[helene_t]

 Trinidad, on 2017-February-17, 05:55, said:

"Am I real?".

I can undertand his doubt. Descartes' argument doesn't quite apply here, I mean.

[barmar]

 Winstonm, on 2017-February-16, 21:39, said:

"The leaks are real. The news is fake." Donald Trump, 2-26-17

A quote from 10 days in the future? #FakeNews

[Winstonm]

 barmar, on 2017-February-17, 09:37, said:

A quote from 10 days in the future? #FakeNews

The posts are fake.

[y66]

From Donald Trump's Alternative Reality Press Conference (Feb 16, 2017) by John Cassidy:

Quote

It was “insane,” a “marathon rant” at the media, and “a press conference for the ages.” Before you accuse me of liberal bias, these were the terms that Fox Business Channel’s Charles Gasparino, the home page of the New York Post, and Fox News’s Shepard Smith used, respectively, to describe the performance that Donald Trump put on during a lengthy press conference in the East Room of the White House on Thursday.

Nominally, the White House had hastily scheduled the press conference so that Trump could announce he was nominating Alexander Acosta, the dean of Florida International University College of Law, for the post of Labor Secretary. But it was clear something strange was afoot when Trump walked in alone—without Acosta. Then, when the President started to talk, his tone was one of thinly suppressed fury.

After briefly lauding Acosta’s credentials, Trump thanked Paul Singer, a conservative Wall Street billionaire who used to oppose him and now supports him, for paying him a visit. (One of the few things Trump seems actually to like about being President is having supplicant rich guys come and pay homage to him.) Then he changed tack and said, “I’m here today to update the American people on the incredible progress that has been made in the last four weeks since my Inauguration . . . I don’t think there’s ever been a President elected who in this short period of time has done what we’ve done.”

What Trump has actually done, of course, is demonstrate his manifest unsuitability for the job he now holds. He has also signed a bunch of papers, most of which have had little immediate effect, and one of which—his anti-Muslim travel ban—plunged America’s airports into chaos before being put on hold by a federal judge. For the past week, his Administration has been consumed by damaging stories about his ties to Russia, and his firing of his national-security adviser, Michael Flynn.

Four weeks into its first term, the Obama Administration had already passed the biggest economic stimulus since the Great Depression and a sweeping fair-pay act. It had also announced a troop surge in Afghanistan. By comparison, Trump has achieved virtually nothing, except scaring the bejeezus out of the world.

In his mind, of course, things are very different. For more than hour on Thursday, he stood at a White House lectern, the yellowness of his hair accentuated by the gold drapes hanging behind him, and demonstrated, again, that he long ago escaped the bounds of reality that restrict most mortals. He talked about his various executive orders, his meetings with the leaders of the United Kingdom and Canada, and his fifty-five-per-cent approval rating in the latest Rasmussen poll. (For some reason, he didn’t mention his forty-per-cent approval rating in a Gallup poll, the lowest on record for a President in his first month in office.) “I’m keeping my promises to the American people,” he said.

Much of his time, however, Trump spent berating the press. He singled out the New York Times, the BBC, CNN, and, particularly, “CNN Tonight with Don Lemon,” which he described as “a constant hit.” Breaking new ground, he also criticized the Wall Street Journal, saying it “did a story today that was almost as disgraceful as the failing New York Times’ story, yesterday.” (The report in question said U.S. intelligence agencies have grown so distrustful of Trump that they are holding back from him some of the sensitive information they have gathered.) He even admonished a reporter from a Jewish magazine, Ami, who had the gall to bring up the recent rise in anti-Semitic attacks, telling him to “sit down,” and adding, “I am the least anti-Semitic person that you’ve ever seen in your entire life.”

AP fact check.

[barmar]

Trump got one thing right yesterday. He predicted that the media would say he "ranted and raved", and they sure did. I suppose it was a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Vampyr]

Keep people focused on your extraordinary performance at a press conference, and they will be distracted from things like your botched military operation or the fact that a bill in the House will, if passed, abolish the EPA. Maybe he's brighter than we think? Unlikely that a bright person would shame himself to that degree, but anyway the misdirection seems to be working.

