Trump II

[Alan Klein]

Well, according to Media Bias/Fact Check, The Atlantic has a "LEFT-CENTER BIAS" (the same let-center bias as PBS News Hour).

That's the irony of the right claiming that the "liberal biased media" is the enemy of the people. But they are happy to allow a right biased media like Fox be the primary source of information to help them form their opinions. Here's the MB/FC RIGHT BIAS assessment of Fox...

And this is what MB/FC said of PBS

And given the massive embarrassment that Fox just endured by having The Judge (Andrew Napolitano) claim that the British spied on Trump for Obama and induced Trump and Spicer to go on TV and reference the Fox reporting as "proof" of the allegation, I'm hoping Fox and Trump have learned a lesson. With Fox I suspect so since the judge has been sidelined indefinitely. In the case of the President, there is no such method of sidelining a president short of impeachment. And given Comey's testimony yesterday, that might not be too far off :~)

That's the irony I find so frustrating...the right seems so limited in their sources of news that when one of the right biased media is so wrong, that it's almost impossible to get them to to accept the actual reality of the facts.

The New Yorker (left biased) had this article WHY FACTS DON’T CHANGE OUR MINDS

The final paragraph, in mentioning all three books that were referenced said:
So yeah, The Atlantic is a bit Left-Center biased...but that's ok, the left tends to get their news and information from multiple places and sources so can filter out any bias. Unfortunately the right doesn't tend to rely on multiple sources and are getting most news and info from limited sources that can often be both biased and incorrect but the right doesn't get the advantage of multiple sources of news. Of course, the right will dispute that because it doesn't fit with their world view due to confirmation bias.

To the right, the left is wrong and only the right can be right.

It's true that Fox is one of the few right biased media.  That's the point I've been making.  Most people are exposed to left-biased media like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NY Times, Washington Post, etc. Most of the press vote for Democrats, around 90%.  So their reporting is biased.  But these are all private owned and they can say whatever they want.   However, PBS is public.  It's agenda is on the left.  It should not have an agenda and should be fair and balanced.  Since it isn't, and the Republicans it opposes are in charge, they should stop funding.  Why should conservatives  and libertarians pay for public news media that supports liberal views?  We can watch the liberal BBC and let the Brits pay for it.

[Alan Klein]

I don't think we really know the answer yet.  He has kept some of his promises through executive orders but he continues to make promises he can't possibly keep.  Last night he was on the road again this time to Kentucky where he again railed against Obama care in a state where 10% of the populace have Obamacare policies and the level of uninsured went from over 20% to 7%; what happens to all these folks?  He said how his new policies were going to put all the coal miners back to work.  Don't know what they will be doing instead of mining coal as automation of mining and the switch to natural gas among the utilities have consigned manual coal mining into a death spiral.  We still don't know if the GOP Congress can pass a replacement to Obamacare and tax reform is even on the table yet.  We do have a proposed budget that like every other President's proposed budget is DOA in Congress (one of the great pleasures I used to have when I was not among the 94 million American out of work was doing the budget analysis for HHS every January and I can tell you that through Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama that none of their sweeping proposals were ever accepted by Congress).  He did manage to nominate a candidate for the Supreme Court who appears quite competent so I guess that's a plus.

Some things he's done that he campaigned on: He's nominated Gorsuch. His issued the travel ban.  He's requesting bids from contractors for building the wall.  He's requiring all agencies to eliminate two regulations for any one they add.  He's directed agencies to streamline regulations. (These his Secretaries will do once in office). He's advanced a budget that decreases spending in the EPA, NEA/PBS,  and other government agencies that are part of the "swamp".  He directed that appointed officials cannot become lobbyists for 5 years after leaving government, another swamp draining procedure. He approve the two pipeline projects.  His budget expands the military.  Obamacare replacement is under legislative action.  He seriously warned NATO countries that they have to pay more.   His Treasury Secretary told G20 that climate control is off the table and he may implement trade protectionism.  He sent a carrier fleet through into the South China Sea to warn China.  His secretary of State met with China's Xi to pressure them to help with North Korea.  I'm sure I missed a few.

How much do you expect him to do?  He's only been President two months.  Oh, and he got in ten rounds of golf when he wasn't working. 

[Alan Klein]

Here is where are I am confused... initially, it looked like Trump hijacked the GOP. But today, it looks like GOP hijacked Trump. So far, he's been enacting a typical GOP playbook, and very little of what he was saying during the campaign that made him sound (then) as a not-so-traditional Republican.

Slobodan:  See my last post.  Also, keep in mind that he can't get exactly everything he wants.  He' not a dictator.  He has to get Congress, even a Republican one,  to go along to pass legislation. So he's has to compromise to make deals, as will Congress.   Half a loaf of bread is better than no loaf at all.

[Schewe]

He' not a dictator.

Hum, you sure?

[laughingbear]

How about threatening members of congress (Rep.) to loose their mandate. About 20 if not more may not agree with his affordable car act.... ?....

Cough cough... affordable care act of course.

Ah ok, Spicer cleared that up, it was a joke, of course. Right.
Next?


 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Half a loaf of bread is better than no loaf at all.

That's true, but then it becomes more about which half ...
Especially in a country as divided as the USA.

Cheers,
Bart

[laughingbear]

@ Bart:
Do you get the american FOXnews channel in the Netherlands? I checked in Germany on SKY, not available here.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

How about threatening members of congress (Rep.) to loose their mandate. About 20 if not more may not agree with his affordable car act.... ?....

Cough cough... affordable care act of course.

Ah ok, Spicer cleared that up, it was a joke, of course. Right.
Next?

Absolutely. The Republican members of Congress are caught between a rock and a hard place.

