Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Billy86 · 25-09-2017 04:00PM

Disgruntled Badger wrote: »

Far from the entire sport. I dare say a lot of NFL fans probably voted for Trump and would again.

It's going to be interesting to see how Trump fans (who largely see politics the same way most of us see sports - a black and white "my team" vs "the enemy" situation with basically no room for anything in between) will reconcile with this, since it's going to force a lot of them to stop watching or supporting teams that they have done for their entire lives.

I can't see a lifelong Cleveland sports fan dropping the Cavs because Lebron called Trump a bum, or Patriots fans (spread out all over the country as a lot of NE's fanbase is cultivated in the many colleges around the area) doing so because Bob Kraft disapproved of Trump's comments and a lot of players kneeled. I don't see Green Bay fans quitting on a team that is as important and revered there as a team like Barcelona is to their own area just because some players kneeled and Rodgers appeared to agree to the sentiment posting pictures of him and team mates kneeling in practice.

Trump was trying to detract from the finding that Jared Kushner was doing pretty much the exact same thing Clinton was regarding emails, but he really shot himself in the foot with this one.

Phonehead · 25-09-2017 04:17PM

Simple, they won't chose to abandon their team. They will shake fists and boo the players, but there is no way they will forsake the weekly pilgrimage to Applebees or whatever god awful neighbourhood grill/bar serving 2 for 1 entrées and some terrible cheap beer.

rossie1977 · 25-09-2017 06:04PM

Disgruntled Badger wrote: »

Far from the entire sport. I dare say a lot of NFL fans probably voted for Trump and would again.

Nfl fans are just slightly leaning Republicans but it's not that much. Interesting that graph has wwe and UFC fans down as Democrats despite the fact that the McMahon family who run WWE and Dana white of UFC are both big Trump donors/supporters. Linda McMahon wife of wwe owner is actually part of Trump's cabinet

Disgruntled Badger · 25-09-2017 06:16PM

RGDATA! wrote: »

Nonsense. I think the protest has achieved a lot & I don't think your proposed alternative of "I Hate Trump" t-shirts would be perceived as not being "inflammatory", I'm sure plenty would interpret that as saying "I hate the USA".

Nonsense? Sounds like you are quite invested.

Disgruntled Badger · 25-09-2017 06:19PM

Phonehead wrote: »

Simple, they won't chose to abandon their team. They will shake fists and boo the players, but there is no way they will forsake the weekly pilgrimage to Applebees or whatever god awful neighbourhood grill/bar serving 2 for 1 entrées and some terrible cheap beer.

Oddly enough I just saw fans burning strips online.

Water John · 25-09-2017 06:26PM

The protest has nothing to do with Donald Trump.
Simply, people of colour feeling they are still 2nd class citizens in their own country and black lives matter.
They are not treated by the law enforcement agencies as equal.

DT is engaged in whataboutery.

The majority of Irish are catholic and taking the knee (genuflecting) would be showing great respect.

Phonehead · 25-09-2017 06:28PM

Disgruntled Badger wrote: »

Nonsense? Sounds like you are quite invested.

Bizarre comment, not sure what you are trying to imply or how you are trying to flip that statement! but it's clear that RGDATA has expressed a true statement based on facts. These protests have achieved their aim of highlighting the issue at hand... it's all over the media! Last year we had one guy doing it, now we have entire franchises releasing statements. This will go down as one of the greatest political statements of our time.

pitifulgod · 25-09-2017 06:54PM

Disgruntled Badger wrote: »

Oddly enough I just saw fans burning strips online.

Saw a handful of people pissed off that won't go to games any more? That's a miniscule percentage I imagine. Sure, they voted for the guy who said it was okay to burn the flag and dodged the draft...

Igotadose · 25-09-2017 07:59PM

pitifulgod wrote: »

Saw a handful of people pissed off that won't go to games any more? That's a miniscule percentage I imagine. Sure, they voted for the guy who said it was okay to burn the flag and dodged the draft...

They won't give up their seats. I recall looking into NY Giants season tickets sometime in the early 1990's... the waiting list advanced 3% per year. So, get on the list, and wait 30 years for your tickets.

NFL season tickets are incredibly hard to obtain. Individual tickets for the odd game or three can happen,but the season ticket holders won't give 'em up.