[ldrews]

 Vampyr, on 2017-February-17, 16:50, said:

Keep people focused on your extraordinary performance at a press conference, and they will be distracted from things like your botched military operation or the fact that a bill in the House will, if passed, abolish the EPA. Maybe he's brighter than we think? Unlikely that a bright person would shame himself to that degree, but anyway the misdirection seems to be working.

Step back a bit. Look at the bigger picture. Trump is a person who managed to do pretty well in the tough NY real estate market. He created an "empire" of some 500 international companies. He defeated 17 experienced, well funded Republican political opponents. He defeated Hillary Clinton, another very experienced, well-funded opponent. He did this with the Democratic party, the Republican party, and the main stream media all arrayed against him. He manipulated the media better than anyone else I have witnessed. He now has every other national leader jostled out of their comfort zones (perhaps the beginning of a negotiation strategy). He has already jawboned several major corporations into changing their plans and keeping/ moving jobs to the US.

You think he might be brighter than we thought?

Reminds me of the cartoons of Road Runner and Wiley Coyote. Poor anti-Trumpers! Will they ever catch up?

[Winstonm]

 ldrews, on 2017-February-17, 19:13, said:

Step back a bit. Look at the bigger picture. Trump is a person who managed to do pretty well in the tough NY real estate market. He created an "empire" of some 500 international companies. He defeated 17 experienced, well funded Republican political opponents. He defeated Hillary Clinton, another very experienced, well-funded opponent. He did this with the Democratic party, the Republican party, and the main stream media all arrayed against him. He manipulated the media better than anyone else I have witnessed. He now has every other national leader jostled out of their comfort zones (perhaps the beginning of a negotiation strategy). He has already jawboned several major corporations into changing their plans and keeping/ moving jobs to the US.

You think he might be brighter than we thought?

Reminds me of the cartoons of Road Runner and Wiley Coyote. Poor anti-Trumpers! Will they ever catch up?

What he has done is nothing that any other Russian oligarch would do when trying to promote his brand and increase his personal empire. His con is getting people - seemingly you are one - to believe he has something other than his own interests at heart.

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2017-February-17, 21:38, said:

What he has done is nothing that any other Russian oligarch would do when trying to promote his brand and increase his personal empire. His con is getting people - seemingly you are one - to believe he has something other than his own interests at heart.

Actually I believe that Trump, like everybody else, primarily has his own interests at heart. That is how humanity seems to work. The trick is to get his interests lined up with my interests and let him pull the wagon. This seems to be happening.

The only people who profess not to have their own interests primary, like you, are the real con men.

But please do console yourself with the Russian conspiracy bit. It is very entertaining.

[PassedOut]

Now that Admiral Harward has refused the "sh*t sandwich" offered by Trump after General Flynn's ouster, I wonder who'll be the one willing to take a bite.

[ldrews]

 PassedOut, on 2017-February-17, 22:45, said:

Now that Admiral Harwood has refused the "sh*t sandwich" offered by Trump after General Flynn's ouster, I wonder who'll be the one willing to take a bite.

It is indeed a "sh*t sandwich"! There seems to be an internal war going on about who is going to run the government: the president or the "deep state". The jury is still out on that.

[rmnka447]

http://www.thedailyb...it.html?ref=yfp

Just happened across the above by accident and was a little shocked by it.

So is this group a burgeoning progressive equivalent of the TEA party? Is it the Democratic Party imploding? Or is it something more sinister?

Or is it just some wild musings by a disreputable web site?

[cherdano]

 rmnka447, on 2017-February-18, 01:10, said:

http://www.thedailyb...it.html?ref=yfp

Just happened across the above by accident and was a little shocked by it.

So is this group a burgeoning progressive equivalent of the TEA party? Is it the Democratic Party imploding? Or is it something more sinister?

Or is it just some wild musings by a disreputable web site?

Why, exactly, is that shocking?
The Democratic party has lost thousands of seats in state legislatures under Obama, as well as 12 Senate seats, and enough House seats to swing from an Obamacare-proof majority in 2009-2011 to the largest Republican majority since the 1930s in 2015-2017.

