Now that Donald Trump has Won

Rym 2016-12-30 20:44:29 UTC #1

Original thread:

Last post - Dec 29 2016:

Kate Monster:

The right was outraged over unsubstantiated rumors that funds from the Clintons' charity may have enriched the Clintons personally. The same people couldn't care less when actual evidence shows that Trump's charity was actually used to pay for luxury items and settlements from Trump's misdeeds and unethical, illegal business practices? How entrenched in the dogma of the right are they? The hypocrisy of it makes me ill.

Rym 2016-12-30 20:49:34 UTC #2

He's an open puppet at this point. It's just amazing.

I have zero faith that the GOP will itself actually do anything about this. They're corrupt to the core.

cremlian 2016-12-30 20:51:37 UTC #3

How knew that Trump would lead the Republicans to loving Putin......

sK0pe 2016-12-31 07:40:09 UTC #4

I find it really strange that this isn't being blown up in traditional media amongst the normal populace. There has been anti-Russian sentiment for some time in the US due to the cold war. Plus quite a bit of unease with the questionable actions that Putin has done while in power.

Trump is like Teflon, nothing sticks to him.

How are his kids still able to run all his business ventures. Can the US President just fill out important roles in Government with the most heinous individuals and not be held accountable?

I think in part it may be the staunch "I'm with this party" attitude in the US that whenever Trump is called out on stupidity, his supporters think they are personally also being attacked.

The political part of American society blows my mind.

Greg 2016-12-31 08:04:16 UTC #5

His appointments have to be approved by the Senate (mostly). Our system of checks and balances has been preserved -- but it has been crippled by dichotomous partisan politics and refusal to fix what defects are in our Constitution (which were the two things Washington warned us about in his parting speech, but I'll save the rest of that rant for the history thread).

Axel 2016-12-31 15:44:44 UTC #6

Yeah, the problem ultimately becomes that we've developed a culture around parties supporting their president no matter what, even when it's bad. Each party doesn't want to look weak, so they believe in making their president look correct all the time by always backing them, and making the other party's president look awful by ensuring nothing gets done. If the Republicans literally almost halted the government under Obama (multiple times), then they aren't going to start admitting that Trump is a monster and block his appointments.

Banta 2016-12-31 15:54:49 UTC #7

rastergrafx 2016-12-31 22:39:04 UTC #8

Russian malware found.

Oh boy, he's fucked now.

hmtksteve 2017-01-03 17:06:12 UTC #9

Has anyone seen a good article on the ethics changes Republicans are putting into the new House rules? Not looking for "OMG LAZERS PEW PEW PEW DEY DESTROY COUNTRY" or "just moving the deck chairs" types of articles. I am looking for some serious analysis regarding the issue.

DoubleGomez 2017-01-03 17:35:40 UTC #10

False alarm apparently

Greg 2017-01-03 17:51:15 UTC #11

In case anyone isn't a Mel Brooks nut, here's the reference

hmtksteve 2017-01-03 18:03:22 UTC #12

I do not see that in his twitter feed...

Since I hit a new user reply limit I guess I have to edit this post and respond?

@greg, why are you spreading fake news?

Greg 2017-01-03 18:04:24 UTC #13

Yeah I made it. It wasn't supposed to be taken seriously.

Greg 2017-01-03 18:29:24 UTC #14

If that image is fake news, you ought to be indicting The Onion too. I'm not ready for a world where farce is unacceptable.

lackofcheese 2017-01-03 19:06:48 UTC #15

In order to not pose a risk of being "fake news", it needs to be evident that something is farce. The Onion is not problematic precisely because the very fact of being on The Onion is clear evidence that something isn't serious.

Your example is not self-evidently fake, and so (absent clarification) it is indeed at risk of being "fake news".

Rym 2017-01-03 19:11:38 UTC #16

It is assumed that all images of tweets are fake unless verified.

Greg 2017-01-03 19:18:46 UTC #17

Basically what Rym said. I expect people to have enough doubt to not believe everything they read. If the public is no longer skeptical of unknown sources, we have much greater problems than my fake tweet.

lackofcheese 2017-01-03 19:23:55 UTC #18

Unfortunately, this is kind of how things are; we do have much greater problems.

Obviously one should be skeptical by default, and on this forum it's probably reasonable to assume that most people will be.

However, assuming that the general populace will be appropriately skeptical is rather naïve, and to the extent that you can easily avert accidentally misinforming people it's a good thing to do so.

Greg 2017-01-03 19:26:11 UTC #19

To be fair, when I posted it to the general public (Twitter) I prefaced it by saying "THIS IS NOT REAL" in all caps just like that. The preface didn't occur to me when posting on the Forum because I know my audience.

DoubleGomez 2017-01-03 19:48:51 UTC #20

Considering that someone else posted an actual unsubstantiated new story in this thread before you I think your joke tweet about reactionary gasbag Reince Priebus was a rather restrained bit of parody