I wonder why…

Bloomberg is reporting this:

Optimism among America’s small businesses soared in December by the most since 1980 as expectations about the economy’s prospects improved dramatically in the aftermath of the presidential election.

The National Federation of Independent Business’s index jumped 7.4 points last month to 105.8, the highest since the end of 2004, from 98.4. While seven of the 10 components increased in December, 73 percent of the monthly advance was due to more upbeat views about the outlook for sales and the economy, the Washington-based group said.

The share of business owners who say now is a good time to expand is three times the average of the current expansion, according to the NFIB’s data. More companies also said they plan to increase investment and keep hiring, which reflects optimism surrounding President-elect Donald Trump’s plans of spurring the economy through deregulation, tax reform and infrastructure spending.

“We haven’t seen numbers like this in a long time,” Juanita Duggan, president and chief executive of the NFIB, said in a statement. “Small business is ready for a breakout, and that can only mean very good things for the U.S. economy. Business owners are feeling better about taking risks and making investments.”

The NFIB report was based on a survey of 619 small-business owners through Dec. 28. Small companies represent more than 99 percent of all U.S employers, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration. A small business is defined as an independent enterprise with no more than 500 employees.

What could the parallel with 1980 and today be? What changed? It feels like it is on the tip of my tongue and explains why a specific group of people is going batshit crazy right now. I bet the dnc operatives with bylines will do their best to ignore or downplay, and when forced to deal with it, blame racism of the American people and the greed of the entrepreneurial class.

UPDATE: In case it escapes you, things like the revelation in this article are precisely why the left has gone unhinged. Nothing is more dangerous and frightening to them and their narrative/agenda than things getting better. Especially since Trump – be it through action or inaction, deservedly or otherwise – gets credit. After all, even a mediocre Trump presidency will be better than what we have had, putting the last 8 years and the fake stories of how great things have been, in perspective.

UPDATE 2: As I posted in the comments people fucked over by decades of collectivist criminal rule, are wishing they had a Trump. Of course, those that need to pretend this isn’t something damning and a result of decades of failure of the globalist collectivist agenda/movement, are now deflecting by pointing out that butthurt leftists think this will give California the push it needs to secede or Hawaii the push to ask for independence. I laugh at this idiocy. These are the same people that promised to move to Canada if Trump won, and so far none of them are packing. I also want to stress how unpatriotic, un-American, and downright vile and subversive talk like this was when the turds though Clinton was a sure thing. Now, it’s the opposite. Double standards and lack of shame, something something.

The left is not just downright in denial, but going nuts and flirting with going violent. The refutation of their quasi-religious dogma, by people they look down on and hold the lowest of possible opinions of, of all things, has left them with an existential crisis. They thought after Obama’s win that it would only be team blue that would win elections going forward. After all, they were busy rigging the game to make it so. The shit they believe in, no matter that it always fails and ends in disaster, was the wave of the future. Their religion had defeated the infidels and their crazy belief that reality and the laws of economics, human nature, and physics couldn’t be bent by delusional beliefs, had not just been validated, but it was the global consensus! The right was dead. Collectivism had won. After 8 years of this shit and a world left in flames by the left and its policies, along comes a guy that is totally un-PC, plays by their rules, actually believes the shit Obama used to say about hope and change to just win elections, plans to act on making it so (by of all things rolling back the damage done by Obama), and couldn’t be brought low by the usual tactics and the cabal between the DNC and their operatives with bylines. They lose, and the trend seems to be global in movement. And it has unhinged them.

Trump, a guy I used to hold a so-so opinion of before the left clearly drove me into his camp, is an existential threat to them. They can’t let him succeed, because that would be even more of a validation that their shit is broke. It will now get ugly, and these people will try hard to pretend they hold the moral high ground (that’s why Trump is Hitler), but every time they open their mouth or act, more people see the light. Oh, how sweet the tears and pants shitting of the moronic!

Comments are closed.

  1. AlexInCT *

    WTF were they doing there at our expense (tax payers, not the people voting for a living) in the first place? I bet they are all a bunch of Ivy League grievance study majors, which now that sanity is returning to a country that was steamrolled by PC bullshit over the last 8 years, can’t find anyone obligated by government force to hire their types anymore.

    The guy is not in office yet, and I already see changes that make the landscape look better. Then again, to paraphrase Tom Cruise’s character from “Tropic Thunder”, a nutless monkey could do a better job than these credentialed elitist progs.

    Thumb up 0

  2. richtaylor365

    Re: the economy and getting folks back to work, Trump said the right things while running, now he has to back it up. Sentiment (small business owners and markets in general) is running high, hence the Trump bump in the stock market, and the promise of 3.5 to 4% GDP growth, something Obama never achieved.

    Alex, was it my imagination or did the guy that got caught (more than once) cutting and pasting another libs arguments (plagiarizing) and pawning them off as his own, did he really accuse you of cutting and pasting your arguments? Wow!! I suspect much of his stuff (anything over 2 sentences) is absconded from another source.

    While watching Sessions’ confirmation hearing this morning, he said over and over ,”I will faithfully follow the laws Congress has passed”, he is already ahead of the game compared to the last 2 A.G.’s, both in understanding (laws are passed by Congress, not the president), and in adherence (the last 2 enforced only those laws Obama supported).

    Thumb up 0

  3. CM

    Oh cool, you’re back to taking about me like I’m not here. Always a good look. Can you say VOLDEMORT?!
    But as you’re making random accusations again I guess I’ll need to ask you to support them with some evidence. WTF are you talking about? Otherwise, by your own rules set out just the other day, I ‘win’.

    Thumb up 0

  4. AlexInCT *

    Alex, was it my imagination or did the guy that got caught (more than once) cutting and pasting another libs arguments (plagiarizing) and pawning them off as his own, did he really accuse you of cutting and pasting your arguments? Wow!! I suspect much of his stuff (anything over 2 sentences) is absconded from another source.

    Do you see me taking him seriously? The only time I cut and past is when I am quoting anyway. Nobody rights them awesome run-on sentences I do otherwise, and it guarantees me that nobody but the crazy people will accuse me of cutting & pasting or try to cut and past my crap.

    Thumb up 0

  5. AlexInCT *

    While watching Sessions’ confirmation hearing this morning, he said over and over ,”I will faithfully follow the laws Congress has passed”, he is already ahead of the game compared to the last 2 A.G.’s, both in understanding (laws are passed by Congress, not the president), and in adherence (the last 2 enforced only those laws Obama supported).

    This is precisely why the left is opposed to his confirmation as well. They fear someone that might take the system and the law seriously and not be a partisan hack. That’s because partisan hackery is what they understand and feel comfortable with. Someone that follows the law is a dangerous cook unwilling to give social justice (which is the opposite of real justice) its due.

    Thumb up 0

  6. richtaylor365

    Oh cool, you’re back to taking about me like I’m not here

    Oh cool, your pathology of delusion rears its ugly head yet again. I made a comment addressed to Alex about the “cut and paste” guy, betrayed by your guilty conscience, you stepped up. Funny, but you (multiple times) you make comments to stogy about Alex, and yet he never whines to you ,”Oh cool, your’e back to talking about me like I’m not here”, poor baby.

     I guess I’ll need to ask you to support them with some evidence. 

    Of the many things I have accused you of here, I have never called you a liar. You know damn well the instances I speak about and if you go to your usual bag of tricks, feign ignorance and say you don’t know what I am talking about then you are indeed a damnable lair. Or, you can just blame your faulty memory, that happens a lot to you.