This is, as was correctly pointed out above, just Trump deflecting. Mueller's team probably is getting closer still and Trump needed to draw the cameras away. What better than antagonize the most popular sport in the US and one of the most popular in the world. And, just for his own jollies, its not like the NFL owners would let him join the club, so a chance for a little revenge.
The FBI had taken out 2 FISA surveillance orders on Manafort, which are quite difficult to obtain. The Mueller team investigating Russian interference might have their materials now:

https://www.justsecurity.org/45255/fisa-warrants-paul-manafort-muellers-investigation/

pitifulgod · 25-09-2017 08:50PM

In relation to my Nascar comment earlier, there's only been 7 black Nascar drivers at top level of Nascar. It's not exactly diverse. Meanwhile the NBA and NFL are predominantly black. So you're far more likely to get a protest vote in NFL than you ever will in Nascar.

Samaris · 25-09-2017 09:47PM

I reckon it's the Kushner email thing as well, although maybe just an element of he's bored and being provocative because he cannot bear people not to be talking about him/not making his opinion known.

https://www.axios.com/the-insane-news-cycle-of-trumps-presidency-in-one-chart-2487913807.html

From the inauguration crowd to repealing DACA. It really has been continuous. Either a) all of the Trump-inspired lunacy was making a noise to cover for some shenanigan or b) there's just continuous shenanigans and continuous lunacy and he going by the seat of his pants. He decided this was going to be the next thing and as soon as he finds something else, he'll cause controversy over that (there will probably also be another scandal unfolding, co-incidentally or not).

If we survive until then though, I'm looking forward to the history books about this period. Once as many of the questions that can be answered have been and the dust/nuclear ash has settled.

Leroy42 · 25-09-2017 10:43PM

I think that Trump is just lucky. Lucky he was born into wealth, lucky the TV gig came along when it did, lucky that he the GOP was such a mess, lucky that HC was poor and the Dems hadn't the balls to tell her to drop it and let someone else run.

Lucky the media never picked up on him and when they did was too caught up in trying to outdo each other than actually look into the real Trump, lucky that US seems intent on showing the rest of the world that if you have enough guns you don't need education.

So I don't put any of the stuff he does, or has done, as part of any grand plan. Either to cover up something about to happen or as part of an overall plan. He simply acts out like a toddler, says whatever he thinks at that moment and is lucky enough that he has enough desperate people in the states that just want a leader and has enough smart people around him to make something out of the mess.

People think he is looking to change the narrative, to lead the media because the tends to go off on one right before a story breaks. But he is constantly going off on one and there is a steady stream of stories breaking. It is simply coincidence. They are not related.

He said what he did about the NFL players as he was facing a predominately white audience and needed something to say. What else is he going to talk about? A detailed description of the healthcare bill? A summation of the future benefits of his tax plan? He considered opinion as to the readiness of US to defend itself and its allies against the threat of NK?

Far easier to pick on some black football players. He tends to get carried away and goes too far. Like the kid in school who doesn't know when to stop the messing. And he can't accept he was wrong so keeps digging.

When he returns to fake news, or Comey,or HC, or Obama, or NK, or Iran. This isn't the latest chess move in a grand plan. You can bet that he was recently given a piece of intel as part of his daily brief and so he wrote about it. Probably because in the meetings themselves he is totally lost. Pandered to by the aides and patronised by the Generals. So he just nods his head and then when they leave he takes to Twitter where nobody can laugh at him, or patronise him, or give him a picture to look at while they talk about the big issues.

This is a man that portrays himself as the ultimate boss, yet all his top picks have been forced out and Kelly has come in and put manners on them the rest. Sure Trump hits out a few times, but as a rich kid he is used to getting what he wants and now he has the ultimate power. Don't care how great Kelly may be, you can't go toe-to-toe with any POTUS and expect to survive.

People try to read meanings into his tweets and what he says. Waste of time. There is no hidden meaning, no second level. He says what he is thinking at the time and when faced with possible hypocrisy of seeming contradictions it isn't because of some machiavellian scheme but simply he forgot what he previously said of what he was supposed to say and rather than be quiet feels he has to say something, anything, to prove he knows what he is doing.

Phonehead · 26-09-2017 12:40AM

you nailed it Leroy! There is no hidden meaning or strategy to what he says. To be honest they have zero interest in hearing him talk about real policies even if he had any.