OFA was supposed to energise and organise the base at the state and local level. Given the obviously dreadful results, you are surprised they'd get some internal blame? (There is a House district in Texas that Clinton won - yet the Democrats didn't even field a candidate. No, I don't mean they didn't have a serious candidate - they had no candidate.)

[y66]

From President Trump, White House Apprentice by the NYT Editorial Board:

Quote

It’s with a whiff of desperation that President Trump insists these days that he’s the chief executive Washington needs, the decisive dealmaker who, as he said during the campaign, “alone can fix it.” What America has seen so far is an inept White House led by a celebrity apprentice.

This president did not inherit “a mess” from Barack Obama, as he likes to say, but a nation recovered from recession and with strong alliances abroad. Mr. Trump is well on his way to creating a mess of his own, weakening national security and even risking the delivery of basic government services. Most of the top thousand jobs in the administration remain vacant. Career public servants are clashing with inexperienced “beachhead” teams appointed by the White House to run federal agencies until permanent staff members arrive.

Mr. Trump lost his national security adviser this week in a scandal involving ties to Russian intelligence. Robert Harward, a retired vice admiral, refused the job on Thursday, rattled by a dysfunctional National Security Council and a president who has alienated Mexico, Australia and even the British royal family, while cozying up to Moscow.

When Mr. Trump’s assistants can keep the edge of panic out of their voices, they insist that Mr. Trump has gotten more done in the early going than most presidents. And Mr. Trump is so adept at creating smoke that Americans might be forgiven for thinking that’s true. But at this point in the Obama presidency, which did inherit a mess, Congress had passed laws aimed at dragging the economy back from the brink of depression while committing $800 billion in Recovery Act spending to projects ranging from housing to roads to advanced energy technologies.

Mr. Trump’s vaunted $1 trillion infrastructure spending program, by contrast, doesn’t yet exist, because the president confuses executive orders with achievements. Orders are dashed off without input from Congress and the government officials who would implement them. The White House is a toxic mix of ideology, inexperience and rivalries; insiders say tantrums are nearly as common as the spelling errors in the press office’s news releases. Steve Bannon writes the president’s script, and Reince Priebus, the embattled chief of staff, crashes meetings to which he has not been invited.

Mr. Trump complains about the slow pace of congressional confirmation of his appointees, but the obstacle is at his end. His staff doesn’t bother to vet nominees in advance. His pick for labor secretary failed in part because no one in authority seemed to know that the nominee had employed an undocumented immigrant and had been accused of abusing his ex-wife.

“Everything he rolls out is done so badly,” Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian, marveled recently. “They’re just releasing comments, tweets and policies willy-nilly.”

If there is any upside here, it is that the administration’s ineptitude has so far spared the nation from a wholesale dismantling of major laws, including the Affordable Care Act, though he may yet kill the law through malign neglect. In the meantime, however, as Mr. Harward’s retreat on Thursday suggests, the chaos carries other risks. A Navy SEAL turned corporate executive, Mr. Harward cited family and financial considerations for refusing the national security job, but privately he was reported to be worried about the effect of a mercurial president on national security decision making. As Gen. Tony Thomas, head of the military’s Special Operations Command, said this week: “Our government continues to be in unbelievable turmoil. I hope they sort it out soon, because we’re a nation at war.”

The most damaging downside to the administration’s stumbles could be an exodus of talent from the broader government; scientists, lawyers and policy specialists at the Environmental Protection Agency, for instance, are openly disheartened at the prospect of working for Scott Pruitt, whose nomination as the agency’s new boss was approved by the Senate on Friday. And if others follow Mr. Hayward’s lead, capable people may be reluctant to come on board and fix things. That would leave the White House further isolated, particularly on foreign policy.

Indeed, unless Mr. Trump can bring some semblance of order to his official household and governing style, the only element of his famous campaign pledge that may prove accurate is the “alone” part.

The most damaging downside of the administration's stumbles could be an exodus of talent from government? That's a downside but hardly the most damaging. Imagine what's in store when they stop stumbling.

[Trinidad]

 ldrews, on 2017-February-17, 22:35, said:

Actually I believe that Trump, like everybody else, primarily has his own interests at heart. That is how humanity seems to work. The trick is to get his interests lined up with my interests and let him pull the wagon. This seems to be happening.