     

    Thumb up 1

  7. CM

    Of the many things I have accused you of here, I have never called you a liar.

    You’ve recently been banging on about my ‘honesty’ like it’s some new tactic you’ve got going.

    You know damn well the instances I speak about 

    Where I’ve been “cutting and pasting another libs arguments (plagiarizing) and pawning them off as his own”? This is a new accusation (always good to vary things up though). Honestly not sure what you’ve on about. Give me a couple of examples.

    Thumb up 0

  8. stogy

    Nothing is more dangerous and frightening to them and their narrative/agenda than things getting better.

    Damn, CM, I think Alex might be on to us. I really really don’t want things to get better, do you?

    Thumb up 1

  9. richtaylor365

    Honestly not sure what you’ve on about. 

    No, I think you remember perfectly but its not important.

     I really really don’t want things to get better, do you?

    Your flippancy notwithstanding I think you know what Alex meant. But it is more fun to towel snap each other, I get it.

    Thumb up 0

  10. CM

    No, I think you remember perfectly but its not important.

    Sounds important. But if it was just a brain-explosion then we can leave it there and I won’t ask you to support your accusations any further.

    You do realise that your continual alignment with Alex does you absolutely no favours on……well on any front. Anything you accuse anyone else of is constantly in abundant evidence from Alex. Just sayin’, in case you didn’t realise.

    Thumb up 1

  11. AlexInCT *

    Joke all you want, but I know the leftists I work find it frightening that Trump is going to do better than Obama. I saw the same with Boosh. You progs are nothing but predictable.

    Thumb up 0

  12. stogy

    but I know the leftists I work find it frightening that Trump is going to do better than Obama.  I saw the same with Boosh.

    Yup, the global financial crisis was quite the triumph, wasn’t it?

    Thumb up 1

  13. richtaylor365

    Sounds important.

    No, it’s really not, just don’t accuse Alex of cutting and pasting stuff and I won’t bring it up again, easy peasy.

    You do realise that your continual alignment with Alex does you absolutely no favours on……well on any front

    You do realize that I am not looking for your validation, in anything, right?

    When I think Alex is right, I will defend him. Believe it or not I would do the same for you.

    Thumb up 1

  14. ilovecress

    Joke all you want, but I know the leftists I work find it frightening that Trump is going to do better than Obama

    Maybe don’t form your opinions solely based on the people you work with?

    Thumb up 1

  15. Hal_10000

    Maybe don’t form your opinions solely based on the people you work with?

    Alex’s co-workers are astonishingly good at being liberal straw men.

    Thumb up 3

  16. CM

    Lol cress, Hal, and stogy.
    Bring ‘it’ up whenever you like Rich, but I thought Alex had cornered the market on evidence-free accusations. And if you’d defend Alex as you’d defend me, why would you not similarly attack and accuse Alex as you attack and accuse me? Strange.

    Thumb up 1

  17. richtaylor365

    Strange.

    Nothing strange about it. If you can be honest with yourself for just a minute you would admit that Alex and I have had our differences and those differences have appeared on this blog from time to time, no 2 people will ever align in anything 100%. But notice we are talking about Alex and at no time does he morph into a 5 year old with ,”Oh cool, you guys are talking about me like I’m not here”. You, cress, Hal and stogy got a self congratulatory chuckle at his expense, yet no ,”Cut it out guys, quit talking about me like I’m not here’. If you would show the same maturity, maybe I would come to your defense more readily.

    Most (not all, your tend to allow your bias to over reach) of your Trump criticisms are right on target. Most (not all) of your concerns worry the hell out of me as well, and I have said as much right here. Say something I agree with and I will certainly support it.

    Thumb up 0

  18. AlexInCT *

    Alex’s co-workers are astonishingly good at being liberal straw men.

    Actually they are just liberals, Hal, and prone to much worse. We have a lady here that had to take time off to cope with the election results, and now, they even have a puzzle room here for people that need safe-space time. Happens when you work for a hyper feminized company, I guess. I feel sorry for them and people that feel compelled to make excuses for them.

    Thumb up 0

  19. AlexInCT *

    Maybe don’t form your opinions solely based on the people you work with?

    Cress, if it was restricted to that pool of people only (even though they represent the liberal nutscape in toto here), I would agree. This is Connecticut, and the place is replete with these idiots. You find them everywhere. I also suspect that for every one of those that admits they feel that way, there are scores that won’t admit it (especially with someone they might not know). Reality – even if you might not want to admit it – is that there is a huge section of these perpetually aggrieved snowflakes (which also tend to be the ones with the most virtue signaling needs) everywhere and anywhere with the same issue. Just follow the news. Read the comments at Huff Post, CNN, or even PMS-NBC sometime.

    This thing I mention, BTW is not a new phenomenon: I have had this very same conversation before. You may not remember the left making no excuses about wanting to destroy Boosh back in the day, do you? Shit they dd their best (and Obama carried them over the finish line) to have the US lose a war (read up on John Murtha, John Kerry and several others). Why do you think that was (here is a hint: the left liked the legacy of Vietnam and they absofreakinglutely didn’t want a republican winning a war).

    Thumb up 0

  20. CM

    Reich sums up the ‘press conference’ well (from FB post)….

    Tyrants don’t allow open questioning, and they hate the free press. They want total control. Today’s so-called “news conference” (the first time he’s faced reporters in six months) was a sad example:
    1. Trump refused to answer questions from reporters who have run stories he doesn’t like, or from news outlets that have criticized him.
    2. He loaded the audience with paid staffers who cheered his statements and jeered at reporters.

    3. He continued calling the media “dishonest.”
    4. He criticized CNN for dispensing “fake news,” called Buzzfeed “a pile of garbage,” and sarcastically called the BBC “another beauty.”
    It wasn’t a “news conference” at all, and we shouldn’t call it one. It was another Trump reality TV show.

    Thumb up 1

  21. richtaylor365

    First of all you could not pick a more unreliable partisan anti Trumper than Reich, I would not believe anything he said;

    1-Wrong, he did answer all questions put to him.

    2- Please prove that assertion.

    3-They are mostly dishonest, he still needs to answer their questions and not freeze out reporters he does not like.

    4- CNN ran a fake news story, no question. As to this event not being a real news conference, that is his opinion only.

     

    Thumb up 0

  22. CM

    1-Wrong, he did answer all questions put to him.

    “Did any of his associates have specific contacts with Russian officials?” “Did the heads of the intelligence agencies provide you with the two-page summary of these unsubstantiated allegations?”Whether he would reduce or end sanctions on Russia. What a new Republican health care plan might look like. Details of a capital repatriation plan and proposed corporate tax cuts.

    2- Please prove that assertion.
    During the press conference, Mr Trump would deliver a sharp rebuke and be greeted with applause. Mr Trump would crack a joke followed by laughter. Mr Trump would ask a rhetorical question, and get a chorus of responses.
    It was enough to make some viewers wonder whether the normally reserved reporters were throwing their lot in with the soon-to-be president.
    In fact, the animated reactions were coming from Trump supporters, political staff and business employees who were crammed into the Trump Tower lobby along with journalists.
    Given that Mr Trump seems to draw energy from a welcoming crowd, stacking a press conference with a friendly audience may not be a bad idea from a strategic standpoint. It made for an odd experience when juxtaposed with his sometimes aggressive press questioners – and will be even more peculiar if the practice is continued in the White House briefing room.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38565127

    What a complete joke. It’s yet another reality show for him. I have no idea why you’d want to align yourself with such an appalling charade.

