Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

04-24-2017 , 11:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clovis8
Deplorables gonna deplorable.
Yeah, and anyone who claims to have voted for Trump based on personal finances and cares more about a capped tax deferment than corporate tax cuts prob made a mistake somewhere.
04-25-2017 , 12:11 AM
Yeah, one of my the most hilarious memories of the campaign that I have is when I saw an interview with Ken Bone where he was talking about the pros and cons of Clinton and Trump and at one point he said something like, "Well Trump is going to be better for me financially, but ... "

Never heard what came after the "but" because I was laughing uncontrollably for a solid minute.
04-25-2017 , 12:23 AM
I think this was posted during the election, but Trump was a pain in the ass for the Apprentice people because he was untethered from reality.
Quote:
A grand editorial struggle on the show was to make the star’s decisions about which contestant was fired each episode look legitimate. The editors reported that when the boardroom was shot, the producers would offer their observations about who did well in the challenges and deserved to stay, and who was not pulling his or her weight and deserved to go. But invariably, Trump would ignore factual information and instead go with his gut.

“Trump would often make arbitrary decisions which had nothing to do with people’s merit,” confirmed another Season One editor who requested anonymity. “He’d make decisions based on whom he liked or disliked personally, whether it be for looks or lifestyle, or he’d keep someone that ‘would make good TV’ [according to Trump].”

Setting up story beats to justify the contestant that Trump ultimately fired required editorial gymnastics, according to the show’s editors. Manipulating footage to invent a story point that did not exist organically is common in reality TV editing, although with The Apprentice, it proved a tremendous feat.

“We’d often be shocked at whomever Trump chose to fire,” Braun explained. “Our first priority on every episode like that was to reverse-engineer the show to make it look like his judgment had some basis in reality. Sometimes it would be very hard to do, because the person he chose did nothing. We had to figure out how to edit the show to make it work, to show the people he chose to fire as looking bad — even if they had done a great job.”

Also, Trump was never good with facts and numbers, the editors said, and they needed to fix his mistakes.

“He would say things like, ‘We had a million applicants and we chose this small group to be contestants on the show,’” Braun recalled. “And I would turn to my producer and say, ‘A million applicants? Really?’ And the producer would shake his head no. Trump would just take numbers and throw them around. I mean, from Season One to Season Two, he said his net worth tripled. One day he said he had a billion dollars and then later it would become three billion; he just made stuff up.”
http://cinemontage.org/2016/10/editi...-be-president/
04-25-2017 , 12:30 AM
Carlin always was the GOAT.

04-25-2017 , 12:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
John Oliver's main story tonight was really good (not on YT yet or I'd link), focusing on Ivanka and Jared and pointing out that people counting on them to be moderating influences on Trump don't really have any good reasons for thinking that. His main points for each were...

- Ivanka: like her father, she's been bred to be a PR rep for the Trump brand and says what people want to hear rather than actually divulging any information about herself. She's not really made it known what issues are actually important to her, other than her childcare/family leave stuff which so far is vaporware, and on other issues where people seem to project liberal beliefs onto her (i.e. a network interviewer said she thinks Ivanka is in favor of Planned Parenthood, or she invited Al Gore to Trump Tower (leading people to think she cares about climate change) shortly before he selected LOL Scott Pruitt for the EPA) Trump has acted against those issues thus far.

- Jared: Trump has put him in charge of basically all of the hardest jobs a president could possibly deal with (peace in the middle east! reform the VA! reform the government! do everything!) and we know nothing about him to suggest he's capable of doing particularly well at any of them. He was born into wealth, got into Harvard thanks to a $2.5m family donation, and took over his family company while not demonstrating any particular excellence at business; for the accomplishment of marrying Ivanka, Trump has now put him in charge of tons of ****, and people seem happy largely because that clears the low bar of Steve Bannon not handling those things.
At one point, he said "The apple does not fall far from the orange" when talking about Ivanka. I near fell out of my chair laughing.
04-25-2017 , 12:50 AM
Ivanka's the golden child, why do people believe she's any different? (other than they are stupid) She's very likely just like he is and very little they disagree on.

Jared could be the best of the bunch (bannon seems to hate him so that's at least one not terrible thing about him) but has an impossible task for anyone.

Trump runs things like a mafia since he can't trust more than a few people but gov't is too big/complex.

I'd say it's amazing how trump has screwed or just made **** up everywhere and it still has never come back to bite him at any point in his life but I've seen it before. Those types always win at life, scheming works kids.

Last edited by wheatrich; 04-25-2017 at 12:55 AM.
04-25-2017 , 12:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by awval999
Over turning of Roe and/or Casey.
LOL
04-25-2017 , 12:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman
Voting third party is the absolute worst.


If you vote for someone you know can't win, you are a ****.

Doubly so when trump is one of those that could win.

If you didn't vote for Hillary, you voted for trump. It's that simple.
04-25-2017 , 01:09 AM
Trump backed out of border wall funding fight. Prob gonna do it soon though and it will be a Great Wall full of horcruxes and prob not paid for by Mexicans.
04-25-2017 , 01:15 AM
Any restriction on movement to and from Mexico is only going to be paid for by Americans in the form of higher car and food prices, no matter who nominally pays the tax.
04-25-2017 , 01:58 AM
Funnier than trump saying Mexico was going to pay for the wall are congress people saying there will not be a wall if Mexico doesn't pay fior it.

I don't understand in any universe where any rational person would think "Yeah obviously we will get Mexico to pay for a wall."

