Trump

[WstateU]

Trump has somehow been even worse than anticipated so far. Just the first things that come to mind:

1. He has opted to not receive daily intelligence briefings because he's "like, a smart person." This is despite criticizing President Obama two years ago because he believed Obama wasn't getting briefed daily.

2. He is going to allow the businesses to remain in the family according to his Twitter (though, there should be another press conference today to detail the plan). He's going to have more conflicts of interest than any president in history, and no one seems to want to hold him accountable.

3. Speaking of his Twitter, he's continued to act very foolishly. He continues to harp on Saturday Night Live, instigate China, and openly discuss Taiwan (though, I should probably include that in the "instigate China" category).

4. In regards to the hacking, rumors are that the White House discussed possibilities with Congress in September, and Mitch McConnell stated that any effort by the White House to discuss Russian hacking would be considered "partisan politics." Then, McConnell's wife was rewarded with a cabinet position. McConnell now openly disagrees with Trump, though, and believes we need to investigate the hacks.

5. Speaking of Russia, this is a very revealing poll regarding the favorability of Putin with Republicans.

6. I guess that's fitting, since the new Secretary of State has ample business dealings in Russia.

7. Overall, he promised to "drain the swamp," but his nominations as a whole appear to be more of the same.

Did you 'copy and paste' from The Rachel Maddow Show? :)

[Eric]

Trump has somehow been even worse than anticipated so far. Just the first things that come to mind:

1. He has opted to not receive daily intelligence briefings because he's "like, a smart person." This is despite criticizing President Obama two years ago because he believed Obama wasn't getting briefed daily.

2. He is going to allow the businesses to remain in the family according to his Twitter (though, there should be another press conference today to detail the plan). He's going to have more conflicts of interest than any president in history, and no one seems to want to hold him accountable.

3. Speaking of his Twitter, he's continued to act very foolishly. He continues to harp on Saturday Night Live, instigate China, and openly discuss Taiwan (though, I should probably include that in the "instigate China" category).

4. In regards to the hacking, rumors are that the White House discussed possibilities with Congress in September, and Mitch McConnell stated that any effort by the White House to discuss Russian hacking would be considered "partisan politics." Then, McConnell's wife was rewarded with a cabinet position. McConnell now openly disagrees with Trump, though, and believes we need to investigate the hacks.

5. Speaking of Russia, this is a very revealing poll regarding the favorability of Putin with Republicans.

6. I guess that's fitting, since the new Secretary of State has ample business dealings in Russia.

7. Overall, he promised to "drain the swamp," but his nominations as a whole appear to be more of the same.

I'm in 100% agreement with all of this, but where we live, Trump is viewed as the second coming of Jesus Christ.

[jdshock]

Did you 'copy and paste' from The Rachel Maddow Show? :)

I'd like to think she would've been a little more biased in her approach. I tried to stick to things that even Trump supporters would find disgusting.

Of course, there are a lot of things that he's done that liberals take issue with. The guy who is going to lead the EPA is a climate-change denier. Rick Perry is going to run the Department of Energy, if he can remember the name of the agency he is supposed to run... He's going to defund NASA's climate research department. His tax plan is going to be awful for the middle and lower classes. But those are all things that Trump supporters mostly signed up for.

I tried to stick to objective and well-reported facts. I'd love to hear if you think any of them are wrong or if you think they're right but not that bad.

[WstateU]

I'd like to think she would've been a little more biased in her approach. I tried to stick to things that even Trump supporters would find disgusting.

Of course, there are a lot of things that he's done that liberals take issue with. The guy who is going to lead the EPA is a climate-change denier. Rick Perry is going to run the Department of Energy, if he can remember the name of the agency he is supposed to run... He's going to defund NASA's climate research department. His tax plan is going to be awful for the middle and lower classes. But those are all things that Trump supporters mostly signed up for.

I tried to stick to objective and well-reported facts. I'd love to hear if you think any of them are wrong or if you think they're right but not that bad.

I don’t disagree with all your points and I sure don’t agree with everything Trump says and does. I’ve owned my own business for several decades and I’ll admit that I’m ‘somewhat’ anxious having a businessman in the White House. He at least knows how to surround himself with successful people. Of course the ‘jury will be out’ on whether or not it works. I don’t have a big problem with most of his selections at this point. Honestly, I’m just a peon in this world. Sure, Trump could tone it down a little, but I do like that he’s not always politically correct.

