Donald Trump

[Pcdunn]

Trump lashes out at Federal judge who halted travel ban

U.S. Customs are re-instating all cancelled visa's.
They say - "going back to business as usual".

Wait for the "twitter" tirade from the juvenile Trumpster.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...gal-win-234634

Trump refers to Federal judge Robat as "so-called judge", promises his order will be "overturned", but I think the judge has law on his side.

[Sam Flynn]

but I think the judge has law on his side.

Don't you just hate it when judges do that?

[Pcdunn]

Steve Bannon's "American Values"

President Trump's close adviser, Steve Bannon, seems to have a very different opinion of American history and values than I'm used to, as this article about him reveals:

https://qz.com/898134/what-steve-bannon-really-wants/

[Pcdunn]

Interesting article on the history of immigration in the United States.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2017/02/trump_s_muslim_ban_and_the_long_history_of_american_nativism.html

[Pcdunn]

Government's appeal to restore the travel ban from seven Muslim-majority countries is rejected by Ninth Circuit Appeals Court. Temporary ban remains in place, for now.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/04/politics/doj-appeals-travel-ban-ruling/index.html

[Pcdunn]

Information on the Johnson Amendment, regulating what American churches can do with regard to supporting candidates for office:

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/03/513187940/the-johnson-amendment-in-five-questions-and-answers?ft=nprml&f=1001

[ChrisGeorge]

There is an argument being made by some on the left that if Bernie Sanders had become the Democratic nominee instead of Hillary Clinton, he could have beaten Trump. I am not so sure.

Yes, Bernie could have been the better candidate given that he excited and motivated supporters in a way that Hillary didn't.

But if Bernie had been the Democratic nominee, you can bet that Trump would have belittled and demeaned Sanders the same way he did all his other rivals. He'd have declared that Bernie was a crazy old white guy, too old to become president, had a secret illness, was way out of the mainstream, and that Sanders' plan to gift free college tuition to students in state universities was unworkable and would be ruinous for the country, as would others of the veteran Vermont senator's "socialist" ideas.

No, I believe, on balance, Trump would still have won!

Meanwhile --

Trump fumes on Twitter as poll shows majority of Americans oppose his travel ban, alleges poll nos. are "fake news."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-fumes-on-twitter-as-poll-shows-majority-of-americans-oppose-his-travel-ban-144636982.html

President Trump: "Any negative polls are fake news." It seems Donald Trump doesn't place any faith in polling about his job as president — if the results are negative against him, anyway.

https://twitter.com/i/moments/828611307137937409

[Patrick S]

There is an argument being made by some on the left that if Bernie Sanders had become the Democratic nominee instead of Hillary Clinton, he could have beaten Trump. I am not so sure.

Yes, Bernie could have been the better candidate given that he excited and motivated supporters in a way that Hillary didn't.

But if Bernie had been the Democratic nominee, you can bet that Trump would have belittled and demeaned Sanders the same way he did all his other rivals. He'd have declared that Bernie was a crazy old white guy, too old to become president, had a secret illness, was way out of the mainstream, and that Sanders' plan to gift free college tuition to students in state universities was unworkable and would be ruinous for the country, as would others of the veteran Vermont senator's "socialist" ideas.

No, I believe, on balance, Trump would still have won!

Meanwhile --

Trump fumes on Twitter as poll shows majority of Americans oppose his travel ban, alleges poll nos. are "fake news."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-fumes-on-twitter-as-poll-shows-majority-of-americans-oppose-his-travel-ban-144636982.html

President Trump: "Any negative polls are fake news." It seems Donald Trump doesn't place any faith in polling about his job as president — if the results are negative against him, anyway.

https://twitter.com/i/moments/828611307137937409

I disagree. I think Sanders would have won. One of the reasons you mentioned. Unlike Hillary, he had an enthusiastic base, a base that would have widened after he became the democrat nominee. I also think that Sanders would have withstood Trump's attacks far better than Clinton did because he was - in contrast to Clinton - genuine, sincere in his beliefs, and that came through whether you agreed with his views or not.

I also think the DNC and the media essentially rigged the election for Trump. I'll explain. The DNC (like the RNC) failed to recognize that this was a different type of election, an election that strongly favored unconventional candidates. The DNC began to panic when they realized that the primary process was not going as they'd foreseen and was going to select Sanders and not their favorite, Clinton. So, the DNC intervened, trying and succeeding in swinging things toward their preferred candidate (Debbie Wasserman-Schultz lost her job over all this). Sanders' base caught on and essentially sat out the general election. Despite the pleas from celebrities and media, a huge number of Sanders' voters simply never got behind Clinton, and the lack of enthusiasm for her general election campaign was painfully obvious.

Trump was able to withstand attempts to end his candidacy from inside the RNC, mainly because he's a fake republican with no party allegiance, no concern for the party's future, and no genuine desire to see the republican party win the election. Trump was about Trump, for Trump, only cared about Trump.

