I have put forth this theory and as I said earlier I flip back and forth on it all the time. Clearly he ran a genius general election campaign with respect to media management and general strategy while spending extremely little money. Even if you hate him or you dislike his style of campaigning (I dislike his style!) you must recognize that on the campaign front his instincts were remarkable. Now the question following this is can campaigning "genius" be converted to a "genius" in governing? The jury is still out on this and again I think it is wrong to not at least ask yourself the question. When I ask it of myself I consider his behaviour and say "If he is a genius and his style is intentional what could be long term benefits of his current behaviour and how would that compare to the long term risk?". I have some theories that I doubt any of you care about but when I break it down I still see some possible benefits of his continued "politically provocative rhetoric/actions" even though I personally find the style to be distasteful (a point which I have been consistent on since I said he could win many months ago). The biggest problem with the #resistance, the democratic party, and of course the AMT is the level of certainty you all have. By thinking you're infallible you are tempting fate instead.
I don't think you can call Hillary a horrible candidate and Trump's campaign a genius strategy at the same time. it's one or the other.
I have zero idea how the media got it so horribly wrong with their estimates of him having as low as a 3% chance of winning the election. But I don't think he was brilliant. I think he goofed his way into the white house. Looking back, I think had it been any other republican candidate the margin of victory would have been much bigger.
I think it can be both. I also think what started with a lot of "goofing" became more tailored as time went on even if the style was still objectionable.
so winning a race against a horrible candidate is genius? is michael jordan declared the greatest of all time because he beat ricky gervais in a game of 21?
I honestly think he was winging it the whole time. looking back at his speeches, they were all off the cuff, nothing of substance, rambling, "bing bing bing" and whatnot. it wasn't genius or calculated. it seems clear now that a rabid monkey could have beat hillary. and he did.
There was certainly some degree of winging it. I said he was making it up as he went along many times. There were "instincts" though that subconsciously were very accurate in terms of messaging. We can laugh about the meaning of Make America Great Again but just as Yes We Can was brilliant so was MAGA. Both shallow as hell but both equally brilliant. In terms about running against Hillary it is not just that but his defeat of the entire Republican establishment. Part of that was recognizing the timing in running during a race that was ready to be Bush vs Clinton. Sometimes genius is recognizing moments of opportunity and his instincts were right that this was the time that Americans (a percentage anyway) would be ready for an outsider. I believe that he was completely surprised that his strategy worked in the end but that doesn't make his strategy any less "smart". I am also not convinced that another republican would have won even though I supported every other republican before Trump. The want for an "outsider" was pretty paramount...anybody else might have been seen as part of the status quo which was deemed unacceptable.
Sure, Trump can recognize opportunities. Unfortunately, his history shows that he generally fucks them up in some manner.
History shows the exact opposite. His successes far outnumber his failures. This cannot be denied. The only question is whether this history of success can be translated to effective governing. Nobody has the answer to this yet.
I have put forth this theory and as I said earlier I flip back and forth on it all the time. Clearly he ran a genius general election campaign with respect to media management and general strategy while spending extremely little money. Even if you hate him or you dislike his style of campaigning (I dislike his style!) you must recognize that on the campaign front his instincts were remarkable. Now the question following this is can campaigning "genius" be converted to a "genius" in governing? The jury is still out on this and again I think it is wrong to not at least ask yourself the question. When I ask it of myself I consider his behaviour and say "If he is a genius and his style is intentional what could be long term benefits of his current behaviour and how would that compare to the long term risk?". I have some theories that I doubt any of you care about but when I break it down I still see some possible benefits of his continued "politically provocative rhetoric/actions" even though I personally find the style to be distasteful (a point which I have been consistent on since I said he could win many months ago). The biggest problem with the #resistance, the democratic party, and of course the AMT is the level of certainty you all have. By thinking you're infallible you are tempting fate instead.
I don't think you can call Hillary a horrible candidate and Trump's campaign a genius strategy at the same time. it's one or the other.
I have zero idea how the media got it so horribly wrong with their estimates of him having as low as a 3% chance of winning the election. But I don't think he was brilliant. I think he goofed his way into the white house. Looking back, I think had it been any other republican candidate the margin of victory would have been much bigger.
I think it can be both. I also think what started with a lot of "goofing" became more tailored as time went on even if the style was still objectionable.
so winning a race against a horrible candidate is genius? is michael jordan declared the greatest of all time because he beat ricky gervais in a game of 21?
I honestly think he was winging it the whole time. looking back at his speeches, they were all off the cuff, nothing of substance, rambling, "bing bing bing" and whatnot. it wasn't genius or calculated. it seems clear now that a rabid monkey could have beat hillary. and he did.
