[Lord Dave]

I'm black and I voted for President Trump. Take that, SJWs!

You really showed them.

Thank you.

So how are you enjoying Trump backing off on most of his promises so far?

I wouldn't say most. As far as his main promise about locking up Hillary, all he said was he isn't going to pursue it. That doesn't mean he'll appoint a FBI director that will.

Correct.  That does not mean he will.
He will not appoint an FBI director that will.
Because he'd have to force the current one to resign first.
And he won't persue the clintons.  They're good people.

[Lord Dave]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-betsy-devos-as-education-secretary-a7435026.html

God fucking damnit.
So much for public schools.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cambridge-analytica-steve-bannon-robert-rebekah-mercer-donald-trump-conflicts-of-interest-white-a7435536.html
And here's fun!
Yep.  Nepotism, the best way to govern.

[Rama Set]

I wouldn't say most. As far as his main promise about locking up Hillary, all he said was he isn't going to pursue it. That doesn't mean he'll appoint a FBI director that will.

How do you figure that was his main promise?  As far as I or most people are concerned, the Mexican wall, the scrapping of Obamacare and the tearing up of NAFTA were more prominent platform promises... all of which he has backed off on or has indicated they will be scaled back.

[Fortuna]

And he won't persue the clintons.  They're good people.

You probably think George Soros is a philanthropist too, huh?

[Lord Dave]

And he won't persue the clintons.  They're good people.

You probably think George Soros is a philanthropist too, huh?

No, I'm quoting Donald Trump.

[Fortuna]

I'm quoting Donald Trump.

Irrelevant

[Lord Dave]

I'm quoting Donald Trump.

Irrelevant

That's the whole point of the statement.  So it's totally relevant.

[Fortuna]

I'm quoting Donald Trump.

Irrelevant

That's the whole point of the statement.  So it's totally relevant.

Incorrect.

[disputeone]

The moment he takes office expect a fire in the pentagon, attributed to a Democratic, Mexican Muslim, pro-abortion gun snatching terrorist organisation, followed by the Pentagon fire decree suspending all personal freedom.

You mean 9/11?
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

[Rama Set]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/23/503156456/trump-says-he-has-open-mind-on-climate-but-staff-pick-raises-questions

FFS, this is as bad as putting Ben Carson in charge of education.

[Dionysios]

Coming from Trump, I would take the epithet "brutal dictator" as a compliment.

God bless Fidel Castro Ruz
& have mercy on his soul.

I'm critical of Obama as well, but I believe in giving credit where it's due. The  rapprochement with Cuba was one of the more honourable things he did as the U.S. has been a tyranny against Cuba and others for over a hundred years.

[garygreen]

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-calls-complete-shutdown-clinton-foundation-n636051

super funny in retrospect.

[George]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803567993036754944

Texas v. Johnson and Afroyim v. Rusk are landmark Supreme Court cases.  The President of the United States should know this.

I feel like I'm going to be saying that last line a lot over the next four years.

[Pete Svarrior]

The President of the United States should know this.

I feel like I'm going to be saying that last line a lot over the next four years.

"POTUS cannot have opinions on how things should be if they contradict how things currently are."

Top quality sadaam 10/10 bet you said that a lot about Obama too.

In less retarded news, Trump continues to prepare for his job just as expected:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38155141

[garygreen]

"POTUS cannot have opinions on how things should be if they contradict how things currently are."

genuine curiosity: for those of us miffed by the "flag burners should be arrested" tweet that george refers to, do you think this is what we're upset about?  like, if i asked you to describe as best as possible what troubles people about that tweet, is this what you'd come up with?

e: not meant to sound as backhanded as it does. real q.

[Lord Dave]

In less retarded news, Trump continues to prepare for his job just as expected:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38155141

Good.
Let's see if he just gives it to his kids to run, which is only a small step away. 

[Jura-Glenlivet]

"POTUS cannot have opinions on how things should be if they contradict how things currently are."

genuine curiosity: for those of us miffed by the "flag burners should be arrested" tweet that george refers to, do you think this is what we're upset about?  like, if i asked you to describe as best as possible what troubles people about that tweet, is this what you'd come up with?

e: not meant to sound as backhanded as it does. real q.

The only reason I can think of why he wants to make such a law, is that he has just cornered the rights to export bits of coloured rag to the middle east/pretty much anywhere, as soon as it becomes illegal to deface it in the US it will become (even more) the du-rigueur thing to do at all parties and public gatherings out there.