Last, we come the media. Trump was seen as joke by the media. The media has a history or going easiest on the least viable republican during the primaries, only to really drop the hammer during the general. This time it blew up in their faces. The media helped select a charlatan with a rabid and motivated base as the republican nominee. The DNC (with an assist from their voting base in the media) selected a democrat nominee that was at best unexciting and uninspiring and at worst a pathological liar with a corrupt, philandering husband that most were eager to see exit stage left for good. So....now we have president Trump.

The respective party committees and the media might want to think about playing the next election straight. Everyone has a job to do. Maybe just do the job honestly and see what happens next time.

[Pcdunn]

Melissa McCarthy as Sean Spicer in SNL skit

This is the wildest press conference ever!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWuc18xISwI

Thought I'd post something with a little levity for a change.

[Harry D]

Remember when SNL was funny? Nah, me neither.

[sdreid]

I have my doubts about Sanders beating Trump but I would have preferred him as the candidate. Biden probably had the best chance of beating Trump but we'll never know for sure if he would have. Clinton said she wanted to run against Trump because he'd be easy to beat

[ChrisGeorge]

I disagree. I think Sanders would have won. One of the reasons you mentioned. Unlike Hillary, he had an enthusiastic base, a base that would have widened after he became the democrat nominee. I also think that Sanders would have withstood Trump's attacks far better than Clinton did because he was - in contrast to Clinton - genuine, sincere in his beliefs, and that came through whether you agreed with his views or not.

I also think the DNC and the media essentially rigged the election for Trump. I'll explain. The DNC (like the RNC) failed to recognize that this was a different type of election, an election that strongly favored unconventional candidates. The DNC began to panic when they realized that the primary process was not going as they'd foreseen and was going to select Sanders and not their favorite, Clinton. So, the DNC intervened, trying and succeeding in swinging things toward their preferred candidate (Debbie Wasserman-Schultz lost her job over all this). Sanders' base caught on and essentially sat out the general election. Despite the pleas from celebrities and media, a huge number of Sanders' voters simply never got behind Clinton, and the lack of enthusiasm for her general election campaign was painfully obvious.

Trump was able to withstand attempts to end his candidacy from inside the RNC, mainly because he's a fake republican with no party allegiance, no concern for the party's future, and no genuine desire to see the republican party win the election. Trump was about Trump, for Trump, only cared about Trump.

Last, we come the media. Trump was seen as joke by the media. The media has a history or going easiest on the least viable republican during the primaries, only to really drop the hammer during the general. This time it blew up in their faces. The media helped select a charlatan with a rabid and motivated base as the republican nominee. The DNC (with an assist from their voting base in the media) selected a democrat nominee that was at best unexciting and uninspiring and at worst a pathological liar with a corrupt, philandering husband that most were eager to see exit stage left for good. So....now we have president Trump.

The respective party committees and the media might want to think about playing the next election straight. Everyone has a job to do. Maybe just do the job honestly and see what happens next time.

Thanks Patrick. I like your line of thinking. What you have written makes a lot of sense.

Best regards

Chris

[Mayerling]

Remember when SNL was funny? Nah, me neither.

Even when it was funny I did not watch it that much. In the 1970s I had a weekend job that called for me to go to bed by at least 11:00 P.M. every Saturday night. I have never really missed not having seen SNL in it's true heyday. Political satire, by the way, does age the most. Look at Bob Hope's political quips in his movies from the 1940s and 1950s, and wonder how many viewers of them today think they understand them.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Thanks Patrick. I like your line of thinking. What you have written makes a lot of sense.

Best regards

Chris

Yes, it does make sense, as does the additional point that Hillary probably was closer to winning the Presidency in 2008 when Obama got nominated than now when she had. She still pioneered in being the first woman to win a major party Presidential nomination, but she was preceeded by two women (Geraldine Ferrara and Sarah Palin) who were the first to score a nomination on an executive branch ticket in a national election (1984, 2008), and in the 19th Century both Victoria Woodhull (as an independent candidate for the Presidency in 1872) and Belva Lockwood (a gifted female lawyer - she practiced before the U.S. Supreme Court - running on a minor party nomination in 1888). I suspect this is building up to the day when a female candidate will be finally elected to one of the two offices, though it will probably be the Vice Presidency. No doubt sexism plays a stronger role in this than we really want to admit.