    3-They are mostly dishonest.

    Please prove this assertion.

    4- CNN ran a fake news story, no question. As to this event not being a real news conference, that is his opinion only.

    He said the network WAS fake news. Not that they ran a story they shouldn’t have, or that they got something (or some things) wrong. He even seemed to conflate CNN  and buzzfeed.

    The opinion on whether it was an actual “press conference” seems widely agree (rather than just being his as you claim). His active supporters (including, bizarrely, those at the actual “press conference”) notwithstanding.

    You do know that you’re not required to defend this shitshow, right?

    He’s getting off lightly in terms of the press.

    Reich, again on FB:

    The American people have no idea how much money Trump owes and to whom. Let me lay out why this is a huge problem — for America and for soon-to-be President Trump:
    1. During his business career Trump has carried billions of dollars of debt.
    2. Such debts amount to a potentially gigantic conflict of interest, because Trump could “pay off” his debts by making decisions as president that benefit creditors but don’t benefit (or even harm) America.

    3. As to Russia, we know Trump’s business empire has relied on Russian money in the past. In 2008, his son, Donald Jr., told a real estate conference “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” and continued, “we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”
    4. Virtually all money pouring into U.S. assets from Russia has been from hugely-wealthy oligarchs, closely allied with Putin.
    5. But we don’t know the extent to which Trump is now indebted to those Russians. So we don’t know if, as a result, Trump would accommodate Putin’s interests rather than America’s interests.
    6. All we have is Trump’s word for it. Yesterday, Trump tweeted that “Russia has never tried to use leverage over me. I have nothing to do with Russia – no deals, no loans, no nothing!” But we can’t rely on Trump’s tweets. He has lied before.
    7. The reason we don’t know how much Trump owes and to whom is we don’t have financial information on Trump’s debts. He did not include debts on his financial disclosure form from 2016. And Trump hasn’t shared any recent tax returns, which would reveal his debts.
    Without information on Trump’s worldwide debt, and without Trump’s willingness to put his financial holdings into a blind trust administered by an independent trustee, we simply have no way of knowing whether he’ll be making decisions to benefit creditors — including Russian oligarchs — rather than America.
    This is a big reason why his administration begins under a large cloud of distrust.

    Thumb up 0

  23. richtaylor365

    Crickey, did you even watch the press conference yourself”

    He answered the questions about the briefing and about Obamacare (irrelevant whether you like his answers or not). Repatriation- blame the reporter on asking multiple questions, not Trump. Ditto with associates contact/Russian officials, multiple questions, she should have followed up but she didn’t.

    He answered ALL of the prickly questions put to him re: his tax returns, his “Nazi Germany” comment, his friction with the IC, question about Putin helping him win, whether he is vulnerable to blackmail, he answered all of them.

    2- Please prove that assertion.

    You call that proof? You got nothin’. Yeah, he did such a great job of stacking the audience that the biggest press douche (the CNN guy) was front row absolutely closet to him. I heard the fox news guy that was there, he commented that there was no assigned seating, first come first served, and that many news folks could not get in. The clam that Trump stacked the room with sycophants is beyond laughable.

    You do know that you’re not required to defend this shitshow, right?

    “shitshow”, nice, and we are supposed to take anything that you say about Trump seriously? I have my own complaints about his press conference, I certainly don’t have to entertain bullshit complaints from unworthy sources.

    Thumb up 0

  24. richtaylor365

    As mentioned before, he needs to eighty-six the personal insults and name calling, I don’t like it and it’s not presidential. And he needs to treat the press better. He did thank the press corp. (those news outlets that did not run the Buzzfeed story) and said he has great respect for the press corp. But there are a hundred different ways to shame a reporter for asking a stupid/rigged question, you still have to let him ask it.

    Thumb up 0

  25. stogy

    those news outlets that did not run the Buzzfeed story

    Once Buzzfeed ran the documents, that was the story. Any news outlet that didn’t run it with a commentary is deserving of approbation. I don’t see any particular need to single out CNN on this.

    Thumb up 0

  26. ilovecress

    Stogy, I’m not sure I agree with you here. Buzzfeed put the rest of the media in a tricky position, because reporting on the reporting is basically their version of “A lot of people are saying”. Having said that, you could argue that the public interest is in the fact that these documents aren’t verified, but still publicly available.

    CNN were playing the role of Drudge in the Lewinsky scandal here.

    Thumb up 1

  27. stogy

    Having said that, you could argue that the public interest is in the fact that these documents aren’t verified, but still publicly available.

    Well yes, that’s really the argument. I agree that Buzzfeed did indeed put the media in a difficult position, and I am not sure that their decision to publish was right. But most responsible news outlets did point out that it was a considerable possibly that the dossier was indeed fake news and now that it was out, they took on an editorial role of examining whether Buzzfeed’s decision to publish was in the public interest. But it was also important to point at that the 4-chan initial claim of authorship was also quite evidently misinformation. In other words, stopping the spread of further misinformation.

    I think there was reasonable argument that once Buzzed had released the documents, discussion of the decision and the dossier was in the public interest.

    Thumb up 0

  28. CM

    Of course it’s irrelevant if I “don’t like his answers” Rich.
    So multiple questions and lack of followup means that questions can be deemed “answered”? That’s cuckoo.
    No he didn’t answer them all, far from it. Responding with irrelevant gobbledegook is not an answer.

    Stacking the room is what he does. He’s a thin-skinned performer who needs postive affirmation.
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-press-conference-boasted-own-cheering-section
    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-press-conference-paid-staffers-media-233496?cmpid=sf
    http://usuncut.com/politics/trump-paid-people-intimidate-press/

    Thumb up 1

  29. CM

    What’s with the constant misuse of the term ‘fake news’ all the time now? Is the theory that if the term is purposely confused then the actual makers of ‘fake news’ and their defenders can carry on doing what they do and argue ‘but they’re doing it to!’ and idiots will nod in agreement?

    Thumb up 1

  30. stogy

    Excellent question. Right on cue…

    Crying “fake news” has become just another tactic to avoid a fact-based argument.

    The US president-elect, Donald Trump, did it this week after the revelation of the Russian intelligence dossier. It is true the allegations in the dossier had not been verified. There is a legitimate debate in the media about whether, and how fully, it should have been published.
    But it was not fake news. Its was a real dossier and its contents were considered sufficiently credible for the Republican senator John McCain to pass it to the FBI and for federal officials to append a summary to their report to the president, Barack Obama, and Trump about claims of Russian hacking of Democrat emails during the 2016 election. It was a legitimate subject for questioning.
    But the man who denies ever having said things that are actually in print, or recorded, and who routinely asserts things that are obviously and verifiably untrue, had found one more way to avoid being pinned down by questions. Just call it “fake news”

     

    Thumb up 1

  31. richtaylor365

    Of course it’s irrelevant if I “don’t like his answers” Rich.

    Well, it’s nice to see that you understand this, multiple past comments have indicated otherwise.

    So multiple questions and lack of followup means that questions can be deemed “answered”? That’s cuckoo.

    Not what I said, I said ,”Blame the reporter for asking multiple questions”. We come to find out that Flynn was in contact with “Russian officials” right after Obama’s sanctions. That reporter (or others present) should have pushed him on an answer, they didn’t.

     Responding with irrelevant gobbledegook is not an answer.

    Q.E.D.

     Stacking the room is what he does.

