Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[RedSpawn]

Two versions of this story came out the same day/evening: one by the Washington Post, and the other by the New York Times. The Washington Post article was based on an unsigned letter sent to its offices in December, but the claims of which were not verified until recently through contacts with intelligent officers. So the Post confirmation of the story came from current and former intelligence officers - their story is the more sinister.

 

The New York Times also reported on this story, but their sources were from the White House - and that's where the Syrian claim came in - supposedly, according to the WH leakers, the reason for the back channel line was to discuss Syria and terrorism directly with Russia.

 

https://www.vox.com/2017/5/26/15703668/kushner-secret-russia-communication

 

As you have noticed, the New York Times story - with WH sources - does not pass the smell test.

 

Wait a minute. Allow me to introduce into evidence, Exhibit A. Please click this following link which shows the unedited suicide note the FBI sent Dr. Martin Luther King (MLK) under the leadership of J. Edgar Hoover. If memory serves me correct, MLK was an (adulterous) minister who led the nonviolent Civil Rights Movement. The FBI had a very difficult time digesting King's message especially since it had conducted unconstitutional surveillance on him and uncovered his deepest secrets and fetishes.

 

To the FBI, MLK was a fraud who was unfit for leadership or hero status. He was a flawed, hypocritical, sexually deviant clergy member who had the nerve to invoke God's name in stirring, compelling speeches about equality, racial justice, and an integrated society. The FBI needed to be expose King as a fraud to discredit him and slow down the momentum of his (radical) movement.

 

Technically, MLK was a national security threat who was disturbing the peace and causing social upheaval by bringing the Constitution to the discussion table. He challenged the status quo of the American establishment which knowingly subjugated a group of people based on the melanin content of their skin.

 

He quickly became an enemy of the state by demanding systemic and structural change. He contended that African-Americans should be treated as 1st class citizens and have equal access to educational, financial, governmental, corporate, legal, and social institutions. That was dangerous revolutionary thought for the 1960s.

 

Read the chilling suicide note prepared by the FBI and tell me if you are indeed ready for a surveillance state where the intelligence community knows more about you than your own mother!

 

By the way, I wonder who could have sent the unsigned letter to the Washington Post? Is it remotely possible that a Western intelligence "brother" sent that unsigned letter to WaPo which was later corroborated by the same brother and validated by a "Big Brother" and further substantiated a "Bigger Brother"? Hmmmm.

 

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/fbis-suicide-letter-dr-martin-luther-king-jr-and-dangers-unchecked-surveillance

[awm]

The news reports come from many different sources, many different reporters. Could one reporter make stuff up? Sure. Could they ALL be making up so many different things? Seems less likely.

 

And we KNOW that Trump makes stuff up. And that he refuses to disclose tax information that every other president has disclosed. And that he seems weirdly enamored with Putin (and other dictators).

 

Seems clear who is more believable, but of course we can wait for the investigation. Meanwhile the US withdrawal from Paris agreement has upset many traditional Republican allies (corporate leaders including some surprising ones like Exxon). I guess Trump is trying to fulfill his promise to bring back coal jobs, but this does not seem very realistic or even desirable.

[rmnka447]

It sounds as if your complaint is that the media cannot be trusted. But let me ask you a question: how does a reporter name his source if that source spoke only on condition of anonymity? The reporter would never again work in news, never get another tip from that source or likely any source, and he might cause the tipster to lose his job, to boot, or face criminal prosecution. And newspapers - any reliable news outlet, for that matter - will not publish information from a single source unless making it totally clear that the allegation is unsubstantiated. In almost all cases, news organizations do not run with a story until it is substatiated or confirmed by at least one other source besides the original.

 

The other side of this coin is that if the White House and campaign members were cooperating fully it would be possible to hear what was being said on t.v. instead of reading and hearing about it second hand.

Well, the public believes the media is biased. So it would seem like their reporting regarding President Trump needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

 

A recent Harvard study of media coverage in the first 100 days shows major media sources were overwhelming negative about President Trump. CNN and NBC 93% negative, CBS 90% negative, NYTimes 87% negative, WashPost 83% negative, WSJ 70%, and Fox 52% negative. Stories concerning President Trump's fitness for office ran WashPost 96% negative, NYTimes 87% negative, CNN 82% negative, NBC 80% negative, Fox 33% negative.

 

So it's perfectly fair to question the objectivity of news outlets that are so negative about President Trump.

