**** Elections thread *****

[BananaStand]

Winning an election doesn't mean you have only half a constituency. The whole of Americans is still Trump's constituency, and that constituency has every right to determine if they think his actions are mistakes or not on a case by case basis.

I truncated your quote, but I agree with what you're saying in principle. Ideologically, it makes sense that a President represents all americans, not just the ones who voted for him. However, in reality 2017, Trump is a hugely polarizing figure. And no matter what he does, people on the opposite pole will not be happy.

Trump backed off a muslim-ban long ago during the campaign and instead moved to a middle-of-the-road policy that focuses on a small number areas deemed dangerous by two separate administrations. Not one of his detractors came out and said "that's a nice compromise". Instead, they took him to court.

Students in NYC walked out of class to protest. Some were interviewed on TV and asked simple questions like "Do you know what countries are affected by the ban?" *crickets*.

A compromise by Trump only loses support from his base, and gains no support from the other side. What do you expect him to do? Again, don't hate the player, hate the game.

I think I drifted off topic here, but if you want things evaluated on a case by case basis, fine. Trump's personality was already evaluated during a 15 month campaign. It was deemed less than tasteful, but acceptable. He can change his tie, he can change his hair color, but he can't change who he is. Trump being himself is not a cause for scrutiny. We already know how that movie ends.

I don't get why, given that we agree that American "News" is anything but a sensible way for adults to learn about current events, do you patronize American news sources so regularly.

We don't agree.

Do they, though?
Does it, though?

I am not convinced that there is a direct link between shitty reporting and policy changes.

Huh? Everyone who consumes this 'shitty reporting' has a vote. That means what they believe, even if it's erroneous, matters. Trump owns nothing in Russia. He owes no one money in Russia. He has nothing more to gain from a cozy relationship with Putin than he does from a cozy relationship with say, the president of Argentina. Yet the New York times reported, shitty-ly, that the Trump campaign had phone calls with Russian people. The times doesn't say what those calls were about. Below the fold the mention that it's entirely plausible that the phone calls had nothing to do with the campaign at all.

Yet now we have member of congress, who's salary we pay, convening a committee to investigate Trump's ties with Russia.

Of course the media has influence. They played a HUGE role in getting both of our last two presidents elected. Though only one on purpose.

I don't think Putin's that naive. If Putin thinks Trump is weak because of some, lets face it, privileged blowhards, then my money is on Trump walking all over him in trade negotiations by playing off of that naivety.

I guess that remains to be seen. But Putin isn't going anywhere, and Trump has to win an election in 4 years time. If Trump looks weak, that undermines any promises or assurances he could make in negotiations. If Trump has a political interest in showing results, that gives Putin more leverage.

Remember when Obama was caught on a hot mic talking to the Russian Ambassador? Most people probably don't because the MSM only covers fuck-ups by Republicans. This wasn't speculation about phone calls. This wasn't circumstantial evidence. Obama was caught on audio AND video saying to the Ambassador "Tell Vladimir I'll have more flexibility after the election". And he had a friendly press on his side. Imagine how much 'flexibility' Trump has right now?

I don't understand why, given their ineffectual pandering to a biased audience you let them get under your skin.
Can you explain this?

I just did. They aren't just hurting Trump, they're hurting America

[MadMojoMonkey]

However, in reality 2017, Trump is a hugely polarizing figure. And no matter what he does, people on the opposite pole will not be happy.

Trump is polarizing, I agree.

So was Obama. So was Bush. So was Clinton. So was Reagan.

I don't remember Carter, but every I hear about him, I am humbled and realize that he is a better man than I.
I'm pretty much never the correct spokesman for my group, though, so prob a lot of disagreement there, too.

I don't see how other people's happiness is any motivation for a grown man... unless the other people are his family, I guess.

Trump backed off a muslim-ban long ago during the campaign and instead moved to a middle-of-the-road policy that focuses on a small number areas deemed dangerous by two separate administrations. Not one of his detractors came out and said "that's a nice compromise". Instead, they took him to court.

Not one?
Fake news.

Students in NYC walked out of class to protest. Some were interviewed on TV and asked simple questions like "Do you know what countries are affected by the ban?" *crickets*.

not sure your point.
Idiots are idiots?
Kids are kids?

People looking for an excuse to be angry will always find one, whether or not they are informed about the thing.

***
I don't have time for the rest of the hyperbole and other superlative language you've used in this post.

***
In what way do you and I not agree about American news.

I thought you were basically saying what I'm saying.