Trump, Koch brothers at odds over 'Trumpcare' vote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-obamacare-kochs-idUSKBN16T07D

So they either piss-off Trump ("coming after" them if they do), or they risk losing their financial backing for the re-election.
Well, they created the situation themselves, they'll have to solve it somehow.

The screenplay writers of House of Cards Season 5, are having an easy time coming up with plotlines for the final episodes. I guess they'll already have enough for a season 6 as well.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

@ Bart:
Do you get the american FOXnews channel in the Netherlands? I checked in Germany on SKY, not available here.

No, I don't, but there are two smaller Cable companies who do offer the channel here, so I just go with what appears online on their own website and on the internet.
But then looking at Trump's reactions also gives a good idea of what has been aired as news propaganda.

Cheers,
Bart

[laughingbear]

Thanks, just wanted to know. Yeah well, I know the channel, from the years I lived in the US, and to be honest, nothing changed there. It is plain ridiculous.

No, I don't, but there are two smaller Cable companies who do offer the channel here, so I just go with what appears online on their own website and on the internet.
But then looking at Trump's reactions also gives a good idea of what has been aired as news propaganda.

Cheers,
Bart

[Otto Phocus]

Hum, you sure?

Has absolute power over the judiciary?  Trump?  NO
Has power to over ride legislative action?  Trump?  NO
Dictates legislation to the legislative branch?  Trump?  NO
Can fire legisators and federal judges?  Trump?  NO
Has power to over ride executive actions and legislative actions of the individual states?  Trump?  NO

I am no Trump fan, but a dictator he ain't.  He may want to be a dictator, but I think he is slowly learning that being PotUS is not as fun as he thought it would me.

[Alan Goldhammer]

AG: Trump's Cabinet Secretaries are going to follow his ideas like any President's cabinet.  He's the Boss.  Treasury Secretary Mnuchin told G20 to forget climate control and protectionism is not off the table.  Those are Trump's ideas.  Regarding Goldman Sachs, we want people who have experience and know how to execute whether they have been generals or CEO's.  He doesn't hire college professors and other "thinkers" who don't know how to negotiate and will be walked on.  They have had to have proved their mettle. 

With due respect, it is really unclear to me whether the President has any ideas.  He seems to flit around depending on what is on Fox and Friends each day.  He has said on several occasions both during the campaign and after that his health insurance plan will cover everyone with lower deductibles (thanks to television, we have documentation of this).  This is nigh to impossible and the current proposal being considered by the House falls well short of this.  Furthermore, I think what you state is quite worrisome if the Cabinet secretaries are going to blindly follow what the President says.  Yes, of course they are there to execute his policy but they are also there to offer their best advice. 

If anything is going to get the economy moving it's reducing taxes for businesses.  The increase in jobs and pay increase will help all workers.  Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton did it.  With the economy getting better, the lower business tax will be offset by increasing tax revenues from overall increased business.  That happened under Reagan. I didn't check the others.

The Reagan tax cut was followed a couple of years later by a huge tax increase; you can look it up.  Clinton actually raised taxes and there were a lot of Republicans who said this would cripple the economy.  there was more economic expansion under Clinton than under Reagan.  Here are the jobs created numbers under the Presidents starting with Carter in 1976:
Term           Private Sector Jobs Added (000s)
Carter   9,041
Reagan 1   5,360
Reagan 2   9,357
GHW Bush   1,509
Clinton 1   10,883
Clinton 2   10,085
GW Bush 1   -811
GW Bush 2   414
Obama 1   1,937
Obama 2   9,867

You cannot argue against the data.

[Alan Goldhammer]

@ Bart:
Do you get the american FOXnews channel in the Netherlands? I checked in Germany on SKY, not available here.

Count yourself as very lucky!!  Just stick to watching football (e.g., soccer); it's far better for the soul (Go Dortmund!!)

[Alan Goldhammer]

Has power to over ride legislative action?  Trump?  NO

The President can veto legislation but Congress, with enough votes, can pass it anyway.

[mbaginy]

Go Dortmund!!

Alan, thanks for the best comment of the entire thread! 

[laughingbear]

Count yourself as very lucky!!  Just stick to watching football (e.g., soccer); it's far better for the soul (Go Dortmund!!)

LOL Alan! I never was into soccer, not a sausage, but knowing Fox from my time, I agree, I'd rather be damned to watch 100 hours soccer than 1 hour Fox.

Hmm, then again, what a punishment, should be listed on the convention against torture.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

AP Exclusive: Manafort had plan to benefit Putin government:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_RUSSIA_MANAFORT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

I've mentioned before that Paul Manafort could be a game changer in the Trump campaign, but this is getting more concrete now.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... You cannot argue against the data.

No, but one can surely argue about attribution (of data) and correlation vs. causality.

For instance, given that the Obama "recovery" is the longest recovery in the history of recoveries, the question is how much of it can be attributed to his (in)actions and how much of it would have happened anyway. You know, recessions and recoveries happen cyclically, and government policies can either help or hurt either or both. I failed to notice a single Obama policy measure that significantly contributed to the recovery.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Hum, you sure?...

Jeff, I usually read with interest your posts as they tend to provide a different angle. I might not always agree with your premises, but they are at least an interesting, and sometimes entertaining read.

However, posting such crude, simplistic and inaccurate Internet memes does not do justice to your cause.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

No, but one can surely argue about attribution (of data) and correlation vs. causality.

For instance, given that the Obama "recovery" is the longest recovery in the history of recoveries, the question is how much of it can be attributed to his (in)actions and how much of it would have happened anyway.

That's correct. But it didn't get worse either, and of course, the fact that he did inherit a mess from his predecessor made it perhaps a bit easier to do better ...

Cheers,
Bart