There was certainly some degree of winging it. I said he was making it up as he went along many times. There were "instincts" though that subconsciously were very accurate in terms of messaging. We can laugh about the meaning of Make America Great Again but just as Yes We Can was brilliant so was MAGA. Both shallow as hell but both equally brilliant. In terms about running against Hillary it is not just that but his defeat of the entire Republican establishment. Part of that was recognizing the timing in running during a race that was ready to be Bush vs Clinton. Sometimes genius is recognizing moments of opportunity and his instincts were right that this was the time that Americans (a percentage anyway) would be ready for an outsider. I believe that he was completely surprised that his strategy worked in the end but that doesn't make his strategy any less "smart". I am also not convinced that another republican would have won even though I supported every other republican before Trump. The want for an "outsider" was pretty paramount...anybody else might have been seen as part of the status quo which was deemed unacceptable.
Saying the country was ready for an outsider and that's why trump was elected is an attempt to make sense of something after the fact, a kind of cherry pick where you're polishing a turd. Sanders, not an outsider, would have beaten trump. if republicans could've narrowed down the list in the primaries, trump wouldn't be president. trump's style connected with a group of people at a core emotional level. If he was Senator trump, he would've got the same number of votes.
The genius has historically low approval. Keep working that giant good brain of yours Trump.
The daily tracking poll found that just 40% of Americans approve of President Trump's job as president so far, compared to 55% who say the disapprove. The negative 15-point spread is the highest recorded in the poll since Trump took office January 20.
I have put forth this theory and as I said earlier I flip back and forth on it all the time. Clearly he ran a genius general election campaign with respect to media management and general strategy while spending extremely little money. Even if you hate him or you dislike his style of campaigning (I dislike his style!) you must recognize that on the campaign front his instincts were remarkable. Now the question following this is can campaigning "genius" be converted to a "genius" in governing? The jury is still out on this and again I think it is wrong to not at least ask yourself the question. When I ask it of myself I consider his behaviour and say "If he is a genius and his style is intentional what could be long term benefits of his current behaviour and how would that compare to the long term risk?". I have some theories that I doubt any of you care about but when I break it down I still see some possible benefits of his continued "politically provocative rhetoric/actions" even though I personally find the style to be distasteful (a point which I have been consistent on since I said he could win many months ago). The biggest problem with the #resistance, the democratic party, and of course the AMT is the level of certainty you all have. By thinking you're infallible you are tempting fate instead.
I don't think you can call Hillary a horrible candidate and Trump's campaign a genius strategy at the same time. it's one or the other.
I have zero idea how the media got it so horribly wrong with their estimates of him having as low as a 3% chance of winning the election. But I don't think he was brilliant. I think he goofed his way into the white house. Looking back, I think had it been any other republican candidate the margin of victory would have been much bigger.
I think it can be both. I also think what started with a lot of "goofing" became more tailored as time went on even if the style was still objectionable.
so winning a race against a horrible candidate is genius? is michael jordan declared the greatest of all time because he beat ricky gervais in a game of 21?
I honestly think he was winging it the whole time. looking back at his speeches, they were all off the cuff, nothing of substance, rambling, "bing bing bing" and whatnot. it wasn't genius or calculated. it seems clear now that a rabid monkey could have beat hillary. and he did.
There was certainly some degree of winging it. I said he was making it up as he went along many times. There were "instincts" though that subconsciously were very accurate in terms of messaging. We can laugh about the meaning of Make America Great Again but just as Yes We Can was brilliant so was MAGA. Both shallow as hell but both equally brilliant. In terms about running against Hillary it is not just that but his defeat of the entire Republican establishment. Part of that was recognizing the timing in running during a race that was ready to be Bush vs Clinton. Sometimes genius is recognizing moments of opportunity and his instincts were right that this was the time that Americans (a percentage anyway) would be ready for an outsider. I believe that he was completely surprised that his strategy worked in the end but that doesn't make his strategy any less "smart". I am also not convinced that another republican would have won even though I supported every other republican before Trump. The want for an "outsider" was pretty paramount...anybody else might have been seen as part of the status quo which was deemed unacceptable.
Saying the country was ready for an outsider and that's why trump was elected is an attempt to make sense of something after the fact, a kind of cherry pick where you're polishing a turd. Sanders, not an outsider, would have beaten trump. if republicans could've narrowed down the list in the primaries, trump wouldn't be president. trump's style connected with a group of people at a core emotional level. If he was Senator trump, he would've got the same number of votes.
It is hardly polishing a turd...it was his entire campaign platform. Also "if" (and that's a big if) Sanders could have won it would have been because he was not a Democratic Party member and therefore was able to run as an outsider even though he served in the Senate. A Senator Trump with an actual voting record and as a member of an actual party would not have been able to play fast and loose with big issues like the war in Iraq. He would have been damaged for sure and would have no case against a Bush v Clinton match up.