Manic Moran · 26-09-2017 04:55AM

rossie1977 wrote: »

Nfl fans are just slightly leaning Republicans but it's not that much. Interesting that graph has wwe and UFC fans down as Democrats despite the fact that the McMahon family who run WWE and Dana white of UFC are both big Trump donors/supporters. Linda McMahon wife of wwe owner is actually part of Trump's cabinet

Interesting chart. When Kaepernick started the protest business, his shirt became the top selling item in the league. It seems the other half of the NFL fan population are voting with their wallets now, Villanueva's shirt is now the top seller. http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/25/news/companies/alejandro-villanueva-jersey-sales-steelers/index.html

Samaris · 26-09-2017 07:44AM

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/26/trump-puerto-rico-crisis-massive-debt

You..you...complete and utter bastard.

The few comments I've seen from Puerto Ricans (mostly mainland) have indicated that this would happen. They mostly sounded resigned, contemptuous and cynical about whether that creature that infests the White House would help Hispanic Americans. They were right. Five days later - and he comes out with that?

The Trump administration has also refused to waive federal restrictions on foreign ships carrying life-saving supplies to Puerto Rico – a concession it readily made for Texas and Florida in the cases of hurricanes Harvey and Irma respectively.

Son of a bitch. And I apologise for my unPolitics language, but honestly. PR is devastated and that dam is still teetering on the brink of collapsing. And he decides now is the best time to try scrape money out of the place. Does he even understand (or give a ****) how little is left?

To hell with his puerile rubbish regarding the NFL - there have been three natural disasters in the space of a month. He shouldn't be paying attention to the NFL at all. These are American citizens. But they're non-voting citizens so who cares, right?

Manic Moran · 26-09-2017 08:16AM

Yay Guardian.

If the US has sufficient domestic shipping capacity to meet PR's needs (And PR is a tad smaller than Florida and Texas), which is apparently what DHS is saying (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/the-latest-pelosi-calls-for-military-help-in-puerto-rico/2017/09/25/86d85f02-a209-11e7-b573-8ec86cdfe1ed_story.html?utm_term=.294953d3306b ) what are the grounds for such a waiver? PR's governor was on CNN about two hours ago talking with Anderson Cooper, he seems very pleased with the response he is getting from the Federal Government and Trump. I don't think he cares about tweets, more the aid that's heading his way.

[Edit. Found an interview on the PBS news hour earlier this evening.
GOV. RICARDO ROSSELLO: First of all, we are very grateful for the administration. They have responded quickly.

The president has been very attentive to the situation, personally calling me several times. FEMA and the FEMA director have been here in Puerto Rico twice. As a matter of fact, they were here with us today, making sure that all the resources in FEMA were working in conjunction with the central government.

We have been working together. We have been getting results. The magnitude of this catastrophe is enormous. This is going to take a lot of help, a lot of collaboration. So, my call is to congressmen and congresswomen to take action quickly and conclusively with an aid package for Puerto Rico.

We are in the midst of potentially having a humanitarian crisis here in Puerto Rico which would translate to a humanitarian crisis in the United States. So, I call upon Congress to take action immediately. You know, Puerto Ricans are proud U.S. citizens." http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/devastated-puerto-rico-needs-unprecedented-aid-says-governor/ ]

As an aside, I note further down that page that Pelosi has asked Trump to deploy the military. I guess I must have mis-identified those Marines and Air Force personnel I saw on the ground with the engineer and water purification units on the map in my wife's part of the island. (South East). The Feds currently have over 10,000 personnel on PR and the USVI. This thing is being ridiculously politicised.

Celticfire · 26-09-2017 08:31AM

Samaris wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/26/trump-puerto-rico-crisis-massive-debt

You..you...complete and utter bastard.

The few comments I've seen from Puerto Ricans (mostly mainland) have indicated that this would happen. They mostly sounded resigned, contemptuous and cynical about whether that creature that infests the White House would help Hispanic Americans. They were right. Five days later - and he comes out with that?

Son of a bitch. And I apologise for my unPolitics language, but honestly. PR is devastated and that dam is still teetering on the brink of collapsing. And he decides now is the best time to try scrape money out of the place. Does he even understand (or give a ****) how little is left?

To hell with his puerile rubbish regarding the NFL - there have been three natural disasters in the space of a month. He shouldn't be paying attention to the NFL at all. These are American citizens. But they're non-voting citizens so who cares, right?

Perhaps he was quoting The Guardian from 2 days ago https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/24/puerto-rico-aid-hurricane-maria-cracked-dam

The island’s infrastructure was in sorry shape long before Maria struck. A $73bn debt crisis has left agencies like the state power company broke. As a result the power company abandoned most basic maintenance in recent years, leaving the island subject to regular blackouts.