 

As a comparison, President Trumps has received overall something like 70% negative reporting, President Obama about 70% positive, President Bush 57% negative, and President Clinton 60% negative.

 

This is a link to the study https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/

 

There are several passages in the summary/conclusions that seem apropos.

 

"Nonetheless, the sheer level of negative coverage gives weight to Trump's contention, one shared by his core constituency, that the media are hell bent on destroying his Presidency."

 

"At the same time, the news media need to give Trump credit when his actions warrant it. The public's low level of confidence in the press is the result of several factors, one of which is a belief that journalists are biased. That perception weakens the press's watchdog role. ... The nation's watchdog has lost much of its bite and won't regain it until the public perceives it as an impartial broker, applying the same reporting standards to both parties"

 

"Journalists would also do well to spend less time in Washington and more time in places where policy intersects with people's lives. If they had done so during the Presidential campaign, they would not have missed the story that keyed Trump's victory -- the fading of the American dream for millions of ordinary people. Nor do all such narratives need to be a tale of woe. America at the moment is a divided society in some respects, but not a broken society and the divisions in Washington are deeper than those outside the Beltway."

 

But beyond the bias, one has to ask what was the hard information the sources for the story saw that made them make their claims. Was there a verbatim transcript of the meeting or just a summary based on some meeting notes they were basing their comments on? With the American attendees asserting nothing inappropriate was said, anything other than a verbatim transcript would seem pretty iffy for upholding the source's assertions.

[RedSpawn]

The problem is that there is too much "it's been reported" or "somebody said that something may have happened". The "somebody" might have misconstrued, misheard, or purposely colored the "facts" they are disclosing. We've all probably played the party game where one person whispers something into the ear of the first person in a line of people and each person in turn whispers what is said to the person next to them. At the end, what the last person reports is usually dramatically different than what was originally said. The differences take place because people have different perceptions of what is being said and expressing how things are said to the next person. I think the legal term is "hearsay" and the court's don't normally admit hearsay as credible evidence.

 

Another problem is that the "might have been" gets reported, then by repeated mention of the assertions, the might have been starts getting treated as fact. Additionally, the manner in which the "might have been" is reported can be biased. For example, the story may not provide appropriate context about what is being reported so that it misinforms about the real impact of what is being reported.

 

I'm thinking about the news story about the President giving classified information to the Russians in a recent WH meeting with them. The story was sensationalized by neglecting to provide the context that Presidents do share such information from time to time when deemed appropriate. But the story was presented as if the information provided were a horrendous gaffe or complicit espionage. The story lost a lot of its legs when subsequently ex-CIA Director Brennan testified that sharing classified information wasn't unusual when pursuing cooperation on common interests. Brennan did say that there was a specific format that needed to be adhered to in order to protect the sources and origins of such information.

 

The three other Americans in that meeting stated that the President didn't do anything inappropriate. Yet the story attributed to former and current members of the intelligence community asserted that the President revealed the source and origin of the intelligence to the Russians. So a question that needs answering is "How did these 'sources' get their information?" It would seem like you would need to know the verbatim conversation to be factually correct about the assertions.

 

Excellent points. Always question the collection method, veracity, and motives of the source--especially when the narrative seems askew or conflicts with other sources.

 

"News has become more superficial and sensational ... News is too often degenerating into 'disastertainment' ... Sensationalism and oversimplification are affecting the output of all media. There is a less room for a balanced approach, for analysis instead of going for the crass headline or extraordinary story."

 

See https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/aug/16/mondaymediasection.politicsandthemedia for additional information.

[kenberg]

The media have missed the real story. Donald Trump is a Sunni Muslim, How else to explain his dumping of our historical ties with Europe to embrace Saudi Arabia?

[RedSpawn]

Well, the public believes the media is biased. So it would seem like their reporting regarding President Trump needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

 

A recent Harvard study of media coverage in the first 100 days shows major media sources were overwhelming negative about President Trump. CNN and NBC 93% negative, CBS 90% negative, NYTimes 87% negative, WashPost 83% negative, WSJ 70%, and Fox 52% negative. Stories concerning President Trump's fitness for office ran WashPost 96% negative, NYTimes 87% negative, CNN 82% negative, NBC 80% negative, Fox 33% negative.

 

So it's perfectly fair to question the objectivity of news outlets that are so negative about President Trump.

 

As a comparison, President Trumps has received overall something like 70% negative reporting, President Obama about 70% positive, President Bush 57% negative, and President Clinton 60% negative.