[Pete Svarrior]

genuine curiosity: for those of us miffed by the "flag burners should be arrested" tweet that george refers to, do you think this is what we're upset about?  like, if i asked you to describe as best as possible what troubles people about that tweet, is this what you'd come up with?

e: not meant to sound as backhanded as it does. real q.

[Same disclaimer about being genuine and not trying to be snarky applies to all of this post]

Tbh I have no idea what people are upset about. Donald Trump's Twitter feed is not an accurate depiction of his policy proposals and actions as president-elect. I'm sure that's not a controversial proposal. Looking at a small section of responses to the tweet itself, people seem to be angry because what Trump said, if turned into actual law, would violate the Bill of Rights. From my point of view, there's nothing to be upset about. He's welcome to his personal opinion, and if he tries to influence the law in this direction (unlikely imo), he'll get stuck in a short legal fight after which he'll be told to shove it.

That's not to say you can't or shouldn't be upset. I was specifically responding to Saddam's mentality. The idea that "Trump should know that there's a legal precedent for this, ergo he shouldn't be tweeting about it!" is extremely silly.

[Lord Dave]

"POTUS cannot have opinions on how things should be if they contradict how things currently are."

genuine curiosity: for those of us miffed by the "flag burners should be arrested" tweet that george refers to, do you think this is what we're upset about?  like, if i asked you to describe as best as possible what troubles people about that tweet, is this what you'd come up with?

e: not meant to sound as backhanded as it does. real q.

The only reason I can think of why he wants to make such a law, is that he has just cornered the rights to export bits of coloured rag to the middle east/pretty much anywhere, as soon as it becomes illegal to deface it in the US it will become (even more) the du-rigueur thing to do at all parties and public gatherings out there.

Nah, its a simple tweet to keep his base barking at something.  If you don't keep them occupied and energized behind you, they start to wander away.


This just something he can tweet that's easy to not do, energizes his base, and leaves him with nothing lost by saying it.

genuine curiosity: for those of us miffed by the "flag burners should be arrested" tweet that george refers to, do you think this is what we're upset about?  like, if i asked you to describe as best as possible what troubles people about that tweet, is this what you'd come up with?

e: not meant to sound as backhanded as it does. real q.

[Same disclaimer about being genuine and not trying to be snarky applies to all of this post]

Tbh I have no idea what people are upset about. Donald Trump's Twitter feed is not an accurate depiction of his policy proposals and actions as president-elect. I'm sure that's not a controversial proposal. Looking at a small section of responses to the tweet itself, people seem to be angry because what Trump said, if turned into actual law, would violate the Bill of Rights. From my point of view, there's nothing to be upset about. He's welcome to his personal opinion, and if he tries to influence the law in this direction (unlikely imo), he'll get stuck in a short legal fight after which he'll be told to shove it.

That's not to say you can't or shouldn't be upset. I was specifically responding to Saddam's mentality. The idea that "Trump should know that there's a legal precedent for this, ergo he shouldn't be tweeting about it!" is extremely silly.

I'm upset not because I think he'll be able to do it, but because its an empty "I'm awesome, praise me for being anti-freedom!" Message.
The president (or president elect) is a very powerful person.  His words can shape the world yet he throws them around like a troll.
He is literally trolling America.  (Saying something to get a reaction out of people) What happens when he  tweets something that upsets someone as thin skinned and powerful as him?

[garygreen]

[...]what Trump said, if turned into actual law, would violate the Bill of Rights. From my point of view, there's nothing to be upset about. He's welcome to his personal opinion, and if he tries to influence the law in this direction (unlikely imo), he'll get stuck in a short legal fight after which he'll be told to shove it.

totally agree.

That's not to say you can't or shouldn't be upset. I was specifically responding to Saddam's mentality. The idea that "Trump should know that there's a legal precedent for this, ergo he shouldn't be tweeting about it!" is extremely silly.

i can see what you mean.  and personally i'm on the side of 'let's reserve our criticisms for policy proposals, not personality traits and tweets.'  not that i follow my own advice all the time, but i agree with the principle.

that said, i'm also in the camp of taking all politicians both literally, and seriously.  the transparency of the state is very important to me, and that extends to the politicians themselves.  i'm troubled that he might genuinely believe in such a policy, and i'm equally troubled that i don't know if he does or not.

and if he does believe in such a policy, then i think that's troubling in its own right.  sure, he may not be able to roll back free speech in cases like flag burning that are already well-settled.  but not all of our rights are so clearly delineated (privacy comes to mind), and if his attitude toward individual rights are so draconian in this instance (even if he can't actualize them), then i kinda shudder to think what his attitude will be on the rights issues he can affect.