The genius has historically low approval. Keep working that giant good brain of yours Trump.
The daily tracking poll found that just 40% of Americans approve of President Trump's job as president so far, compared to 55% who say the disapprove. The negative 15-point spread is the highest recorded in the poll since Trump took office January 20.
this morning he tweeted a random attack at Mark Cuban, saying he wasn't smart enough to be president. then someone uncovered a recent NYP article saying that Mark Cuban could be Trump's undoing in 2020. My god is he insecure.
Later in the day, Cuban seemed to figure out why Trump decided to launch an attack on him out of the blue.
“Someone close to him told me it was a New York Post article saying I was a 2020 threat,” Cuban told the Huffington Post. “That’s all I know.”
Posted at 6:52 a.m., less than an hour before Trump launched his early-morning attack on Cuban, a story by Penn graduate Aaron Short went live on the Post’s website suggesting that the White House’s “biggest fear” is that Cuban would run against Trump in 2020.
“If you believe in the Trump revolution, you can believe a candidate like Mark Cuban could win an election,” one White House source told Short. “And Mark is the kind of guy who would drop half a billion dollars of his own money on the race.”
I have put forth this theory and as I said earlier I flip back and forth on it all the time. Clearly he ran a genius general election campaign with respect to media management and general strategy while spending extremely little money. Even if you hate him or you dislike his style of campaigning (I dislike his style!) you must recognize that on the campaign front his instincts were remarkable. Now the question following this is can campaigning "genius" be converted to a "genius" in governing? The jury is still out on this and again I think it is wrong to not at least ask yourself the question. When I ask it of myself I consider his behaviour and say "If he is a genius and his style is intentional what could be long term benefits of his current behaviour and how would that compare to the long term risk?". I have some theories that I doubt any of you care about but when I break it down I still see some possible benefits of his continued "politically provocative rhetoric/actions" even though I personally find the style to be distasteful (a point which I have been consistent on since I said he could win many months ago). The biggest problem with the #resistance, the democratic party, and of course the AMT is the level of certainty you all have. By thinking you're infallible you are tempting fate instead.
I don't think you can call Hillary a horrible candidate and Trump's campaign a genius strategy at the same time. it's one or the other.
I have zero idea how the media got it so horribly wrong with their estimates of him having as low as a 3% chance of winning the election. But I don't think he was brilliant. I think he goofed his way into the white house. Looking back, I think had it been any other republican candidate the margin of victory would have been much bigger.
I think it can be both. I also think what started with a lot of "goofing" became more tailored as time went on even if the style was still objectionable.
so winning a race against a horrible candidate is genius? is michael jordan declared the greatest of all time because he beat ricky gervais in a game of 21?
I honestly think he was winging it the whole time. looking back at his speeches, they were all off the cuff, nothing of substance, rambling, "bing bing bing" and whatnot. it wasn't genius or calculated. it seems clear now that a rabid monkey could have beat hillary. and he did.
There was certainly some degree of winging it. I said he was making it up as he went along many times. There were "instincts" though that subconsciously were very accurate in terms of messaging. We can laugh about the meaning of Make America Great Again but just as Yes We Can was brilliant so was MAGA. Both shallow as hell but both equally brilliant. In terms about running against Hillary it is not just that but his defeat of the entire Republican establishment. Part of that was recognizing the timing in running during a race that was ready to be Bush vs Clinton. Sometimes genius is recognizing moments of opportunity and his instincts were right that this was the time that Americans (a percentage anyway) would be ready for an outsider. I believe that he was completely surprised that his strategy worked in the end but that doesn't make his strategy any less "smart". I am also not convinced that another republican would have won even though I supported every other republican before Trump. The want for an "outsider" was pretty paramount...anybody else might have been seen as part of the status quo which was deemed unacceptable.
MAGA is brilliant in a marketing sense, I agree, as it casts the widest net of hope catching the most fish who felt disenfranchised. just like pop music dumbs down to the masses, so do these campaign slogans.
again, I don't think he's genius. I think he got incredibly lucky with his timing.
I agree with you; I'm still not convinced Bernie would have beat him either. more spending on social programs, which many people deem a dismal failure by obama would have killed him in the end.
I honestly think what won trump this election is the media: if people thought he had no chance of winning, people simply did not bother going to the polls.
I have put forth this theory and as I said earlier I flip back and forth on it all the time. Clearly he ran a genius general election campaign with respect to media management and general strategy while spending extremely little money. Even if you hate him or you dislike his style of campaigning (I dislike his style!) you must recognize that on the campaign front his instincts were remarkable. Now the question following this is can campaigning "genius" be converted to a "genius" in governing? The jury is still out on this and again I think it is wrong to not at least ask yourself the question. When I ask it of myself I consider his behaviour and say "If he is a genius and his style is intentional what could be long term benefits of his current behaviour and how would that compare to the long term risk?". I have some theories that I doubt any of you care about but when I break it down I still see some possible benefits of his continued "politically provocative rhetoric/actions" even though I personally find the style to be distasteful (a point which I have been consistent on since I said he could win many months ago). The biggest problem with the #resistance, the democratic party, and of course the AMT is the level of certainty you all have. By thinking you're infallible you are tempting fate instead.