 

This is a link to the study https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/

 

There are several passages in the summary/conclusions that seem apropos.

 

"Nonetheless, the sheer level of negative coverage gives weight to Trump's contention, one shared by his core constituency, that the media are hell bent on destroying his Presidency."

 

"At the same time, the news media need to give Trump credit when his actions warrant it. The public's low level of confidence in the press is the result of several factors, one of which is a belief that journalists are biased. That perception weakens the press's watchdog role. ... The nation's watchdog has lost much of its bite and won't regain it until the public perceives it as an impartial broker, applying the same reporting standards to both parties"

 

"Journalists would also do well to spend less time in Washington and more time in places where policy intersects with people's lives. If they had done so during the Presidential campaign, they would not have missed the story that keyed Trump's victory -- the fading of the American dream for millions of ordinary people. Nor do all such narratives need to be a tale of woe. America at the moment is a divided society in some respects, but not a broken society and the divisions in Washington are deeper than those outside the Beltway."

 

But beyond the bias, one has to ask what was the hard information the sources for the story saw that made them make their claims. Was there a verbatim transcript of the meeting or just a summary based on some meeting notes they were basing their comments on? With the American attendees asserting nothing inappropriate was said, anything other than a verbatim transcript would seem pretty iffy for upholding the source's assertions.

{Thunderous applause}

 

Something tells me those "favorable" Trump ratings at Fox News Channel will decline with the ousting and sudden death of Roger Ailes, the subsequent change in upper management, and the coincidental change in the FOX programming line-up sans Bill O'Reilly, Megan Kelly, Gretchen Carlson, and Greta Van Susteren.

 

EDIT: BREAKING NEWS: Please add Jenna Lee to the exodus at Fox News Channel. The breakup and shake up continues....

[diana_eva]

What bothers me about media is that i've seen more news lately about kathy griffin and covfefe than about kabul, north korea, philippines and russia. Trump truly managed to turn his presidency into a reality show and now we forget to switch channels.

[shyams]

What bothers me about media is that i've seen more news lately about kathy griffin and covfefe than about kabul, north korea, philippines and russia. Trump truly managed to turn his presidency into a reality show and now we forget to switch channels.

Well said!

[Winstonm]

Are you of the opinion that news organizations don't falsify their reports?

 

If they do, we may as well fold our tents now as we are no longer living in a democratic republic. But if they do, and it is true we are not living in a democratic republic, then why is the liberal media at odds with the ruling party, the right wing which controls all branches of government?

[Winstonm]

Well, the public believes the media is biased. So it would seem like their reporting regarding President Trump needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

 

A recent Harvard study of media coverage in the first 100 days shows major media sources were overwhelming negative about President Trump. CNN and NBC 93% negative, CBS 90% negative, NYTimes 87% negative, WashPost 83% negative, WSJ 70%, and Fox 52% negative. Stories concerning President Trump's fitness for office ran WashPost 96% negative, NYTimes 87% negative, CNN 82% negative, NBC 80% negative, Fox 33% negative.

 

So it's perfectly fair to question the objectivity of news outlets that are so negative about President Trump.

 

As a comparison, President Trumps has received overall something like 70% negative reporting, President Obama about 70% positive, President Bush 57% negative, and President Clinton 60% negative.

 

This is a link to the study https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/

 

There are several passages in the summary/conclusions that seem apropos.

 

"Nonetheless, the sheer level of negative coverage gives weight to Trump's contention, one shared by his core constituency, that the media are hell bent on destroying his Presidency."

 

"At the same time, the news media need to give Trump credit when his actions warrant it. The public's low level of confidence in the press is the result of several factors, one of which is a belief that journalists are biased. That perception weakens the press's watchdog role. ... The nation's watchdog has lost much of its bite and won't regain it until the public perceives it as an impartial broker, applying the same reporting standards to both parties"

 

"Journalists would also do well to spend less time in Washington and more time in places where policy intersects with people's lives. If they had done so during the Presidential campaign, they would not have missed the story that keyed Trump's victory -- the fading of the American dream for millions of ordinary people. Nor do all such narratives need to be a tale of woe. America at the moment is a divided society in some respects, but not a broken society and the divisions in Washington are deeper than those outside the Beltway."

 

But beyond the bias, one has to ask what was the hard information the sources for the story saw that made them make their claims. Was there a verbatim transcript of the meeting or just a summary based on some meeting notes they were basing their comments on? With the American attendees asserting nothing inappropriate was said, anything other than a verbatim transcript would seem pretty iffy for upholding the source's assertions.