It's funny that they could point out the exact same concerns in their piece two days ago in a calm objective manner but once Trump mentions the exact same concerns ...

Trump acknowledged that “much of the island was destroyed”, but caustically went on to say that its electrical grid was already “in terrible shape” and that Puerto Rico owed billions of dollars to Wall Street and the banks “which, sadly, must be dealt with”.

.

Also from two days ago by the same paper,

Large amounts of federal aid began moving into Puerto Rico on Saturday, as the island tried to recover from a battering by hurricane Maria. Local officials praised the Trump administration’s response but also called for the emergency loosening of rules long blamed for condemning the US territory to second-class economic status.

No slant to their reporting at all :rolleyes:

Christy42 · 26-09-2017 09:25AM

Celticfire wrote: »

Perhaps he was quoting The Guardian from 2 days ago https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/24/puerto-rico-aid-hurricane-maria-cracked-dam

It's funny that they could point out the exact same concerns in their piece two days ago in a calm objective manner but once Trump mentions the exact same concerns ...

.

Also from two days ago by the same paper,

No slant to their reporting at all :rolleyes:

Well you did just give evidence where they will credit the administration when it is due...

It is more the tone. The guardian mentioned the debt issues as a reason why things are so bad. Trump was more in debt collection mood with that needs to be sorted. But obviously we will argue Trump meant something else. For a man that is meant to be a skilled negotiator and have the best words his remarks do seem to require a lot of interpretation (I have always figured that is the point, everyone can assume he means what they want to hear as opposed to actually trying to say anything).

Leroy42 · 26-09-2017 09:33AM

Hold on, I thought US infrastructure was a mess. Wasn't Trump going to invest trillions in MAGA through infrastructure? Last time I checked Florida and Texas were part of the US, so one could easily say that their infrastructure must be lacking as well.

Why didn't Trump point that out when they were hit?

And why did it take him 5 days to make a comment? 5 days. And instead of "We are with you" as he said previously, he is now saying they are pretty much on their own, and lack of funds is their own problem.

And you know, he is probably right. PR probably has been badly run. But in the midst of a massive natural disaster that is what he wants them to think about? They have no food, water, homes etc etc. And he thinks right now is the time to start a dialogue on the future viability of PR?

Of course his history of bankruptcy means that when he talks about debts having to be dealt with we can assume he means they can simply write them off!

Celticfire · 26-09-2017 10:15AM

Christy42 wrote: »

Well you did just give evidence where they will credit the administration when it is due..

Which is more than will ever happen on this thread.

It is more the tone. The guardian mentioned the debt issues as a reason why things are so bad. Trump was more in debt collection mood with that needs to be sorted. But obviously we will argue Trump meant something else. For a man that is meant to be a skilled negotiator and have the best words his remarks do seem to require a lot of interpretation (I have always figured that is the point, everyone can assume he means what they want to hear as opposed to actually trying to say anything).

Please explain how he was in debt collection mode. From what I can see there's no end to twisting things that are said to suit anti-trump viewpoints. Both said the exact same thing and yet people choose to see both differently.

Peregrinus · 26-09-2017 10:28AM

I think the issue is, why did Trump choose to mention Puerto Rico's debt at all at this point, in this context? Texas and Florida both have much bigger debts that Puerto Rico; Trump never thought to comment on this when addressing the impact of hurricanes on those states. His bringing it up in this context suggests that he thinks it is in some way relevant either to the damage PR has suffered or to the response which the Federal Government should make.

Either that, or he's a drooling idiot who tweets whatever pops into his head without intending it to be in any way relevant to public discourse or any any way connected to what is actually his business as President. You choose.

Celticfire · 26-09-2017 10:30AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Hold on, I thought US infrastructure was a mess. Wasn't Trump going to invest trillions in MAGA through infrastructure? Last time I checked Florida and Texas were part of the US, so one could easily say that their infrastructure must be lacking as well.

whataboutery.

Why didn't Trump point that out when they were hit?

If he did you's be asking why he did it so soon after the event. And please don't pretend you wouldn't.

And why did it take him 5 days to make a comment? 5 days. And instead of "We are with you" as he said previously, he is now saying they are pretty much on their own, and lack of funds is their own problem.

You do love your "why" questions. Why ask a question that I don't (or nobody on this thread) has an answer to? If it was 4 days you be asking why 4 days etc..

And you know, he is probably right. PR probably has been badly run. But in the midst of a massive natural disaster that is what he wants them to think about? They have no food, water, homes etc etc. And he thinks right now is the time to start a dialogue on the future viability of PR?