    Hah, your own links say you are wrong, next time you should read them. They assert that Trump had his people in the lobby and the hallway of Trump tower to cheer him on. But the audience was made up of news reporters, not Trumpers. Come on, give me some actual links that back up your claim, that Trump stacked the “audience” with paid staffers.

    He’s a thin-skinned performer who needs postive affirmation.

    Yep, just like Obama, 2 peas-same pod.

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  32. AlexInCT *

    He’s a thin-skinned performer who needs postive affirmation.

    I thought you guys were talking about Trump, not Obama (or Hillary for that matter)?…

    Thumb up 0

  33. Santino

    Responding with irrelevant gobbledegook is not an answer.

    I’d say most politicians respond with, let’s call it, relevant gobbledegook.  Sure it sounds better, but at the end of the day questions don’t get answered.  A 5-minute nuanced and eloquent response that tangentially relates to the question is still a pile of garbage, it’s just a little less smelly.

    Thumb up 0

  34. CM

    Multiple questions are fine and happen regularly. That might be a novel excuse but it’s not a valid excuse.

    Reich noted “He loaded the audience with paid staffers who cheered his statements and jeered at reporters.” The links not only confirm that but note the pattern. The ‘audience’ is all people present. Clearly he didn’t mean the reporters themselves as they are the ones being jeered at.

    Santino – the whole point is that Trump refused to answer questions from reporters who have run stories he doesn’t like, or from news outlets that have criticized him.

    Comparing Obama’s thin skin to Trump’s is like comparing body temperature to the sun.

    Thumb up 0

  35. richtaylor365

    . The ‘audience’ is all people present. Clearly he didn’t mean the reporters themselves as they are the ones being jeered at.

    Says the guy complaining about gobbledygook, what a bunch of gobbledygook. The audience was press reporters, this was a press conference after all, folks in the lobby or in the hall are not part of the audience, they are outside the room. You keep failing, show me a link that proves Trump stacked the audience with  his supporters.

    That might be a novel excuse but it’s not a valid excuse.

    More gobbledygook, no excuse was provided.

    Santino – the whole point is that Trump refused to answer questions from reporters who have run stories he doesn’t like, or from news outlets that have criticized him.

    Wrong, He took questions (and answered them) from about 20 reporters, are you honestly saying every one of those reporters represent news organizations friendly to Trump?

    Comparing Obama’s thin skin to Trump’s is like comparing body temperature to the sun.

    More TDS, hopelessly  infected.

     

     

     

    Thumb up 1

  36. stogy

    folks in the lobby or in the hall are not part of the audience, they are outside the room

    Rich, it was very widely reported that they were in the room with the reporters. Here’s Politico:

    On Wednesday morning, when the president-elect once again faced hundreds of reporters from around the globe gathered in his lobby — this time for his first press conference in seven months — Trump filled the room with paid staffers who clapped and cheered as he blasted members of the media as purveyors of “fake news.”

     

    Thumb up 0

  37. richtaylor365

    Rich, it was very widely reported that they were in the room with the reporters. Here’s Politico:

    Widely reported like this?

     A small, vocal group clustered near Trump’s family by the elevators acted as cheerleaders for the President-elect for the duration of the hour-long event, laughing heartily at his jokes and responding aloud to his rhetorical questions.

    I watched the press conference, did you? I’m betting CM didn’t but would rather take Reich’s take on it.

    Here is the original claim;

    He loaded the audience with paid staffers who cheered his statements and jeered at reporters.

    I did hear cheering (from off to the side) but did not hear any “jeering”.

    Another link;

    Applause erupted from Trump’s staff at several points, including when he called BuzzFeed a “failing pile of garbage.”

    This sounds to me like the applause was coming from one conspicuous group of people, the staffers standing around Trump’s kids, not interspersed within the audience.

    Thumb up 0

  38. stogy

    Er… A small vocal group of about 30 staff, while many reporters and journalists were excluded?

    When asked why the Trump team made space for cheering staffers after telling this reporter “we are just at capacity,” Trump’s press director Stephanie Grisham told Gothamist that “there were roughly 30 staff in the room” and that the Trump press team “went above and beyond to give access to as many members of the press as possible.” Grisham also asked if we believed “members of the President-elect’s staff had no right to be there.”
    According to Steve Scott, the president of the New York Press Club though, the point remains that a press conference should only be populated by the press. Scott told Gothamist that:

    A news conference is just that. A news conference. It’s not a pep rally. Mr. Trump will have many opportunities to appear at events at which he is surrounded by cheering supporters. A news conference is not one of those opportunities. News conferences should be reserved for working journalists, and should be devoid of distracting cheers and applause.

    And…

    The Trump transition team told Gothamist that there was no room for this reporter at the press conference “due to space restrictions,” which seems to be contradicted by the fact that there was room for people to cheer the President-elect. Andrew Seaman, the ethics chair at the Society of Professional Journalists, says this was tantamount to excluding the public.
    “Journalists are representatives of the public. Their whole purpose is to be witnesses to history and current events and inform the public of what’s going on,” Seaman told Gothamist when asked about the attendees at the press conference. “When you exclude journalists being present where the President-elect is holding a press conference, and you exclude them from asking questions or being there, in my mind you’re excluding the public.”

    So… and this is from one of Trump’s own staff: there were about 30 staff, plus as your source pointed out, there were family in the wings… that’s hardly a small group. It sounds like quite the circus really.

     

    Thumb up 0

  39. richtaylor365

    So… and this is from one of Trump’s own staff

    As reported by politco which already described it as a cheerleading event so we know where they stand.

    The fownews guy that I heard the other day estimated the group of reporters as well over 200 (searched the internet, can’t find the exact count) 30 staff (If that number is right) does not sound like much to me at all.

    From your link;

    Asked if she knew how many reporters were denied access to the press conference, Grisham replied “No.”

    We have one confirmed reporter that did not get in. Do you really think that any reporter (more than this one) that did not get in due to staffers taking up space, you really think they would be silent about it? The internet would be exploding over this.

    Also your link mentioned that the staffers were all in the back. My link as them with the Trump kids, your has them in the back, no links say they were “loaded”  thru out the audience, as claimed.

    Thumb up 0

  40. stogy

    30 staff (If that number is right) does not sound like much to me at all.

    By my calculation, it’s about 25 more than should have been there for work purposes. They were clearly there to create a carnival atmosphere.

    Granted, CNN have sure made a lot of mistakes over the past couple of years, but no more than some of the other networks and news sources that Trump called on for questions.

    It was a pathetic show of hubris.

    Thumb up 3

  41. richtaylor365

    By my calculation, it’s about 25 more than should have been there for work purposes. 

    If indeed that number is correct, I agree. As to how many supporters were there and where (my links indicated a smaller number than yours and had them in one location only) I hope this is not a trend. I think they were there to show support (applauds and cheers) and not for any carnival atmosphere. Trump is still new at this, I hope Sean dissuades him from continuing this practice, it is a press conference not a rally.

    I also hope folks on your side can gain even a semblance of honesty when reporting anything that has to do with Trump, e.g.  “Trump refused to answer questions from reporters who have run stories he doesn’t like, or from news outlets that have criticized him.”, so dopey, on so many levels.

    http://www.salon.com/2017/01/08/you-have-been-warned-trump-derangement-syndrome-will-be-a-cudgel-used-to-silence-his-critics/

    FFS, too funny.

    Thumb up 0

  42. AlexInCT *

    it is a press conference not a rally.

    If only. It’s Trump meeting with a bunch of hostiles that will fabricate and manipulate every situation to hurt him. And he better remember that and never let his guard down.