 

Personally, I think you are too smart to continue to believe the BS you are repeating. You are claiming the media is proactive rather than reactive - but the stories the media covers are after the fact. Their analysis of their stories is opinion. But Trump has created his own negative publicity; the media just reported what he says and does.

 

Your complaint is about the analysis they offer - you think it is biased.

[RedSpawn]

What bothers me about media is that i've seen more news lately about kathy griffin and covfefe than about kabul, north korea, philippines and russia. Trump truly managed to turn his presidency into a reality show and now we forget to switch channels.

 

(Thunderous applause)

 

News is now entertainment based and entertainment is now news. As viewers and subscribers, we have to do our due diligence and recognize the programming changes and glaring omissions.

 

Unfortunately, our corporate media complex is more concerned about managing ratings and advertising revenue, than fulfilling its civic duty to inform the public about pressing world events that impact our foreign policy and military intervention strategies.

[jogs]

 

Can someone tell me how dismantling Dodd-Frank is making American better for Main Street, because I can definitely see how it benefits Wall Street? It creates an atmosphere ripe for another financial market crash! The news sharks should have provided frenetic, repeated and continuous coverage of this programming change.

 

 

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/09/community-banks-dodd-frank-000197

 

Dodd-Frank hurts small community banks. They can't afford to devote 3 floors

of lawyers for compliance. Small businesses are having difficulties obtaining

loans.

[ldrews]

The media have missed the real story. Donald Trump is a Sunni Muslim, How else to explain his dumping of our historical ties with Europe to embrace Saudi Arabia?

 

What historical ties with Europe has he dumped? Certainly the Paris Accord is not considered historical. TPP never came into existence. We are still part of NATO. Exactly what has he dumped?

[RedSpawn]

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/09/community-banks-dodd-frank-000197

 

Dodd-Frank hurts small community banks. They can't afford to devote 3 floors

of lawyers for compliance. Small businesses are having difficulties obtaining

loans.

Good point, I didn't consider the compliance costs for smaller banks who indeed are paying a hefty price for the misdeeds of the big banks who almost destroyed our banking system.

 

However, I still don't see a compelling business need to revoke the Volker rule or to declaw the Consumer Protection Financial Board (CPFB). Those are two changes in the The Financial CHOICE Act that appear unconscionable to me and smack of catering to special interests.

 

Small community banks, credit unions, or even large commercial banks do not need to put customers' deposits into highly speculative instruments such as hedge funds and derivative based products. These institutions can use their own generated capital for such risky investments. Also, I think a tiered compliance system based on total $ asset size makes sense. Therefore, "big banks" are subjected to much higher compliance requirements than small banks whose asset size are not material to the entire banking system.

 

Finally, the Financial Choice Act seeks to retroactively repeal the authority of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) to designate firms as systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs). See https://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2016/03/30/what-you-need-to-know-about-sifis-the-short-answer/ for additional information.

 

So far, there are four nonbank SIFIs in the U.S.: AIG, Prudential Financial Inc., MetLife Inc. and GE Capital, the financing arm of General Electric Co. Large banks are also considered systemically important, and under Dodd-Frank any U.S. bank holding company with more than $50 billion in assets is automatically subject to stricter rules and higher "stress test costs" since these companies pose a bigger risk to the broader economy should they fail. With respect to AIG and the housing bubble collapse:

 

The Financial Crisis Commission concluded AIG failed and was rescued by the government primarily because its enormous sales of credit default swaps were made without putting up the initial collateral, setting aside capital reserves, or hedging its exposure – a profound failure in corporate governance, particularly its risk management practices. AIG's failure was possible because of the sweeping deregulation of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives, including credit default swaps, which effectively eliminated federal and state regulation of these products, including capital and margin requirements that would have lessened the likelihood of AIG's failure.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_International_Group for additional information.

 

So, the Choice Act wants to eliminate the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) and remove the SIFI designation for "big banks" and for "nonbanks" thus removing them from federal regulation such as "annual financial stress tests". . . .sounds like a winning plan to me.

[kenberg]

What historical ties with Europe has he dumped? Certainly the Paris Accord is not considered historical. TPP never came into existence. We are still part of NATO. Exactly what has he dumped?

 

Give Angela a call and ask her. She seems to have a pretty good grasp of the situation.