Also turning off many (including me, as I voted reluctantly for Hillary) was the idiocy of "Presidential Family Dynasties". For a so-called Republic or Democracy we have built up (from the start) a liking for electing people who were family members to the Presidency (two Adams, father and son; two Harrisons, grandfather and grandson; two Roosevelts, sixth cousins - and one married to the niece of the other); and two Bushes (father and son again, though - incredibly - "W" was able to best John Quincy Adams by running for re-election and winning a second term!). There are also connectins (as distant cousins) between Grant and Cleveland and Madison and Taylor. I recently discovered that Hayes (of all people) was the uncle of Teddy Roosevelt's Vice President Charles Fairbanks. Note too the interest of the surviving Kennedy brothers (Bobby and Ted) in seeking the Presidential nominations of 1968 (a fatal mistake for Bobby) and in 1980 (the only time an incumbent who won re-election was humiliated by the tepid response of the convention hall when he made his acceptance speech, and the immensely big response given to his chief opponent Ted Kennedy at the same occasion). Historically there was also an interest in trying to get Abraham Lincoln's son Robert to run for President in 1888 (he had been Secretary of War under Garfield and Chester Arthur), with Fred Grant as his running mate. William Howard Taft's son Senator Robert Taft was a highly viable possible nominee in 1940, 1944, 1948, and 1952 with the Republicans, but failed on each occasion (to Wilkie, Dewey - twice, and Eisenhower, who actually won finally). Hillary following Bill's earlier excursion to the White House, was of a piece with these, and at least she did get nominated. But the defeat ends her availability for further Presidential movement in 2020. But shouldn't the choices be more from the general potential pool of political talent rather than from family connections? Trump not only ended Hillary, but also Jeb Bush.

Jeff

[Patrick S]

Yes, it does make sense, as does the additional point that Hillary probably was closer to winning the Presidency in 2008 when Obama got nominated than now when she had. She still pioneered in being the first woman to win a major party Presidential nomination, but she was preceeded by two women (Geraldine Ferrara and Sarah Palin) who were the first to score a nomination on an executive branch ticket in a national election (1984, 2008), and in the 19th Century both Victoria Woodhull (as an independent candidate for the Presidency in 1872) and Belva Lockwood (a gifted female lawyer - she practiced before the U.S. Supreme Court - running on a minor party nomination in 1888). I suspect this is building up to the day when a female candidate will be finally elected to one of the two offices, though it will probably be the Vice Presidency. No doubt sexism plays a stronger role in this than we really want to admit.

Also turning off many (including me, as I voted reluctantly for Hillary) was the idiocy of "Presidential Family Dynasties". For a so-called Republic or Democracy we have built up (from the start) a liking for electing people who were family members to the Presidency (two Adams, father and son; two Harrisons, grandfather and grandson; two Roosevelts, sixth cousins - and one married to the niece of the other); and two Bushes (father and son again, though - incredibly - "W" was able to best John Quincy Adams by running for re-election and winning a second term!). There are also connectins (as distant cousins) between Grant and Cleveland and Madison and Taylor. I recently discovered that Hayes (of all people) was the uncle of Teddy Roosevelt's Vice President Charles Fairbanks. Note too the interest of the surviving Kennedy brothers (Bobby and Ted) in seeking the Presidential nominations of 1968 (a fatal mistake for Bobby) and in 1980 (the only time an incumbent who won re-election was humiliated by the tepid response of the convention hall when he made his acceptance speech, and the immensely big response given to his chief opponent Ted Kennedy at the same occasion). Historically there was also an interest in trying to get Abraham Lincoln's son Robert to run for President in 1888 (he had been Secretary of War under Garfield and Chester Arthur), with Fred Grant as his running mate. William Howard Taft's son Senator Robert Taft was a highly viable possible nominee in 1940, 1944, 1948, and 1952 with the Republicans, but failed on each occasion (to Wilkie, Dewey - twice, and Eisenhower, who actually won finally). Hillary following Bill's earlier excursion to the White House, was of a piece with these, and at least she did get nominated. But the defeat ends her availability for further Presidential movement in 2020. But shouldn't the choices be more from the general potential pool of political talent rather than from family connections? Trump not only ended Hillary, but also Jeb Bush.

Jeff

I agree completely with your points re: American political dynasties. However, I completely disagree that "sexism" played a role in Hillary Clinton's loss. Granted, the United States is inordinately preoccupied with gender, race, sexual orientation, religion. Yet, in my opinion, that preoccupation serves to generate votes and act as insulation against legitimate criticism. I feel as if our propensity for electing familiar names now attracts our electorate to minorities, women, homosexuals, Muslims. It's called identity politics and we Americans are suckers for it. Female candidates, black candidates, immigrant candidates, Muslim candidates, they all REMINDS us of the fact that they're not white men because they know because it works for them, not against them. Nancy Pelosi knows this. She was caught on a hot mic telling a democrat representative to remind the crowd he's Muslim ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBAmB6HgEe8 ).

Obama won two terms because of his "story", because he was the product of a Kenyan man and a white woman from Kansas, because he'd led an atypical life. He lived abroad, he was raised in Hawaii, Harvard Law, community advocate, state legislator. The media so loved his story that Obama's supporters folded nicely into a full blown, media sanctioned cult of personality, one that will endure, I think, forever (as it becomes further romanticized, sanitized, fictionalized). One that, I think, would allow his wife to win the presidency and both daughters should they desire it (and I think at least one of them will). The Obamas will be - I think - the Kennedys on steroids.