Politically, I’m a little ‘right of center’ and not as far right as most would think. It’s embarrassing that we had to choose from these two candidates. Regardless, I believe Trumps presidency will be entertaining whether I agree with him or not.

I’m really sick and tired of people like Rachel Maddow, Stephen Colbert, Michael Moore and others. They make me lean further right.

Sorry, I’m not much of a debater and won't break down your post; it’s just not in my genes. I’d say I’m more of a collaborator… I just want everyone to get along. I’ll admit I never wanted Obama to be president (his color and background had nothing to do with it); I didn’t agree with his platform. On November 4, 2008 I put on my ‘big boy pants’ and accepted what the American people decided and I put them on again four years later. He’s our president and I tried to support him even when I disagreed with him. I hoped he would be a more of a 'collaborator' and do more for people of color while bringing the country together. It’s debatable (yes, debatable), but in my opinion, he’s failed in that regard.

[jdshock]

Trump delayed the press conference in which he was going to discuss his business interests. The indication has been that he will leave the businesses to his children in order to "eliminate" the conflict of interest, but it still keeps the business in the family, which seems like it doesn't really isolate the conflict at all. More importantly, though, his children seem incredibly involved in Trump's political decisions.

The newest reports are that Jr. had a major say in the Secretary of Interior pick: http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-t...ick-1481844976 In fact, he (Jr) said about national park issues "I can be the very, very loud voice in his ear, you know, on a lot of these issues." Apparently, they're not even trying to hide that the presidency is going to be a team effort.

Also, if you still had any faith that Trump might be good for the middle or lower classes, it should be gone seeing the newest reports that Trump's cabinet picks have more money than a third of all American households combined.

[MoValley John]

Also, if you still had any faith that Trump might be good for the middle or lower classes, it should be gone seeing the newest reports that Trump's cabinet picks have more money than a third of all American households combined.

Just how does being wealthy make it impossible for a person to be good for the middle or lower classes? Based on your statement, which president has ever filled cabinet positions with people not wealthy?

[jdshock]

Just how does being wealthy make it impossible for a person to be good for the middle or lower classes? Based on your statement, which president has ever filled cabinet positions with people not wealthy?

It doesn't make it impossible, but I take it as a sign that he's clearly putting his own interests first.

Cabinet members do usually have money, but there also haven't been a ton of presidents lately that have been great for the middle and lower classes. Even those that have had positive effects have had wealthy cabinet members, so it's certainly not impossible. I just think it's hard to be optimistic when you realize how extreme this collection is compared to previous ones and when you look at it in conjunction with everything else going on.

[wufan]

It doesn't make it impossible, but I take it as a sign that he's clearly putting his own interests first.

Cabinet members do usually have money, but there also haven't been a ton of presidents lately that have been great for the middle and lower classes. Even those that have had positive effects have had wealthy cabinet members, so it's certainly not impossible. I just think it's hard to be optimistic when you realize how extreme this collection is compared to previous ones and when you look at it in conjunction with everything else going on.

The first paragraph could be incorrect as it could simply mean he is utilizing people that he believes have been successful.

As to the second paragraph, what could Trump do (that is remotely realistic) that would make you optimistic?

[jdshock]

As to the second paragraph, what could Trump do (that is remotely realistic) that would make you optimistic?

Just spitballing:

• A tax plan that didn't obviously favor the ultra wealthy
• Picking "successful" people to be in his cabinet that hadn't donated to him personally
• Picking a "successful" person to be the secretary of state that didn't have serious interests in Russia
• Stop Tweeting (though, to be fair, that really pushes the boundary of remotely realistic) such inane things
• Blind trust for business interests (problems with this, but it's customary and would help some)
• Quit letting his children help make policy decisions. If there truly is a separation between the business and the presidency, his sons don't need to ever be involved in policy decisions.

I feel like most of those are reasonable requests or in line with campaign promises

[SB Shock]

Just spitballing:

• A tax plan that didn't obviously favor the ultra wealthy

45% don't pay income tax right now. What would be fair? 60%, 75%? I think maybe we wouldn't have runaway debt in tis country if everybody had skin in the game.