That alone should have been a big enough red flag for people not to vote for trump. It is monumentally absurd and stupid. What if Trudeau demanded the US pay for a wall Canada wanted to build along their southern border? It's such a tone deaf and ignorant move and a clear signal of foreign policy incompetence. Yet this is one of scores of stupid things trump promised of said before being elected.
04-25-2017 , 02:10 AM
you just know it wasnt even planned either trump was just trumping at some rally and got overhyped and added " AND MAKE MEXICO PAY FOR IT" !

just like they added "OH AND LOCK HER UP BTW I AGREE WITH THE DERANGED CHANTS!"

none of it had a chance to happen, still won the election cause of it
04-25-2017 , 03:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corvette24
At one point, he said "The apple does not fall far from the orange" when talking about Ivanka. I near fell out of my chair laughing.
Yeah that was an A++ line.
04-25-2017 , 04:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman
Funnier than trump saying Mexico was going to pay for the wall are congress people saying there will not be a wall if Mexico doesn't pay fior it.

I don't understand in any universe where any rational person would think "Yeah obviously we will get Mexico to pay for a wall."

That alone should have been a big enough red flag for people not to vote for trump. It is monumentally absurd and stupid. What if Trudeau demanded the US pay for a wall Canada wanted to build along their southern border? It's such a tone deaf and ignorant move and a clear signal of foreign policy incompetence. Yet this is one of scores of stupid things trump promised of said before being elected.
In the mind of your average Trump supporter, any foreign policy desire can be achieved by gesturing to our USA #1 military. Canada couldn't demand we pay for a wall because nukes, but America could demand Mexico to pay for a wall because nukes.
04-25-2017 , 05:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corvette24
At one point, he said "The apple does not fall far from the orange" when talking about Ivanka. I near fell out of my chair laughing.
I look forward to waking up Monday morning so I can watch Last Week Tonight while having my morning cup of coffee for that reason.
04-25-2017 , 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHip41
If you vote for someone you know can't win, you are a ****.

Doubly so when trump is one of those that could win.

If you didn't vote for Hillary, you voted for trump. It's that simple.
To be honest, your democratic system is just ****. In most democracy's it is standard to have the choice between multiple (more then two) party's and it does make perfect sense to vote for them even if they cant win. A minority party can be part of the government through a coalition.

Having a two party system for decades doesnt sound healthy at all.
04-25-2017 , 06:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by awval999
That's not always true.

My 403b (a non profit 401k) has Vanguard funds with very low expense ratios.
It's not always true, but it's indisputable that fee levels are higher overall in 401k programs than traditional defined benefit plans.

If legislators cared (they don't) this could be addressed by just capping the fees that can be charged to employee accounts. Financial advisors would scream bloody murder though, just like they did when they the government proposed that they would have to act in the best interest of their clients, not themselves. Think about that for a moment and it's crystal clear how ****ed up the 401k system is.
04-25-2017 , 06:58 AM
Try lighting yourself on fire, then maybe, it will trickle down on you!
04-25-2017 , 07:12 AM
I've worked for large companies and small. Large companies use vanguard and fidelity and get low fees. Small companies get John Hancock investments where they charge 1% for index funds that underperform their index.

This whole thing just has to be a trial balloon or maybe a diversion to do something more subtle but equally odious.

I'm in the 401k camp. Take the tax break now. I don't trust them to honor the Roth long term.
04-25-2017 , 07:19 AM
I've been hearing a few shows (and the orange man himself) tout the confirmation of Gorsuch as a big accomplishment of the first 100 days, some saying that "it's no small feat".

What?

He had a list handed out to him, and a Senate majority willing to go the nuclear option. Where's the big accomplishment here? A 5 year old would have gotten that one passed too.
04-25-2017 , 07:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHip41
If you vote for someone you know can't win, you are a ****.

Doubly so when trump is one of those that could win.

If you didn't vote for Hillary, you voted for trump. It's that simple.
Depends what state you live in. NJ was never going for Trump so it was any easy protest vote to vote Johnson, because I was never pulling the level for Hillary even if she was the only one on the ballot.
04-25-2017 , 07:31 AM
Wat? You voted for Trump. You like Trump, and I have never heard you praise Johnson. You not voting for Trump makes no sense.
04-25-2017 , 07:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Timon
I've been hearing a few shows (and the orange man himself) tout the confirmation of Gorsuch as a big accomplishment of the first 100 days, some saying that "it's no small feat".

What?

He had a list handed out to him, and a Senate majority willing to go the nuclear option. Where's the big accomplishment here? A 5 year old would have gotten that one passed too.
The only POTUS who came close to ****ing up a pick was W, who picked Harriet Myers.
04-25-2017 , 07:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Timon
I've been hearing a few shows (and the orange man himself) tout the confirmation of Gorsuch as a big accomplishment of the first 100 days, some saying that "it's no small feat".

What?

He had a list handed out to him, and a Senate majority willing to go the nuclear option. Where's the big accomplishment here? A 5 year old would have gotten that one passed too.
When Trump touts, everyone supporting him scrambles to find evidence to back him up. They're trying to reverse engineer the truth. Just look at the wiretapping claim and how far people have gone to justify it.

In the SCOTUS case, they often state the fact that other presidents rarely confirm someone in their first 100 days as rationale for his major achievement, ignoring the much bigger facts behind it. Just like everything else he does.
04-25-2017 , 07:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Our House
When Trump touts, everyone supporting him scrambles to find evidence to back him up. They're trying to reverse engineer the truth. Just look at the wiretapping claim and how far people have gone to justify it.

In the SCOTUS case, they often state the fact that other presidents rarely confirm someone in their first 100 days as rationale for his major achievement, ignoring the much bigger facts behind it. Just like everything else he does.
Yeah, I expect that from trumpkins, but this morning the today show was saying the same thing, which really baffled me.

      
m