PAC.

The two-day Trump hotel event this month in Washington, which included panels and dinner, raised an estimated $5 million for the super PAC, one official said.

Guests paid $100,000 for entry and $250,000 for VIP access to get an insider pitch about the benefits of Trump’s policies from the likes of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).

“This was an amazing event to actually get close to the powerful people who have such an impact, not just in America but the world,” said Dontez Sanders, a real estate investor from Ohio.

According to an attendee, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee quipped at dinner that he wanted a Huckabee in the White House and got one: His daughter, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Throughout the two days, the president’s son Donald Trump Jr. shook hands and took photos with donors, who commented that he was an electric speaker like his father.

The events capped off with Trump’s roughly 45-minute, celebratory speech. He was “on fire,” one attendee said, rattling off at least 20 accomplishments from his first 500 days.

He brought champion boxer Evander Holyfield to the stage and gave an “examination” of his famed bitten ear. He thanked individual attendees in the crowd by name, and marveled at the wealth of one of those present.

After the official events ended, guests mingled at the hotel lobby bar, some still wearing their “America First” lanyards.

Andre Soriano, the designer behind “Make America Great Again” gowns, glided through the lobby in a flowy, all-black outfit studded with metal accessories. The ensemble struck a stark contrast with Clarke, the hard-charging sheriff, who chatted with him wearing a suit and white cowboy hat.

“I give so much credit to Donald Trump, who needed this like he needed a hole in the head,” said Charles Gucciardo, a lawyer from New York who attended the dinner. He said he once waited six hours at a Trump event — and then failed — to shake the president’s hand.

“I’ve seen Donald Trump four times so far, but I’ve never gotten to shake his hand,” he lamented. “I just want to shake his hand!”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.