 

I have had difficulty following the Trump logic. But once we accept that he is a Sunni Muslim, his actions make sense. He cozies up to Sunni Saud Arabia, he misses no chance to express his contempt for Europe, he demonizes Shiite Iran. If the previous president had done this, surely Trump would have declared him to be a Muslim. Oh. Right. He already did that.

[Winstonm]

Today I watched an interview of an Iowa Trump support who claimed that the more "people like Rachel Maddow and Kathy Griffin attack" the more entrenched becomes the support of Trump.

 

Is it only me that hears this as a quite juvenile-like thinking pattern? It comes across to me as the same thing as spurning your parents' choice of friends for you and instead hang out with the bikers or hoods or whatever else happens to be the in thing at that time.

[diana_eva]

Certainly the Paris Accord is not considered historical.

 

Yes, it would be correct to say it's historic, not historical.

[Vampyr]

Pulling out of the Paris Accord was bad but may have little effect, since the trend toward gas and renewables is very unlikely to change. But his paranoid explanations are truly chilling. People were overjoyed when the US signed because it put the US in a disadvantageous position? People laughed at the US for being a party to it? This sort of thing raises fears that Trump will blow up the world if his feelings get hurt.

 

I am pretty sure he won't last, but I have no rosy hopes for a Pence Presidency. For example, he couldn't care less about Trump's claims of millions of illegal voters, but he does sincerely want to make it difficult for the poor and people of colour to vote. He is a true radical-right believer, and may be savvy enough to achieve his agenda. At least Trump is being Sen as increasingly irrelevant and will achieve very little.

 

But here's a thought... what Trump wants is for the poor and people of colour not to be able to vote, so he was willing to pour on the crazy to give an excuse while not making Pence et al seem racist. Perhaps it is all a calculated strategy; Trump gives clownish reasons for far-right goals, and then others can say they were just following the President's policies, thus keeping some value in their political currency.

[awm]

Judging the news media by the percentage of their stories that are "negative" about someone or something is not really the right way to do it.

 

For example there were very few "positive" stories about hurricane Katrina even though some Christian leaders claimed it was God's punishment for the gays. Yet we saw few panels about whether the hurricane was good or bad for the country, whether the people of New Orleans deserved it, etc. Media bias? No, the media's job is to report facts. If a disaster happens, they should report the facts, not try to "balance" the fact of millions suffering with crazy fact-free theories about how their suffering will "make America great again."

 

Trump is a disaster. The overwhelmingly negative slant of the news is simply because they are reporting facts.

[RedSpawn]

So your answer to the FBI investigating members of the Trump campaign regarding Russia is that it is a conspiracy between the media and the intelligence agencies of multiple countries to bring down "the outsider" and put in his place a career politician of the far right? You are right to question why the FBI sat on the information about Trump while at the same time releasing information about HC that materially affected the election but is almost certainly less relevant in terms of criminal/moral wrongdoing. But that is another storyline entirely from the large-scale plotting you seem to have in mind.

 

I missed this one.

 

That's a very fair rebuttal.

 

I hope Former FBI Director Comey testifies next week about:

1. Why he felt compelled to announce re-opening HRC's e-mail server investigation before the election; and
   
2. How he decided to remain woefully quiet about his concerns over Trump's and his associates' dubious business relationships.
   

With all of the contemporaneous notes he took while talking to Trump, he should be able to adequately address this question.

[RedSpawn]

Today I watched an interview of an Iowa Trump support who claimed that the more "people like Rachel Maddow and Kathy Griffin attack" the more entrenched becomes the support of Trump.

 

Is it only me that hears this as a quite juvenile-like thinking pattern? It comes across to me as the same thing as spurning your parents' choice of friends for you and instead hang out with the bikers or hoods or whatever else happens to be the in thing at that time.

I think what is interesting is that the supporter is implicitly admitting that his support of Trump appears to be emotional/conflict-based. And exactly who are "people like Rachel Maddow and Kathy Griffin"?

 

Trump campaign rallies have had the feel of a reality talk show before a live studio audience rather than an opportunity to rally supporters behind his specific policy proposals. But the reason this erratic, reality talk show style of leadership has put Trump in the lead in the GOP primaries is because his style taps into a powerful emotion: Anger.

 

'I think the thing that’s most notable about Trump’s leadership style is anger,' says Dr. Gail Saltz, psychiatrist. 'There is something about his angry message and the vociferousness with which he imparts it that has really resonated up until at least this point.'

