President Donald Trump

[DMT]

Jesus, never have a seen a horse beaten so badly months after it was already dead. Here are facts: Clinton lost, she was a shitty candidate. Bernie lost because he was a worse candidate, not because he was screwed. Trump was elected because of ??? reasons that historians will be debating for decades. Nobody in this race was without sin, nor was anyone the incarnation of evil. And I'm done doing the ridiculous Monday Morning QB thing, there's nothing more to see. Look to the future, do what you can, move on.

And sheep, sorry for using your post for the above diatribe, just using your post because I have a legitimate question for you. You say that the current behaviour is trivial to the Trump voter...what exactly did they vote for? What are the important issues to them? What are the things that actually matter? No snark, just honest curiosity as to why people like your family, who sound like fine folks, expect out of the Presidency now that Trump inhabits the office?

I won't speak for his family, but for mine it's good Christian values (i.e., anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and anti-Muslim), anti-black lives matter because they're a terrorist organization, draining the swamp, and sticking it to the liberal elites on both coasts.

[chancellor]

I meant petty in the sense of being overly concerned with trivial matters - the tweeting, lying, partisan barking, focusing on his family's clothing line, etc. The other stuff you mentioned is important, but again, I don't know what you expect the people who voted for him to do about it now. I think they knew he was a wild card and were willing to roll the dice.

If important issues continue to crop up, I'd hope some significant percentage of them would withhold their support next time around. Then again, if he delivers on the things that actually matter to them, then he could give Alaska to the Russians and still get their votes.

This. And even many of Trump's opponents concede he's doing almost exactly what he said he'd do.

As for me, he needs to get Gorsuch approved and replace one other liberal justice with a conservative one, and then he can give Alaska away.

[senorsheep]

I won't speak for his family, but for mine it's good Christian values (i.e., anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and anti-Muslim), anti-black lives matter because they're a terrorist organization, draining the swamp, and sticking it to the liberal elites on both coasts.

LOL. My parents aren't about any of that. Their concerns are colored more by the cesspool of Chicago politics, and the complete abdication of any fiscal responsibility or accountability by the state government. They resent Chicago's dominance over the rest of the state. They feel liberal Chicago abuses the state government to its own advantage, with complete disregard for the needs or the values of the others. They feel like Chicago milks the rest of the state dry with high taxes, with the added insult of wasting the funds on a corrupt, ineffective welfare system with which the payers philosophically disagree. All these things make them resent liberal politics in general. I think. On another practical matter, my parents don't like the fiscally reckless state Democrats constantly trying to find ways to raid the teachers' pension fund. Oh, and they think the teacher's union wields way to much influence in the legislature.

So, with that as a backdrop, here's what I think they are hopeful to get on a national level:

1) Reduced spending, particularly entitlement spending.
2) Fair and sensible tax policies/ lower taxes.
3) Limits on welfare benefits/ more focus on jobs.
4) "Good government"/ anti-corruption legislation (e.g congressional term limits).
5) Support for school choice/ legislation to check the power of teacher's unions.

On the flip side, they have nothing at all to say about foreign policy or immigration.

[Bernie Brewer]

LOL. My parents aren't about any of that. Their concerns are colored more by the cesspool of Chicago politics, and the complete abdication of any fiscal responsibility or accountability by the state government. They resent Chicago's dominance over the rest of the state. They feel liberal Chicago abuses the state government to its own advantage, with complete disregard for the needs or the values of the others. They feel like Chicago milks the rest of the state dry with high taxes, with the added insult of wasting the funds on a corrupt, ineffective welfare system with which the payers philosophically disagree. All these things make them resent liberal politics in general. I think. On another practical matter, my parents don't like the fiscally reckless state Democrats constantly trying to find ways to raid the teachers' pension fund. Oh, and they think the teacher's union wields way to much influence in the legislature.