    Thumb up 0

  43. richtaylor365

    . And he better remember that and never let his guard down.

    The MSM has been agenda driven, a useful arm of the DNC, for so long that Trump will be better equipped to handle them than Obama ever was.

    Remember the adulation, the hero worship (tingly legs) with Obama (remember this exchange……….ohhgaawwdd) that when they finally came back down to earth and actually did their jobs (To the extent theirs biases would allow) Obama was flummoxed.  He became prickly, impatient, prone to pouting and booted foxnews out altogether.

    Trump has his eyes wide open, he knows where their loyalties still lie so he has no illusions. Show impartiality and openness, call on all reporters and don’t duck any questions. But if (OK, when ) their douchebaggery is revealed, point it out as such and shame the reporter on the spot (the folks will love it and the reporter will gain status with his peers) but then move on, simple.

    Thumb up 0

  44. Hal_10000

    4- CNN ran a fake news story, no question. As to this event not being a real news conference, that is his opinion only.

    Just to jump in here, Rich, this is not true.  CNN had multiple sources who said a briefing occurred and continue to say it occurred.  You, like Trump, are conflating CNN’s reporting of a meeting with Trump and the FBI with Buzzfeed’s publication of the full article. CNN did not publish the 35-page report.  Not fake news.  Not even close. Just news Trump doesn’t like.

    Note also that Buzzfeed simply published an existing report.  As John Schindler pointed out, it’s not “fake”, it raw Human Intelligence.  Raw reports like that include EVERYTHING — facts, rumors, innuendo, etc. This is why the rest of the media refused to publish it because that’s nowhere near a real intelligence report.  It’s basically an intelligence source saying, “I talked to a bunch of folks, this is what they said.” Until it is confirmed, no one would take it seriously.

    Trump’s attitude toward the press is getting alarming, wanting to ban reporters he doesn’t like and demanding obsequiousness.  It’s ridiculous.

    Thumb up 1

  45. Hal_10000

    Also, cries of “fake news” from Trump are hilarious. The man is a pathological liar who revels in conspiracy theories. He pushed the birther bullshit for years. He has claimed that crime is at a 50-year high, that 90 million people are unemployed, etc. (claims which many commenters on this blog mindlessly repeat).  He’s in with the Breitbart crowd and the Alex Jones crowd, both of which publish bullshit stories all the time.  This is truly the pot calling the kettle black.

    I said on Twitter the other night that I would stop making pee jokes about Trump with the same speed with which he stopped saying Obama wasn’t born in the US.

    Thumb up 2

  46. richtaylor365

    Just to jump in here, Rich, this is not true.

    Oh, goodie, we are going to rehash this old story. CNN has been bashed enough for their complicit-ness in disseminating a story even the NYT thought better of, an unsubstantiated fact free dog and pony show that they sat on for a year (and still could not substantiate it), yet published it now as a legitimate news story. An  ethics breach of such breathtaking proportions that that their usual cohorts are crying foul;

    3. I accurately characterized the memos-this is important stuff-but didn’t publish details. Even Donald Trump deserves journalistic fairness

    But the “fake news” aspect of the report I was referring to was the part about Trump getting a 2 page summary of the allegations and they all chatted about it in the meeting, un-verified;

    President-elect Donald Trump was not told about unverified reports that Russia has compromising information on him during last week’s intelligence briefing, according to a senior intelligence official with knowledge of preparations for the briefing.

    A summary of the unverified reports was prepared as background material for the briefing, but not discussed during the meeting, the official said. During Trump’s press conference Wednesday morning, the president-elect said he was made aware of the information “outside that meeting.”

    One more;

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/25129-trump-never-got-2-page-summary-of-allegations-intel-director-backpedals

    This is truly the pot calling the kettle black.

    Given what he have seen with both Obama and Clinton, I would shelve all those pot/kettle comparisons re: honesty.

    Thumb up 0

  47. Hal_10000

    And here’s Clapper saying Trump was briefed. Even if CNN was wrong, it was not “fake news”. It was sourced to multiple points and referred to a document that actually existed. That’s not even close to the stories Trump has repeated that were complete and total bullshit.

    Thumb up 1

  48. richtaylor365

    And here’s Clapper saying Trump was briefed.

    Don’t quit your day job, you would make a rotten lawyer. First off, go look up the word “hint” in your dictionary (it is used several times in your link), no where in your link does Clapper confirm that the 2 page document was shared with Trump at the Friday meeting. He does “hint” that it might have been shared “Out of an abundance of caution”, but was it shared at the original meeting on Friday, or the follow up meeting with Trump where Clapper needed to apologize to Trump for all the leaks?

    Sorry Hal, you will have to do better refuting Trump’s original claim that he learned about it “outside of the Friday meeting”.

    Thumb up 0

  49. AlexInCT *

    PISS GATE!

    Seriously, that people that love all sorts of criminal and devious things feel this should be a disqualifying thing baffles me. When Bill didled the intern with the cigar or raped all those women, people attacked the women that accused him and people that had problems with someone in a position of authority doing crap like that.

    Now somehow Trump being related to water sports is what? If the story was about him pissing on a chubby intern, then these people would be OK with it?

    Thumb up 0

  50. CM

    Well Alex you don’t seem to understand that the ‘grab her by the pussy’ thing is about abuse of power, so there’s reason for you to understand that the ‘golden shower’ thing is about national security. Locker room talk or not, wanting to see girls pissing on a bed slept in my the Obamas – these are not the most important aspects of each.

    Thumb up 0

  51. CM

    And yes, Clinton abused his power with Lewinsky. Absolutely. We know that for sure. The rape allegations are still unproven, just like all of the specific allegations against Trump.

    Thumb up 0

  52. AlexInCT *

    Well Alex you don’t seem to understand that the ‘grab her by the pussy’ thing is about abuse of power

    Did you really fucking go there? What do you call diddling an intern with a cigar when you are the president of the United State? What about running a sham non profit that basically serves as a laundry operation for trading American treasure and American people’s future for personal gain? Or having a server in some dude’s bathroom so you can hide the illegal pay-for-play shit you are doing? What about sicking the IRS and DOJ on your political enemies? After the shit the Clintons and Obama have been doing, both on the direct abuse of government power and the downright nasty shit the left tells us should be private and nobody’s business, nobody can talk about some guy talking dirty as abuse of power. That is, unless they are simply desperate to make a mountain out of a molehill while ignoring real abuses of power.

    See the difference between us – again – is that I know the difference between abuse of power and political grandstanding. People say far worse things than “grab her by the pussy”. I have done it. I have heard women do it. I have read a book where the secret service detailed the usual Hillary tirades and her condescending and downright haughty attitude towards those she deeps the plebs is downright horrible.  And yet, here you are talking about Trump talking dirty.

    Fucking sad.

    And yes, Clinton abused his power with Lewinsky. Absolutely. We know that for sure.

    I am far more concerned about his lying – under oath – about it and then using the political and legal machine to hide behind it. To me, that was abuse of power. I don’t give a flying fuck what he did with an ugly chubby intern. BTW, his wife makes him look downright decent in comparison. To borrow an analogy from you leftists whom seem to not know either history nor reality: she was a real possible Hitler.

     

    The rape allegations are still unproven,

    Bullshit. He is a rapist. Had the law or the DNC operatives with bylines that made excuses for him really investigated him, they would know that was so. He spouts the right ideological nonsense, so he was not just given a pass by people that now pretend Trump is the antichrist, but they covered for him. In fact, I suspect they know he is a rapist but still cover for him because they are morally bankrupt fucks whose only standard is a double standard.

    just like all of the specific allegations against Trump.