 

Saltz says there are a few physiological reasons for this. The first is identification. 'It’s the psychic defense mechanism of identification. When they have a candidate who is primarily resonating not just anger, but blaming specific others for what they’re angry about, it is reassuring. It is always reassuring to people who are very angry and frustrated to feel there is someone at fault and therefore, someone one could pinpoint and make a change so that whatever is making you angry could stop.'

 

As for who is at fault: Anyone from Obama to Mexicans, according to Trump. And while it’s sometimes easy to dismiss Trump supporters’ anger as out of control, especially given the violent antics at some of his rallies, Saltz says there are plenty of people who are naturally more aggressive than others–-and Trump’s style plays out that aggression."

 

'Biologically, some people are more aggressive. They are more in touch with angry feelings. Anger is not only acceptable to them but is a, let’s say a manly way of expressing themselves,' she says. 'The goal of each of these candidates is to get their primary voters to come out and vote. To do that you have to emotionally stir them a pretty fair amount. You have to galvanize them. Anger is a high-valence emotion as opposed to, says, comfort or the like. [Trump’s] leadership style has tapped into a big enough sector that feel very angry about their current lot in life—those which may or may not have someone to blame, but who will seek someone to blame. That’s very appealing.' --Michael Grothaus, The Psychology Behind Why People Support Certain Candidates

 

See https://www.fastcompany.com/3058916/the-psychology-behind-why-people-support-certain-presidential-candidates for additional information.

[RedSpawn]

Personally, It think you are too smart to continue to believe the BS you are repeating. You are claiming the media is proactive rather than reactive - but the stories the media covers are after the fact. Their analysis of their stories is opinion. But Trump has created his own negative publicity; the media just reported what he says and does.

 

Your complaint is about the analysis they offer - you think it is biased.

 

Ummm, yes their analysis is biased but so is the coverage because they have confirmation bias. They will focus on Trump's gaffes before they discuss or review any accomplishments.

 

In the "democratic age" news and information have been transformed. The way politics is covered has changed radically. Papers don't "report" news, they quite often present it according to their preferences and prejudices. The growth of columnists has led to the birth of a "Commentariat". It contains a few excellent and analytical minds, but all too often reasonable, balanced voices are drowned out by journalists who seem untainted by facts or deeper knowledge but replace this with gleefully presented prejudices.

 

A lot of modern political journalism ignores context and complexity, presenting everything in black and white, while the nature of politics most of the time is a balancing act between contradictory interests and demands. No surprise, then, that politicians are losing control over the political agenda. The much-maligned spin doctor was an attempt to win back the initiative. It failed a long time ago.

 

News has become more superficial and sensational. The need for images and pictures is greater than ever. News is too often degenerating into "disastertainment". See https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/aug/16/mondaymediasection.politicsandthemedia for additional information.

[ldrews]

Give Angela a call and ask her. She seems to have a pretty good grasp of the situation.

 

I have had difficulty following the Trump logic. But once we accept that he is a Sunni Muslim, his actions make sense. He cozies up to Sunni Saud Arabia, he misses no chance to express his contempt for Europe, he demonizes Shiite Iran. If the previous president had done this, surely Trump would have declared him to be a Muslim. Oh. Right. He already did that.

 

Angela Merkel doesn't yet qualify for historical. The fact that the current negotiating game taking place upsets Europeans also does not qualify ans breaking historical ties. You are engaging in hyperbole.

 

Apparently Trump has a different world view and agenda than the liberal/left. So you reach for any meme/excuse to try to explain the difference. I think Trump simply does not agree with you viewpoint or agenda. From what I gather, he thinks the traditional approach to US foreign relationships is not working very well for the US, so he is going in a different direction. You obviously think the traditional approach if fine and that existing relationships should be maintained. But that is what elections are about.

[ldrews]

Trump is a disaster. The overwhelmingly negative slant of the news is simply because they are reporting facts.

 

When the media starts naming their sources then I will give them some credibility. Until then they could just as easily be making up their stories as not.

[barmar]

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/09/community-banks-dodd-frank-000197

 

Dodd-Frank hurts small community banks. They can't afford to devote 3 floors

of lawyers for compliance. Small businesses are having difficulties obtaining

loans.

If that's really a problem, the right solution would probably be to relax requirements for small institutions, not scrap the whole thing. We still need checks on the "too big to fail" companies, so we don't have to bail them out again.

 

The GOP's position seems to be that the free market is sacred. People should have the freedom to invest in Ponzi schemes if they want -- caveat emptor.