The only people who profess not to have their own interests primary, like you, are the real con men.

But please do console yourself with the Russian conspiracy bit. It is very entertaining.

There are plenty of people who don't have their own interests at heart. On a small scale: Ask any parent. Most of them would take a bullet for their kids.

Many people would risk their own life for a stranger.
(Did you hear the story last week about the guy who was overtaking a swerving car on the German Autobahn and saw that the driver was unconscious? He starting driving in front, breaking slowly, letting the other car rear-end him as gently as possible and got the car to stop safely. This action, that risked his own life and severely damaged his car, saved the unconscious driver's life and possibly some others too.)

On a larger scale: You can have opinions on and agree or disagree with Barack Obama, Francois Hollande, Theresa May or Angela Merkel, to name a few. But in their jobs, they will/would do what they think is right for the country or the world, not what is best for themselves. They may be wrong about what is right for the country or the world, or they may fail in getting the job done. But they do not put self-interest ahead of the interest of everybody else. And, of course, being in the position that they are in makes them feel good, perhaps even proud. But they will only be proud if they get the difficult job done for the country.

Rik

[ldrews]

 Trinidad, on 2017-February-18, 10:42, said:

There are plenty of people who don't have their own interests at heart. On a small scale: Ask any parent. Most of them would take a bullet for their kids.

Many people would risk their own life for a stranger.
(Did you hear the story last week about the guy who was overtaking a swerving car on the German Autobahn and saw that the driver was unconscious? He starting driving in front, breaking slowly, letting the other car rear-end him as gently as possible and got the car to stop safely. This action, that risked his own life and severely damaged his car, saved the unconscious driver's life and possibly some others too.)

On a larger scale: You can have opinions on and agree or disagree with Barack Obama, Francois Hollande, Theresa May or Angela Merkel, to name a few. But in their jobs, they will/would do what they think is right for the country or the world, not what is best for themselves. They may be wrong about what is right for the country or the world, or they may fail in getting the job done. But they do not put self-interest ahead of the interest of everybody else. And, of course, being in the position that they are in makes them feel good, perhaps even proud. But they will only be proud if they get the difficult job done for the country.

Rik

Do you feel good about doing good? Then you are pursuing self-interest.

[Winstonm]

Quote

"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:49

Quote

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!
3:48 PM - 17 Feb 2017
39,026 39,026 Retweets 120,614 120,614 likes

Now, can you explain again why anyone should support Donald Trump?

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2017-February-18, 11:28, said:

Now, can you explain again why anyone should support Donald Trump?

In my opinion a free press (not under government control) is a necessary but not sufficient condition. The "free press" must also report news factually and without bias. I have not seen that happen much during the last couple of years at least. A press that slants their reporting, reports inaccurately, and allows their bias to selectively report is indeed an enemy of the people. I would assert that, in my opinion, all of the above has been present recently.

Since I feel that significant changes are needed in the US culture/policies to ensure survival/prosperity, I continue to support Trump because he seems to be attempting to make changes. You may not agree with me and therefore see Trump as a danger/buffoon/idiot, but that disagreement has been resolved, at least temporarily, by the recent election. We will see at the next election whether Trump retains enough popular support to continue or not.

[PassedOut]

 ldrews, on 2017-February-18, 13:38, said:

In my opinion a free press (not under government control) is a necessary but not sufficient condition. The "free press" must also report news factually and without bias. I have not seen that happen much during the last couple of years at least. A press that slants their reporting, reports inaccurately, and allows their bias to selectively report is indeed an enemy of the people. I would assert that, in my opinion, all of the above has been present recently.

It seems to me that Trump directs his anger precisely at those news sources that point out his own factual errors and false claims. He's fine with those who repeat, or initiate, the false claims that Trump himself makes.

[ldrews]

 PassedOut, on 2017-February-18, 13:46, said:

It seems to me that Trump directs his anger precisely at those news sources that point out his own factual errors and false claims. He's fine with those who repeat, or initiate, the false claims that Trump himself makes.

Well, certainly. Wouldn't you do the same if you were in his position? Do you really expect Trump to admit to any mistakes/errors that he doesn't absolutely have to? Would you realistically expect that of anyone else?