    Yeah, sure. Again. Without a double standard the left would have none. I hope they keep this shit going. Every day I see more people realizing how desperate they are, and actually moving away from the left.

    As I said, the left is in a panic because their core beliefs have been rejected with this Trump victory. So now they flail widely and madly, making a mockery out of what little credibility they could have salvaged.  They feel obligated to do whatever they can to make him fail. Unfortunately for the left, reality will intrude on that desperate fantasy.

    Thumb up 0

  53. CM

    nobody can talk about some guy talking dirty as abuse of power. 

    Well it used to be that you might be able to talk about it. But not now. Now you’re as bad as them. Or perhaps showing that you always were. But don’t worry, you’re far from being alone.

     People say far worse things than “grab her by the pussy”. I have done it. 

    Um, didn’t you just concede the actual issue is about an abuse of power (and in Trump’s case boasting about abusing power, suggesting that he just didn’t/doesn’t give a shit, presumably it’s a “PC concept” or some such). It’s not relevant what people who aren’t in a position of power say.

     And yet, here you are talking about Trump talking dirty.

    Nope, again, the issue isn’t that he’s talking about pussy.

    Fucking sad.

    Agreed but probably for different reasons than you’re thinking.

    To borrow an analogy from you leftists whom seem to not know either history nor reality: she was a real possible Hitler.

    Again demonstrating that there really is little difference between you and those you rail against.

    Bullshit. He is a rapist.

    Again, neither Clinton nor Trump have been convicted, so the most you can say for either is ‘alleged’.

    their core beliefs have been rejected with this Trump victory. 

    Trump won by the equivalent of a stadium of people, who were living in the right place. Romney and Kerry got more votes than Trump, with a lower number of eligible voters. Hillary was more popular (got more votes) than Trump across the country by some margin, as you well know. So I’m not sure how that claim works. As for some of them being “in a panic”, well that may be true. If I was an American of any political persuasion I’d certainly be concerned.

    They feel obligated to do whatever they can to make him fail.

    Again, how exactly is this different from stopping Obama (by obstructing, Birtherism, or however/whatever might else might work)?

    Alex what are your thoughts on the fact that Trump has done nothing meaningful at all to address all his business conflicts of interest before he takes office? Do you just trust him because you’re a fanboy?

    Thumb up 0

  54. CM

    Unfortunately for the left, reality will intrude on that desperate fantasy.

    And there you were, for years, railing against stimulus and the Keynesian idea that spending can be helpful to an economy. Interesting.

    Not to mention that you think widening the current account deficit, and protectionist U.S. trade measures resulting in retaliatory responses (with all countries then losing out) are also somehow positive.

    Thumb up 0

  55. richtaylor365

    CM, A non snarky question, do you view rock stars who take advantage of the free sex thrown at them, do you view this relationship as an abuse of power? Ditto with the Hollywood celebrity who is out for a beer and a female fan approaches with ,”I give the best blowjobs you will ever have” (Have seen exactly this happen more than a few times when I was in LA) is this an abuse of power? In these situations who has the real power anyway?

    Alex what are your thoughts on the fact that Trump has done nothing meaningful at all to address all his business conflicts of interest before he takes office?

    See, this is why it is so difficult to take anything you say seriously. Did you even watch the pres conference? I mean that dopey Reich did not comment on it, so I guess nothing else happened, right?

    And there you were, for years, railing against stimulus and the Keynesian idea that spending can be helpful to an economy. Interesting.

    Not really, Trump is taking an entirely different approach with tax cuts and removing burdensome regulations, 2 of the best things I can think of for juicing an economy.

    Not to mention that you think widening the current account deficit, and protectionist U.S. trade measures resulting in retaliatory responses (with all countries then losing out) are also somehow positive.

    The deficit is worrisome, but just blow it out the first year, one point whatever trillion, then slowly reduce it from there, folks like Hal will sing his praises. And all that stuff about protectionist policies and tariffs, let’s just see what happens first, I know, an absolutely crazy concept.

     

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  56. CM

    CM, A non snarky question, do you view rock stars who take advantage of the free sex thrown at them, do you view this relationship as an abuse of power? Ditto with the Hollywood celebrity who is out for a beer and a female fan approaches with ,”I give the best blowjobs you will ever have” (Have seen exactly this happen more than a few times when I was in LA) is this an abuse of power? In these situations who has the real power anyway?

    They are taking advantage of their power, but no, they’re not abusing it if there is no existing power relationship (like employment) and the star is being actively sought out and propositioned. But that is quite different to Trump, who boasted about his ability to undertake non-consensual sexual acts (i.e. commit sexual abuse, which is a crime, no way around that) because of his star power in the given situation.

    As for Clinton, there was an established power relationship and he did not respect it (so it’s difficult to claim it was consensual as she may possibly have made a different choice if he wasn’t essentially her boss).

    See, this is why it is so difficult to take anything you say seriously. Did you even watch the pres conference?

    Yes I did. Tell me though, in your mind what measures as described do ANYTHING meaningful at ending any conflicts of interest? An assortment of unmarked folders? Someone else controling the companies even though he’ll still profit and therefore still has complete ability to enrich himself through his Presidential actions?

    Not really, Trump is taking an entirely different approach with tax cuts and removing burdensome regulations, 2 of the best things I can think of for juicing an economy.

    Tax cuts and spending. Which is what the evil communist stimulus was.

    It’s like ‘saving’ the Carrier jobs. Obama saved the auto-industry (significantly more jobs) and he was an evil communist for doing so.

    And all that stuff about protectionist policies and tariffs, let’s just see what happens first, I know, an absolutely crazy concept.

    Tell that to Alex, he’s the one telling us this will happen.

    Oh that’s right, I forgot about the whole ‘completely different rules for different people’ thing. See, this is why it is so difficult to take anything you say seriously.

    Thumb up 2

  57. richtaylor365

    I thought it would be more fun watching you contort yourself like a pretzel with convoluted logic, it wasn’t, way too predictable.

    But that is quite different to Trump

    Nope, same damn thing, or do you not understand common English (always a possibility). You have zero proof that he did anything “against their will”, nothing. Look back at what he actually said, not what you think he said, “They let you do it, you can do anything, grab them by the pussy, you can do anything”. Much like ,”Can you believe it? I could shoot someone on 5th Ave. and they wouldn’t care”, or do you really think he shot someone on 5th ave.? Of course you have no proof that he ever grabbed anyone anywhere. Trump is bragging to another guy that these groupies let him do anything, it’s crazy. Elvis bragged about the same thing, he could do whatever he wanted. And how sexist of you to think that a woman would not benefit to some degree by having any sexual encounter with a famous person.

    As for Clinton, there was an established power relationship and he did not respect it (so it’s difficult to claim it was consensual as she may possibly have made a different choice if he wasn’t essentially her boss).

    Well, thank you, Captain Obvious.

    Tell me though, in your mind what measures as described do ANYTHING meaningful at ending any conflicts of interest?

    Not going to do your work for you. He covered several of these things in his press conference, watch it again.

    Oh that’s right, I forgot about the whole ‘completely different rules for different people’ thing. See, this is why it is so difficult to take anything you say seriously.

    Crickey, aren’t you smart enough to figure out that my caution to you to wait see if “A” turns out bad applies in equal measure to anyone saying “A” will turn out good?

     

     

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  58. AlexInCT *

    And there you were, for years, railing against stimulus and the Keynesian idea that spending can be helpful to an economy. Interesting.

