Current or modern politics in the United States

[Puhbear69]

Originally Posted by steamjon

Are you trying to say he's nuts

Although my mother tongue isn't English, I've was trying to chose not such a simplistic term.

One can't truly say, his behave since his nomination, his scandals after the nomination, his "alternative truce", his grabbing of attention is -relatively- "normal" for an -average- politician - worldwide. IMHO, he is more than embarrassing as an US-president.

[TheBare]

Originally Posted by hound dog

Our president seems to like mob rule. Why else does he keep stirring up racial divide's and instilling more ethnic hate, by promoting nativism, repeating fake news as truth, and constantly lying?

You've just described in detail the PREVIOUS potus to a tee
And those who STILL blindly follow him.
Antifa, BLM, and indeed all liberal media to name just a few

[Arturo2nd]

The "liberal" media is a myth. All the major media providers are corporate owned and controlled by Republicans. Even the supposedly left wing CNN reported extensively on Donald Trump's activities in the last election. What reporting they did do on Mrs. Clinton rehashed the email and Benghazi "scandals." Rarely would they report on Mrs. Clinton delivering a speech in a battleground state that laid out her proposals to better the lot of the working poor. It seemed to me as if CNN and the networks were subtly working to get Trump elected, while Fox handled the cheer leading for his base.

[LadyLuck]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

Rarely would they report on Mrs. Clinton delivering a speech in a battleground state that laid out her proposals to better the lot of the working poor.

If something rarely happens it is rarely reported about.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by LadyLuck

If something rarely happens it is rarely reported about.

I don't often agree with you, LL, but I reckon you have nailed it here. Hillary Clinton had an awful lot to say to Goldman Sachs. but was not at all willing to share this content with the rest of the world. No; I can't agree that she was mis-represented by the "media". I think the voters saw what they were being offered pretty much as it was. Nothing.

[BustyWomenLovr]

Yep - and so many were horrified by the cries of clintongoldmansacks and have been mum on all the Goldman Sacks people now working in and around the White House. Clinton would not have been good. But far far better than the schmuck we have now.

[midnitro]

you have to understand, in the USA there are two kinds of politics - real world, real people, and the bullshit you see/hear/read on TV, web, print etc. Real world - Reagan was the best president ever, Obama/Carter/JFK the worst. Nixon was good, but watergate is all he's remembered for. Ford, Bush Sr and Jr, Carter, Clinton, all worthless do nothings. Trump did one thing that love him or hate him, is the best thing to happen to the USA since 1988 - he has the wheels of industry turning again. There is UNREAL construction and real business being done for the first time since 1992. That's real life, no bullshit, 100% honest nonpartisan truth. The worst thing that ever happened to the USA was JFK/LBJ... everything that's ever been wrong in this country since 1960 can be laid at their feet.

[Arturo2nd]

Y'all have bought the biased media spin on these issues. Hillary Clinton has been trashed in the press ever since her husband was elected president. She is no doubt a very tough customer, as any woman married to and deeply in love with a serial philanderer must be. There are reports, which I very much believe, that she can really be a bitch at times. There are also many reports that she is also a warm and caring person with a great sense of humor. In sum, she is a complex and multifaceted person. The press prefers simple narratives.

The press is a very funny animal. Ted Williams, the great Red Sox hitter and outfielder, routinely got negative press. Yet, it becomes very clear in his biographies and other accounts of the period that his teammates and fellow Marines adored the guy.

[tsunamiSD]

Can anyone really be surprised at this?

Voting commission criticized for lack of transparency

President Donald Trump’s advisory commission on election integrity has integrity questions of its own — with some of its own members raising concerns about its openness.
This past week, two members fired off letters to commission staff complaining about a lack of information about the panel’s agenda and demanding answers about its activities. That comes as Democratic U.S. senators are requesting a government investigation of the commission for ignoring formal requests from Congress.

The commission has stirred controversy from the moment it was established last spring. Critics say Trump is using it to find support for his unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud that cost him the popular vote during the 2016 election. Democrat Hillary Clinton received 2.8 million more votes nationwide than Trump.
While there have been isolated cases of voter fraud in the U.S., there is no evidence of it being a widespread problem, as Trump suggests.
Critics argue the commission is stacked with people who favor voting restrictions, rather than those who want to expand access, and that the commission has a predetermined agenda that will result in recommendations making it more difficult for people to register to vote, stay registered and cast ballots.

In August, the AP filed a records request with the commission under the federal Freedom of Information Act. The law specifies that agencies — including presidential commissions — have 20 business days to respond or 10 calendar days if the request was filed on an expedited basis, as the AP’s was. To date, the AP has received no response from the commission despite multiple attempts to get one.
The commission’s secrecy prompted a lawsuit by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which alleges the commission is violating federal open meetings and disclosure laws.
The group’s executive director, Kristen Clarke, said she was hard-pressed to think of another commission that had acted in such secrecy.
“We have found that, in every respect, this commission has been carrying out its activities in an almost covert fashion,” she said.
The lack of openness even applies to members of Congress.
Democratic senators have filed at least five separate requests for information with the commission since June, and a Sept. 12 follow-up letter noted that none of those had received a response.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by BustyEscortLovr

Yep - and so many were horrified by the cries of clintongoldmansacks and have been mum on all the Goldman Sacks people now working in and around the White House. Clinton would not have been good. But far far better than the schmuck we have now.

The present incumbent is not fit for dogs to piss on. But you have to acknowledge that he won and Hillary Clinton lost. This was a vehement anti-establishment reaction. Millions of ordinary Americans have realised that they are being treated like dirt and are reacting quite badly to this knowledge.

Hillary Clinton had nothing to say about giving America back to the American people. As we have seen, anything Donald Trump had to say was empty noises; but he at least was speaking about economic issues on which Mrs Clinton was silent. Her silence and her failure to reach out to the millions who have been marginalised in the USA since their employment went away to other countries are the reasons why her base did not turn out; she was not actually their candidate or their representative at all. She herself spent her campaign time on telling everyone what a heel Mr Trump is, and "I am not Donald Trump" was not really a strong argument to vote in favour of her. I cannot say I am surprised that Mr Trump is a rentboy for Goldman Sachs; but I note that he did not "earn" millions in fees for speaking to them, and she did.