So, with that as a backdrop, here's what I think they are hopeful to get on a national level:

1) Reduced spending, particularly entitlement spending.
2) Fair and sensible tax policies/ lower taxes.
3) Limits on welfare benefits/ more focus on jobs.
4) "Good government"/ anti-corruption legislation (e.g congressional term limits).
5) Support for school choice/ legislation to check the power of teacher's unions.

On the flip side, they have nothing at all to say about foreign policy or immigration.

My Son lives "downstate" in Springfield and would confirm that these exactly what non-Chicagoans think. Springfield is very Democratic, and many residents either work for the State or do business with those that work for the State. Generally speaking, they hate the corruption of Chicago and the Chicago/Madigan machine style Politics.

[Hornsby]

Trump angry tweeting means something big! Or that it's Wednesday...apparently, he must have been reading this thread, because h blamed the Flynn issue and the concern about Russian ties on...wait for it...Hillary!

President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that fresh coverage about alleged ties between him and Russia “is merely an attempt to cover-up the many mistakes made in Hillary Clinton's losing campaign.”

He also hurled attacks once again at the media, singling out cable networks MSNBC and CNN for “going crazy with their conspiracy theories” and what he called their “blind hatred” of him. The president also slammed another of his regular foes, the U.S. intelligence community, blaming it for leaks that have damaged his administration and comparing it to Russia.


“This Russian connection non-sense is merely an attempt to cover-up the many mistakes made in Hillary Clinton's losing campaign,” Trump wrote on Twitter Wednesday morning. That post followed an earlier one, in which the president wrote that “the fake news media is going crazy with their conspiracy theories and blind hatred. @MSNBC & @CNN are unwatchable. @foxandfriends is great!”

“Information is being illegally given to the failing @nytimes & @washingtonpost by the intelligence community (NSA and FBI?). Just like Russia,” Trump added in a third post.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-russia-connection-tweet-response-235033

[Fresno Bob]

I was blessed to be part of my mothers's big Irish Catholic family, scattered across small towns all along the Illinois river. These people were, and are still, some of the best people I've ever known. Big-hearted people who love to laugh and would welcome anyone into their communities. Nearly all of them are college educated. Many of them were/are teachers, and people who assist(ed) with the elderly, and people who did charitable work through their churches for the poor in their communities. And most of them are some mixture of conservatives, Republicans, and Trump voters.

The two Trump voters I know best are my parents. Both have masters degrees in education. Both spent their entire lives teaching and mentoring young people. My mom taught Kindergarten in my hometown for nearly four decades. She can't go out in public without five people rushing over to say "Hello" to Mrs. Lamb, who taught them, and/or their kids, and/or their grandkids. She's a local hero - everybody loves her. Even though she's a conservative Republican Trump voter.

Same goes for my dad - another teacher who over the years coached hundreds of kids in the junior high basketball program. He was the guy who taught his students (and his children) that it's wrong to be racist, and wrong to bully other kids because they're different, and wrong to look down on others because of their background. And he's a conservative Republican Trump voter.

so what do they think about their Secretary of Education?

[cardboardbox]

This. And even many of Trump's opponents concede he's doing almost exactly what he said he'd do.

As for me, he needs to get Gorsuch approved and replace one other liberal justice with a conservative one, and then he can give Alaska away.

[Redbirds Fan]

Okay, I'll bite.

What legislation has he signed which achieves what he said he'd do? I saw a signing yesterday which makes it no longer necessary for oil companies to disclose payments to foreign governments. That doesn't really seem to be draining the swamp.

Which executive orders, other than the one which increased the active seizures of undocumented immigrants has an actual impact? I've taken a fairly close look, and it seems to me that they either express an intention to do something or they require action from Congress which may or may not be forthcoming. (Except for the travel ban.) An example is "The Wall". It goes nowhere without a Congressional appropriation,and the most conservative factions in the House are balking because there is no corresponding spending cut. They say that without it "we've been hypocrites for the last six years".

I recall one of his promises was to 'repeal Obamacare' on day one. Obama got a lot of legislation passed early in his first term. Trump hasn't so far, but he didn't work with the House and Senate leadership very much during the transition to plan out a legislative agenda. So now he says his health care program will be "next year" or maybe "the year after". Given the blowback many GOP congressmen have been facing, I'm not sure a lot of them are in a hurry anymore.