When would be a good time? 6 days, 7 days , 1 month, 1 year.........

Of course his history of bankruptcy means that when he talks about debts having to be dealt with we can assume he means they can simply write them off!

Yeah because the administration in PR has no responsibility for how badly it was run over the years.

Christy42 · 26-09-2017 10:50AM

Celticfire wrote: »

Which is more than will ever happen on this thread.

Please explain how he was in debt collection mode. From what I can see there's no end to twisting things that are said to suit anti-trump viewpoints. Both said the exact same thing and yet people choose to see both differently.

No people have given Trump credit on several issues here such as handling Syria or his no lobbying rule (though he eventually gave his own team exemptions) or even offering to work with the Dems on the dreamers issue. For most point though the issue is that the facts have an anti Trump bias.

Well he specifically mentioned the debt as something that needs to be dealt with by them. I don't think it was top of many other people's minds at the moment given the damage it has taken. How else can you take that?

764dak · 26-09-2017 10:50AM

It seems many people obsess over Trump. The mainstream media kept on reporting police killings until Trump got elected. Now the news revolves around him. NFL owners seemed against Kaepernick's protests. Now the owners want to protest because Trump hurt their feelings.

Christy42 · 26-09-2017 10:52AM

764dak wrote: »

It seems many people obsess over Trump. The mainstream media kept on reporting police killings until Trump got elected. Now the news revolves around him. NFL owners seemed against Kaepernick's protests. Now the owners want to protest because Trump hurt their feelings.

In fairness Trump only complained about the players because they hurt his feelings. All they did was kneel and he managed to take offense!

Leroy42 · 26-09-2017 10:55AM

Celticfire wrote: »

whataboutery.

So we can't compare? How often have trump supporters tried to bring discussions onto HC or Obama?

Celticfire wrote: »

If he did you's be asking why he did it so soon after the event. And please don't pretend you wouldn't.

No, I wasn't asking why it took him 5 days to make these statements, I was asking why it took him 5 days to make any statements.

Celticfire wrote: »

You do love your "why" questions. Why ask a question that I don't (or nobody on this thread) has an answer to? If it was 4 days you be asking why 4 days etc..

I wasn't asking them because I think you know the answer, rather to point out that you hadn't even asked yourself these questions.

Celticfire wrote: »

When would be a good time? 6 days, 7 days , 1 month, 1 year.........

I not really sure but I do know that in the middle of the event it is not helpful. Or useful. What do you think he is trying to achieve with this? If he was so concerned why not bring it up before?

Celticfire wrote: »

Yeah because the administration in PR has no responsibility for how badly it was run over the years.

Funny you bring that line, because Trump himself, through his own bankruptcies, doesn't believe they do. I am merely pointing out his real feelings, which we know because he actually carried them out, on the issue. SO now you appear to be in disagreement with Trump on this.

764dak · 26-09-2017 11:03AM

Christy42 wrote: »

In fairness Trump only complained about the players because they hurt his feelings. All they did was kneel and he managed to take offense!

The NFL accepted sponsorship to honour troops during national anthems.
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/09/nfl-players-didnt-stand-for-the-anthem-before-2009.html

Billy86 · 26-09-2017 11:06AM

764dak wrote: »

The NFL accepted sponsorship to honour troops during national anthems.
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/09/nfl-players-didnt-stand-for-the-anthem-before-2009.html

From your own link: NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy confirmed this morning the practice began in 2009, adding, ‘As you know, the NFL has a long tradition of patriotism. Players are encouraged but not required to stand for the anthem.’

Christy42 · 26-09-2017 11:07AM

764dak wrote: »

The NFL accepted sponsorship to honour troops during national anthems.
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/09/nfl-players-didnt-stand-for-the-anthem-before-2009.html

This has nothing to do with the conversation we were having. We were having a conversation about people being too easily offended.

If the Army is unhappy with how they are being honoured they can feel free to stop sponsoring the nfl. As has been pointed out the players kneeling are not breaking the contract which was agreed to by both sides.

Peregrinus · 26-09-2017 11:07AM

764dak wrote: »

The NFL accepted sponsorship to honour troops during national anthems.
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/09/nfl-players-didnt-stand-for-the-anthem-before-2009.html

Sorry, wait, the American government has to pay people to get them to honour US troops?

If so, I think they have a problem, and the problem has nothing to do with whether players stand for the anthem or not.

Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Comments