World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[MrPopo]

People are baffled that Trump won the election. That isn't a statement that requires an intellectual breakdown of our economy. It's a simple thought, they are baffled because he is possibly if not probably the worse presidential candidate of all time. He says and does stupid shit all the time. Our president has an ongoing beef with Rosie O'donnell, just think on that for a moment. He is an egomaniac with sadistic tendencies and he has the maturity of a preteen. How is anyone not baffled? That's an article worth reading.

Sent from my LG-D851 using Tapatalk

The analysis is for why people would vote for Trump in spite of those things you listed. Now, there's a core that was going to vote for him simply because he was on the Republican ticket. About the only way for him to lose that core would have been after the primary if his campaign speeches started off with "Fuck Jesus, and I plan to give the country over to the terrorists" (the Democrats have a similar core that would require a similar repudiation of the basic Democratic platform to lose it). It's those voters who might have gone Democrat and might have gone Republican depending on the candidates that we need to look at. Why did they decide that Trump was going to be the best choice to lead the country? What this article was about (though it lacked a paragraph or two tying it back to the original statement of "the people in the bubble do not understand how Trump got elected") was that there's a large portion of the country under real economic challenges, and Trump's message was "I'm going to make it ok again, but I don't have any details to share, but trust me, it'll be great". Hillary didn't have a similar message, probably because there isn't a quick Band-Aid solution that can be implemented by the President in a single term, but as a result that segment of the voters said "so you're offering me nothing, see ya!"

[jp1]

So, it was an extrapolated version of "Some people believed his bullshit promises."

Sent from my LG-D851 using Tapatalk

[Jmustang1968]

So, it was an extrapolated version of "Some people believed his bullshit promises."

Sent from my LG-D851 using Tapatalk

Isn't that the story of politicians for ages now?

[MrPopo]

So, it was an extrapolated version of "Some people believed his bullshit promises."

Sent from my LG-D851 using Tapatalk

I'd say "this is why people are willing to believe his bullshit promises".

[marurun]

It deeply concerns me how highly valued reductive, empty platitudes were.

[Sarge]

Yeah, politicians have been promising to fix stuff since the beginning of time, with middling results at best. Some well-intentioned, some not.

I'm reminded of what James Madison said, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

[marurun]

Yeah, politicians have been promising to fix stuff since the beginning of time, with middling results at best. Some well-intentioned, some not.

I'm reminded of what James Madison said, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

Very true. There's something different this time around, though. The particular man in office is fond of grand pronouncements and big plans, but does not have a mind for the details, and has a relationship with reality that is tenuous at best. He is rich enough, and grew up rich enough, that he is insulated from reality and can deny any aspect of it he wants with impunity. He talks like he understands what the "everyman" wants, but the thing is, everything that is important to him, everything that aids him, runs counter to that. He is the very definition of the elitist conservatives pillory to often. The only difference is that he isn't, strictly speaking, a liberal elitist.

[marurun]

We know that the FBI, CIA, etc... are not apolitical. They are supposed to be able to operate independently, but we also know they are not immune to political pressure. The Trump administration, however, may have just crossed a line.

Here's the first portion of an ABC News story:

"The Russia affair gets a new twist with the revelation that White House chief of staff Reince Priebus asked a top FBI official to dispute reports that Trump campaign officials were in frequent contact with Russian intelligence agents prior to the election. There are questions of propriety here: The FBI is supposed to be able to conduct its investigations independently, without any White House involvement. And the bureau isn’t supposed to play politics by commenting on active investigations, as Clinton campaign vets remember too well. There is also irony: Priebus was asking the FBI to comment without names attached, while decrying as “fake news” stories that rely on such sourcing."

I cannot help but think Trump's administration is going to end up like Watergate on steroids.

[MrPopo]

Independent of the content of that story, I'm a little sad to see ABC putting in a TLDR section.

[samsonlonghair]

I stopped in a restaurant on Friday. They had Fox News on the TV. Otherwise I never would have seen this. Sheppard Smith was publicly defending CNN on the Fox News channel. I did not see that coming.

More info here:
https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/ ... news%3Famp