So, I can't see that he is doing anything other than making more promises about what he is going to do, and blaming everyone else for the problems his administration has experienced so far. Today he has blamed the uproar over the Flynn/Russia situation on the media trying to cover up mistakes made by Hillary Clinton. Yet Stephen Miller says Trump has done more in three weeks than most presidents do in an entire term. I cannot remember seeing a senior advisor to the President going on the Sunday shows and shilling in this manner. Touting policies, yes. But the claims about busing in New Hampshire, attacking the Courts, claiming the President's decisions cannot be challenged...that type of thing is usually left up to the WH spokesperson, who is expected to be a bit of a cheerleader. When we hear it from a top aide, it is unnerving.

[Hornsby]

LOL. My parents aren't about any of that. Their concerns are colored more by the cesspool of Chicago politics, and the complete abdication of any fiscal responsibility or accountability by the state government. They resent Chicago's dominance over the rest of the state. They feel liberal Chicago abuses the state government to its own advantage, with complete disregard for the needs or the values of the others. They feel like Chicago milks the rest of the state dry with high taxes, with the added insult of wasting the funds on a corrupt, ineffective welfare system with which the payers philosophically disagree. All these things make them resent liberal politics in general. I think. On another practical matter, my parents don't like the fiscally reckless state Democrats constantly trying to find ways to raid the teachers' pension fund. Oh, and they think the teacher's union wields way to much influence in the legislature.

So, with that as a backdrop, here's what I think they are hopeful to get on a national level:

1) Reduced spending, particularly entitlement spending.
2) Fair and sensible tax policies/ lower taxes.
3) Limits on welfare benefits/ more focus on jobs.
4) "Good government"/ anti-corruption legislation (e.g congressional term limits).
5) Support for school choice/ legislation to check the power of teacher's unions.

On the flip side, they have nothing at all to say about foreign policy or immigration.

Thanks for a thoughtful reply to my question. It's interesting that Illinois mirrors Minnesota so much, large rural area acreage wise, but low population. Large urban area where the population is located, so they control government for the most part. Every once in a while Minnesota surprises and tilts the legislature to GOP controlled, but that in turn is stymied by a Democratic Governor. The funny thing is that people don't like facts...Minny has had an economic resurgence under a totally Democratic Governor and Legislature...but the people decided to follow the nation tread, and go Republican for both the local House and Senate. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

On your 1-5 list, do they really believe that they're going to get any of that now that we're a month into the new administration?

[GwynnInTheHall]

How is he not playing nice with the DNC? Honest question, the last story I saw was him refusing to form a new party because he wanted to focus on the Democratic Party.

You think that I and others here capitulated by supporting Clinton. But, Sanders himself supported Clinton. So it's baffling to me that you continue to promote yourself as the purest/only Sanders supporter when you didn't actually support him once he dropped out and threw his support to Clinton. Supporting a candidate until the end means you switch your support to whomever they endorse. Or should endorsements not count when you don't agree with them?

Sorry DMT, I missed this and another post of yours in all the other crap.


To this point, Sanders has started to pull away from the part of the DNC that wants to maintain the people/platforms that have been traditionally the roadmap of the party.

Months ago he endorsed Ellison and continues to do so, as well as other farther to the left candidates which the Traditional DNC are opposing.

Weeks ago he refused to allow the DNC access to his supporters emails and other information in his database.

Recently he called out Democratic Senators who didn't vote for his amendment regarding cheaper pharmaceuticals.

Today the reigning DNC/Dem Members he called out and leadership (Schumer), same folks who weren't too keen on Bernie in the recent past, have made it clear they want him to "fall in line" Play Nice" and I can't imagine Sanders will respond with anything other than His direction is THE direction the Democrats should follow and not the other way around and to expect him to continue to stand up for what he thinks is right and to call out those who stand in the way of those beliefs.