    I still firmly believe Keynesian economics are a losing proposition. There is no way you can tax and spend yourself into prosperity. For that to actually be a viable system, you would have to prove that government does a better job than the private sector at not just spending money, but at creating wealth, but more importantly, only a fucking liar hoping to steal from people under the guise of some idiotic notion of social justice can convincingly make that argument. And then, the only people receptive to these lies are dumb ass people, driven more by envy and greed, than people that can think logically. No entity does more poorly at creating prosperity and wealth than government (there is a reason that after 100 years of this shit all we have to show for it is 100 million dead and billions in misery). There is a reason that no matter how much money government wastes on useless programs, when things fail, it is always followed by the brilliant statement that the problem was not enough money was pissed away, too. Even the Chinese, whom all the collectivists like to hold up as the example of successful central planning, are about to go boom. That system is not sustainable, and their economy is about to take a hit from doing so much of it.

    What will get the economy going, and what has everyone really excited, is the promise to get rid of most of the stupid regulation and government meddling. And a tax cut will help too if we can get these people to just spend less. They can certainly do that if they roll back the fucking welfare state we have today that rewards people for avoiding being productive.

    BTW, people acting all butthurt and worried about Trumps’ promise to equalize the field love to pretend what he is doing is basically unilaterally proposing to institute tariffs. But that is not what he has said. His point – especially about China – is that they have rigged the game against us, and he plans to end that. Their government subsidizes their businesses and has laws that make it hard for us to sell things there, in addition to manipulating their currency to gain the greatest favor from it, while we here play by the rules. I am probably one of the biggest proponents of free trade, but then, only when both (or all) sides play by the same rules. Right now nobody is playing by the rules but the US, and that is why we are hurting so bad. I for one am all for telling these other countries that if they cheat the game to benefit themselves far more than the system should be allowing, we will too.

    Thumb up 1

  59. AlexInCT *

    Um, didn’t you just concede the actual issue is about an abuse of power (and in Trump’s case boasting about abusing power, suggesting that he just didn’t/doesn’t give a shit, presumably it’s a “PC concept” or some such). It’s not relevant what people who aren’t in a position of power say.

    What I said was that claiming women throw themselves at you – even if you do it vulgarly – for whatever reason, is NOT an abuse of power. The woman Trump was talking about was neither in his chain or command nor susceptible to pressure from him. That was not the case for the chubby ugly intern. The left has created this nonsense that any man that isn’t one with the right ideology saying things they don’t like, is abusing power. After all, patriarchy or whatever idiotic shit they are teaching morons in those various studies programs these days.

    Abuse of power – the real thing – is when you fuck people over, not just hope to fuck them, like the democrats do constantly, and Obama and the Clintons specialize in. And you seem to not have a problem with them doing any of that, as you spend a lot of time being careful to appear neutral (while not giving the other side any of that benefit of the doubt). Go reread my post, and as Rich suggested, use an English dictionary to see if that helps you actually see what people wrote instead of whatever you want to pretend they did. Anyway, you can erect whatever strawman you want to try and claim victory knocking down, but my point is that the left is full of shit when it acts as if inconsequential things done by their political enemies are abuse and then turns a blind eye to, or worse, makes vapid excuses for, the real abuses going on constantly across the board from its people.

    I am off to go grab me some pussy now.

    Thumb up 0

  60. AlexInCT *

    Want to know how big the backlash against the idiocy of the left is? Check this out. It doesn’t surprise me a bit that the people most enthoused by a Trump presidency are the ones hit hardest by the reality of all the failures of collectivism and its idiotic dogma, while those throwing the tantrums tend to be the credentialed elites – but especially the ones that were getting stinking rich milking the corrupt and broken shit the left put in place – and those useful idiots least likely to bear the brunt of the indubitable failures these policies turn out to be. I wonder how the people of, lets say Cuba or Venezuela for example, are feeling about this Trump victory vis a vis their own situation…

    No I don’t. I am sure they have the same feelings the Brazilians, and for that matter a wide swath of people left behind or fucked over by collectivism and its tyranny and failures, do.

    Thumb up 0

  61. Hal_10000

    See, this is why it is so difficult to take anything you say seriously. Did you even watch the pres conference?

    Yes. And his “plan” for eliminating conflicts of interest is a sham.

    The deficit is worrisome, but just blow it out the first year, one point whatever trillion, then slowly reduce it from there, folks like Hal will sing his praises

    When Obama took office, the deficit was $1.1 trillion.  Today it’s half that.  If Trump cuts the deficit in half, I will note it.

    Of course you have no proof that he ever grabbed anyone anywhere.

    Well, except for the couple of dozen women who have accused him of exactly that.

    Thumb up 0

  62. stogy

    Want to know how big the backlash against the idiocy of the left is? 

    Backlash? I met a bunch of Hawaiians last week while I was in the US. They told me they thought the Trump presidency would be great for the Hawaiian sovereignty movement.

    Is that the kind of backlash you were talking about? Cause I didn’t meet  anyone who was talking about any other kind of backlash.

    Thumb up 0

  63. richtaylor365

    Yes. And his “plan” for eliminating conflicts of interest is a sham.

    Says you, and I would expect you to call it as such, that solved a lot.

    When Obama took office, the deficit was $1.1 trillion.  Today it’s half that.  If Trump cuts the deficit in half, I will note it.

    Obama’s first budget deficit was $1.4 trillion, then slowly reduced it from there. If Trump does something similar you should at least be consistent and praise him to the heavens.

    Well, except for the couple of dozen women who have accused him of exactly that.

    Is that including the ones that already recanted? Like a good fish story, the numbers increase with the retelling. Trump is a rich guy, if any of these hold merit than by all means, sue him civilly. But don’t make the ridiculous leap from what he said on that bus to somehow he assaults women against their will.

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  64. AlexInCT *

    Backlash? I met a bunch of Hawaiians last week while I was in the US. They told me they thought the Trump presidency would be great for the Hawaiian sovereignty movement.

    We have a bunch of douches in California saying the same thing. So let me repost what I said:

    It doesn’t surprise me a bit that the people most enthoused by a Trump presidency are the ones hit hardest by the reality of all the failures of collectivism and its idiotic dogma, while those throwing the tantrums tend to be the credentialed elites – but especially the ones that were getting stinking rich milking the corrupt and broken shit the left put in place – and those useful idiots least likely to bear the brunt of the indubitable failures these policies turn out to be.

    Like the idiots in CA saying they want to secede, I bet your Hawaiian contacts are part and parcel of the credentialed elitist class now butthurt that their religious beliefs have been challenged, and they react like spoiled children. That’s what happens when you substitute old time religion with this collectivist nonsense and make government the new god. When it fails, as it will always do, you are left having to either accept you are an idiot for believing in this shit, or do this sort of stupid shit. I still remember when we were told this sort of dissent was totally unpatriotic, un-American, dangerously subversive, and vile, when the turds thought Hillary would win. And it gets quite worse with these brats – basically the old subversive and terroristic communist guard that plagued the Boosh years, going underground when Obama doubled down on the things they claimed made Boosh a warmonger and America a criminal element, and now returning because it is not one of them in charge – as their tantrum goes dangerous. Can you imagine the reaction from these douches if this had been done when Obama was elected?