• Picking a "successful" person to be the secretary of state that didn't have serious interests in Russia

You are worried about foreign influence? But Nobody was crying about all the foreign money in Obama or Hillary campaign.

• Stop Tweeting (though, to be fair, that really pushes the boundary of remotely realistic) such inane things

I agree with this.

• Blind trust for business interests (problems with this, but it's customary and would help some)
• Quit letting his children help make policy decisions. If there truly is a separation between the business and the presidency, his sons don't need to ever be involved in policy decisions.

I have to think that in the end, there are some very smart lawyers working here that will make sure what has to be done is done. Because otherwise I would think he would risk impeachment.

[jdshock]

45% don't pay income tax right now. What would be fair? 60%, 75%? I think maybe we wouldn't have runaway debt in tis country if everybody had skin in the game.

I'm referring to the tax cuts that would go to the wealthiest individuals. His tax plan would drop revenue by 6.2 trillion over a decade and the biggest benefits would be for the highest-income families. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publi...vised-tax-plan

You are worried about foreign influence? But Nobody was crying about all the foreign money in Obama or Hillary campaign.

I heard many people discussing foreign influence as a reason to not vote for Clinton. I'm hopeful that the Trump supporters who made those arguments are willing to recognize the same issues are being set in motion for Trump.

I have to think that in the end, there are some very smart lawyers working here that will make sure what has to be done is done. Because otherwise I would think he would risk impeachment.

I don't think it looks good. My understanding is that this isn't a legal issue. There's basically no rule against the president having conflicts of interest. We just have always had presidents that did things a certain way, and we always trusted that our presidents would continue to do it that way.

[SB Shock]

I'm referring to the tax cuts that would go to the wealthiest individuals. His tax plan would drop revenue by 6.2 trillion over a decade and the biggest benefits would be for the highest-income families. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publi...vised-tax-plan.

How can you cut taxes on people who don't pay taxes? Of course those who pay the most in taxes are going to benifit the most.

I heard many people discussing foreign influence as a reason to not vote for Clinton. I'm hopeful that the Trump supporters who made those arguments are willing to recognize the same issues are being set in motion for Trump.

mainstream media didn't care. Democrats didn't care (until now). I really have no opinion about his Secretary of State because of general lack of any substantial information as of yet, but to say he would be bad because he has done business with Russia? Then are u saying any business man who did business on a global basis would be a bad choice? Or did he do something wrong? Take bribes?

If this guy is a good guy - don't you think he going to look out for the US interest? Now if he a dirt bag, then get that information out there. Because frankly in the present geopolitical climate maybe having somebody who know Russsia and has a relationship with them might be useful.

[WSU and Reds Fan]

45% don't pay income tax right now. What would be fair? 60%, 75%? I think maybe we wouldn't have runaway debt in tis country if everybody had skin in the game.

He is right I know people who make over 7 figures annually and don't pay any income tax. They only pay Capital gains which are taxed at a much lower rate.

The real question should be why is the inequity in this country so great that so many people do not contribute? Is it lack of education, lack of desire, or lack of regulation?

[MoValley John]

I didn't vote for Trump. I don't think he'll be a great president. I hope he will. That said, the bullshit being spewed by the left is just that, bullshit. I'm sick of the politics, I'm sick of the protesting, I'm sick of the handwringing. And I'm really sick of the class warfare, as evident in jd's post, and I'm sick as **** of the fearmongering. Nobody knows how this is going to work out, why can't we just wait and see?

Or.... We could do some more rioting and looting, that always works.

[jdshock]

How can you cut taxes on people who don't pay taxes? Of course those who pay the most in taxes are going to benifit the most.

Look at the independent report I posted. It's as a percentage of after tax income. The wealthiest 1/5 of households would have an average tax cut of 1.1 million "over 14 percent of after-tax income." The middle group was at 1.8 percent and the poorest group was at 0.8 percent.

This isn't a "rich people pay more in taxes so they get bigger benefits with an across the board tax cut" type thing. The proposal would uniquely benefit the wealthiest people, which is not what he said during his campaign. During his campaign, he originally said that a middle class family would "get a 35% tax cut." That's just false according to the newest tax plans he has released.