I've already explained why it makes sense to support an ideal over an individual and why Sanders would support Clinton while many of his branch of the party did not, even after his endorsement. I don't believe supporting a candidate means you blindly follow them, I love Sanders but even if he had become President, would have held his feet to the fire as I do everyone.

To my acceptance of transgressions in others I have myself. I don;t accept them, I just feel I don't have the right to complain about them. I also hold people in office to a much higher standard than I do, say a poster on a message board. Yes I'd be more understanding, but no, I wouldn't give them a pass--Only wouldn't feel right making an issue of those things at least not without qualifying my statements.

I stand by my beliefs that Bernie would have beat Trump, that he deserved a better fate and that the Democratic Party has no shot to regain control of the White House or Congress unless they move to the left with Bernie and his choices in place.

I'm sure I'll be told I'm wrong or naive but again, though I may be a bit idealistic, I haven't been wrong yet when it comes to results of my political prognostications.

Hope that answers your questions without reviving another shit storm we all agree won't be changing anyone's perspective.

[Hornsby]

Looks like the Andy Puzder nomination for Secretary of Labor is dead on arrival. Supposedly going to withdraw from consideration at this point. Score one for Oprah...she distributed a video of Puzder's ex wife telling how he abused her. I think that it would have been quite interesting to see how the GOP would have handled that hearing...

[GwynnInTheHall]

so what do they think about their Secretary of Education?

She needs to hire a better proofreader..............

[Redbirds Fan]

Sorry DMT, I missed this and another post of yours in all the other crap.


To this point, Sanders has started to pull away from the part of the DNC that wants to maintain the people/platforms that have been traditionally the roadmap of the party.

Months ago he endorsed Ellison and continues to do so, as well as other farther to the left candidates which the Traditional DNC are opposing.

Weeks ago he refused to allow the DNC access to his supporters emails and other information in his database.

Recently he called out Democratic Senators who didn't vote for his amendment regarding cheaper pharmaceuticals.

Today the reigning DNC/Dem Members he called out and leadership (Schumer), same folks who weren't too keen on Bernie in the recent past, have made it clear they want him to "fall in line" Play Nice" and I can't imagine Sanders will respond with anything other than His direction is THE direction the Democrats should follow and not the other way around and to expect him to continue to stand up for what he thinks is right and to call out those who stand in the way of those beliefs.

I've already explained why it makes sense to support an ideal over an individual and why Sanders would support Clinton while many of his branch of the party did not, even after his endorsement. I don't believe supporting a candidate means you blindly follow them, I love Sanders but even if he had become President, would have held his feet to the fire as I do everyone.

To my acceptance of transgressions in others I have myself. I don;t accept them, I just feel I don't have the right to complain about them. I also hold people in office to a much higher standard than I do, say a poster on a message board. Yes I'd be more understanding, but no, I wouldn't give them a pass--Only wouldn't feel right making an issue of those things at least not without qualifying my statements.

I stand by my beliefs that Bernie would have beat Trump, that he deserved a better fate and that the Democratic Party has no shot to regain control of the White House or Congress unless they move to the left with Bernie and his choices in place.

I'm sure I'll be told I'm wrong or naive but again, though I may be a bit idealistic, I haven't been wrong yet when it comes to results of my political prognostications.

Hope that answers your questions without reviving another shit storm we all agree won't be changing anyone's perspective.

"There won't be a Republican president for the next 12 years at the very least. You might not agree, but you'd be wrong to do so---again" GITH (11/9/2012)

[baldgriff]

"There won't be a Republican president for the next 12 years at the very least. You might not agree, but you'd be wrong to do so---again" GITH (11/9/2012)

Technically Trump isnt one even though he ran as one.

[senorsheep]

"There won't be a Republican president for the next 12 years at the very least. You might not agree, but you'd be wrong to do so---again" GITH (11/9/2012)

1.02 - "The GOP is fucked, there's no chance in hell they come close to winning the White House with their current cast of characters." GITH (1/15/2016)