    Thumb up 0

  65. richtaylor365

    And just to re iterate, knowing what short memories you guys have, my position on his perceived conflicts of interests re: his businesses has remained unchanged. Short of liquidating everything, nothing he can do in this area will satisfy his critics. Removing himself from the day to day operations, donating all foreign profits (including his NY and Washington properties) to the Treasury and hiring an independent compliance officer, these are enough for me. Trump has a right to keep his fortune intact, whether you like it or not. And whether any of you think these steps are “meaningful”, who cares?

    Thumb up 0

  66. AlexInCT *

    And just to re iterate, knowing what short memories you guys have, my position on his perceived conflicts of interests re: his businesses has remained unchanged. Short of liquidating everything, nothing he can do in this area will satisfy his critics. 

    Even that will not be enough. They will find another reason to feel he should be disqualified. That’s because the end goal of this circus is to make Trump unable to function (especially this). That’s is what is driving the tantrum.

    Thumb up 0

  67. AlexInCT *

    Obama’s first budget deficit was $1.4 trillion, then slowly reduced it from there.

    I have a feeling when we finally get real accounting done by the adults now taking over – you know, someone goes back and actually puts together the budgets that we have not had for the last 7 years, all so they could hide how much they were really spending, and on what – we will find that the deficit reduction being claimed is not only inaccurate, but likely never happened.

    Thumb up 0

  68. Hal_10000

    Obama’s first budget deficit was $1.4 trillion, then slowly reduced it from there.

    Ugh. Do we have to go through this every fucking time? The FY 2009 budget was Bush’s last. It had a deficit of $1.1 trillion.  Obama’s stimulus increased it to $1.4 trillion.  So Obama comes in to a $1.1 trillion deficit, leaves with a $500 billion one.  Including this year, federal spending has increased by an average of 2% with Obama and the Republican Congress, the lowest sustained spending increase since Coolidge and one below GDP growth, so it has effectively shrunk the size of govt from 25% of GDP to 20%.

    But keep trying. I’m sure you can make the math work out one day.

    Thumb up 0

  69. CM

    CM, A non snarky question, 

    I thought it would be more fun watching you contort yourself like a pretzel with convoluted logic, it wasn’t, way too predictable.

    Wow, what a dick move that was.

    Nope, same damn thing

    Not at all.

    You have zero proof that he did anything “against their will”, nothing. Look back at what he actually said, not what you think he said, “They let you do it, you can do anything, grab them by the pussy, you can do anything”. 

    Talk about contorting into a pretzel. You’re now also an apologist for sexual assault – congratulations. Grabbing someone in a sexual way without being invited (and “grabbing” is a big clue there) is sexual assault, whether you like it or not. The “letting” must naturally come after. Which is why he says “I don’t even wait” (look at the other comments). He talked of “moving” on women (“like a bitch”). Yet you’re trying to compare this to someone actively seeking out a rock star and openly propositioning them? WTF dude.

    Trump: “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful – I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.”

    I.e. he forces himself on them

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/

    And how sexist of you to think that a woman would not benefit to some degree by having any sexual encounter with a famous person.

    I’m sure some would. But the point is that they don’t get to choose. They have to decide whether to stop the uninvited advances and whether to do anything about it. It’s people like you that make it very difficult for them to do anything about it.

    Well, thank you, Captain Obvious.

    Wow you can’t help being snarky when we agree on something. What a guy. It’s like you’re actively wanting to double-down on your dick move.

    Not going to do your work for you. He covered several of these things in his press conference, watch it again.

    As Hal notes, it was a sham.

    For someone who bizarrely tries to claim he’s not an active Trump supporter, you’re doing a terrible job.

    Crickey, aren’t you smart enough to figure out that my caution to you to wait see if “A” turns out bad applies in equal measure to anyone saying “A” will turn out good?

    Aren’t you smart enough to figure out that it was Alex who claimed that it was going to be reality? Again, why are trying to tell me this?

    BTW you can probably stop saying “I don’t care” all the time, it’s meaningless. We don’t care that you don’t care.

    Thumb up 0

  70. AlexInCT *

    Including this year, federal spending has increased by an average of 2% with Obama and the Republican Congress, the lowest sustained spending increase since Coolidge and one below GDP growth, so it has effectively shrunk the size of govt from 25% of GDP to 20%.

    Only someone seriously confused or with an agenda pretends reducing the predicted growth in government spending somehow equates to savings or shrinking. The fact is that spending has gone up.

    And while he was in charge, Obama is not the one to blame solely for that: congress is. And they have been doing it since forever too, so this seems to be what we are stuck with. Can’t blame a guy for wanting them to spend less than they did a year before for a while, though. Especially if that comes from getting rid of the welfare state and shrinking government

    I got me a boner, man..

    Thumb up 0

  71. richtaylor365

    Ugh. Do we have to go through this every fucking time?

    One of the mysteries over the years is, about twice a year, you try to revise the Obama deficit numbers, and I don’t know why. it’s not like they are not readily accessible, yet you still try to snooker the readers here. Last year I decided to just book mark the CBO numbers, figuring old tricks die hard;

    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

    These are the Senate Budget Committee numbers.

    The official CBO numbers are even worse;

    https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/budget-economic-data#2

    their numbers;

    2009- $1.549 trillion

    2010-$1.371

    2011-$1.366

    2012-$1.149

    2013-$ 719 billion

    2014-$515 billion

    2015-$465 billion

    The only thing you got right was that the deficits have been decreasing, but that trend will reverse big time this year, a tad under $600 billion, not $500 billion (still under Obama’s watch)

    We can bicker about which year Obama gets the blame, even assuming 2009 is on Bush, 2010 is all Obama, $1.371 trillion (like what I said).

    I don’t know why we keep having this dance.

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  72. AlexInCT *

    I don’t know why we keep having this dance.

    Oh come one now Rich, you are letting me down doing by trying to not say what you should. Recall the adage that “If you tell a lie enough times, many start to believe it”, and think hard about the people desperate to prove Obama isn’t the disaster he has been. Given that, we know damned well why we have to repeat this dance with these players.

    There is a lot of shit that these people have spent the last 8 years telling us are “facts  that we are going to suddenly see the usual types do a 180 on. Especially if the facts make Obama look bad or Trump look good (or even better than Obama). I expect some massive cognitive dissonance as well, as these people that only have a double standard, try to have it both ways…

    Thumb up 0

  73. CM

    You call that proof? You got nothin’. Yeah, he did such a great job of stacking the audience that the biggest press douche (the CNN guy) was front row absolutely closet to him. I heard the fox news guy that was there, he commented that there was no assigned seating, first come first served, and that many news folks could not get in. The clam that Trump stacked the room with sycophants is beyond laughable.

    It did it again.

    CBS News confirmed reports that President Donald Trump brought a studio audience to his visit with the CIA on Saturday. The news agency reports that an official said the visit left a wake of “unease,” “made relations with the intelligence community worse,” and was “uncomfortable.”
    Intelligence people were “stunned” and “offended by the president’s tone,” CBS reported U.S. government sources tell CBS News that there is a sense of unease in the intelligence community after President Trump’s visit to CIA headquarters on Saturday.”
    Also, Trump did bring cheering props, which fits with how he has operated previously in requiring a cheering section – a sort of laugh track of supportive extras like those his campaign hired for his announcement event. It has been confirmed by Trump insiders that the President loves props.
    “Authorities are also pushing back against the perception that the CIA workforce was cheering for the president. They say the first three rows in front of the president were largely made up of supporters of Mr. Trump’s campaign,” CBS continued.

    http://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/23/cbs-confirms-reports-donald-trump-brought-cheering-props-cia-visit.html

    Beyond laughable indeed.

    Thumb up 0

View Mobile Site