I don't think you can call Hillary a horrible candidate and Trump's campaign a genius strategy at the same time. it's one or the other.
I have zero idea how the media got it so horribly wrong with their estimates of him having as low as a 3% chance of winning the election. But I don't think he was brilliant. I think he goofed his way into the white house. Looking back, I think had it been any other republican candidate the margin of victory would have been much bigger.
I think it can be both. I also think what started with a lot of "goofing" became more tailored as time went on even if the style was still objectionable.
so winning a race against a horrible candidate is genius? is michael jordan declared the greatest of all time because he beat ricky gervais in a game of 21?
I honestly think he was winging it the whole time. looking back at his speeches, they were all off the cuff, nothing of substance, rambling, "bing bing bing" and whatnot. it wasn't genius or calculated. it seems clear now that a rabid monkey could have beat hillary. and he did.
There was certainly some degree of winging it. I said he was making it up as he went along many times. There were "instincts" though that subconsciously were very accurate in terms of messaging. We can laugh about the meaning of Make America Great Again but just as Yes We Can was brilliant so was MAGA. Both shallow as hell but both equally brilliant. In terms about running against Hillary it is not just that but his defeat of the entire Republican establishment. Part of that was recognizing the timing in running during a race that was ready to be Bush vs Clinton. Sometimes genius is recognizing moments of opportunity and his instincts were right that this was the time that Americans (a percentage anyway) would be ready for an outsider. I believe that he was completely surprised that his strategy worked in the end but that doesn't make his strategy any less "smart". I am also not convinced that another republican would have won even though I supported every other republican before Trump. The want for an "outsider" was pretty paramount...anybody else might have been seen as part of the status quo which was deemed unacceptable.
This still doesn't quantify him being qualified to be the sitting president !!
Sure, Trump can recognize opportunities. Unfortunately, his history shows that he generally fucks them up in some manner.
History shows the exact opposite. His successes far outnumber his failures. This cannot be denied. The only question is whether this history of success can be translated to effective governing. Nobody has the answer to this yet.
Sure, Trump can recognize opportunities. Unfortunately, his history shows that he generally fucks them up in some manner.
History shows the exact opposite. His successes far outnumber his failures. This cannot be denied. The only question is whether this history of success can be translated to effective governing. Nobody has the answer to this yet.
so far he's doing great !
really. please, tell us all, as only you can, what you think he's done so far that is so great.
and also, what do think of his complete and utter buffoonery when it comes to private national security issues, like having conversations with a foreign national in AN OPEN DINING ROOM. And letting guests at the "winter white house" take pictures with and POST SAID PICTURES TO FACEBOOK about who is carrying the nuclear codes? "hey, this is rick. he's awesome, and he's got the nuclear football".
if obama had let that happen you'd be calling for his head.
Sure, Trump can recognize opportunities. Unfortunately, his history shows that he generally fucks them up in some manner.
History shows the exact opposite. His successes far outnumber his failures. This cannot be denied. The only question is whether this history of success can be translated to effective governing. Nobody has the answer to this yet.
so far he's doing great !
You're always bringing the laughs. I'm afraid you're sincere, though.
Sure, Trump can recognize opportunities. Unfortunately, his history shows that he generally fucks them up in some manner.
History shows the exact opposite. His successes far outnumber his failures. This cannot be denied. The only question is whether this history of success can be translated to effective governing. Nobody has the answer to this yet.
so far he's doing great !
You're always bringing the laughs. I'm afraid you're sincere, though.
Sure, Trump can recognize opportunities. Unfortunately, his history shows that he generally fucks them up in some manner.
History shows the exact opposite. His successes far outnumber his failures. This cannot be denied. The only question is whether this history of success can be translated to effective governing. Nobody has the answer to this yet.
so far he's doing great !
How do you measure great ? Do you see it st restaurants are there no more Spanish bus boys clearing your tables or maybe no more Spanish men cutting your lawns or Spanish women cleaning your houses ? Is that what you mean by great ?
if this part of the article has even a fucking shred of truth to it, he needs to be removed IMMEDIATELY:
“The President has no incentive in helping the state of California. The state harbors more illegal immigrants than any other state and has multiple sanctuary cities that violate federal laws. The state very publicly supported Hillary Clinton throughout the election and the President views the state as being responsible for his loss in the popular vote, something he has had trouble with accepting. They have also recently threatened to leave the Union through their #CalExit campaign, and the President sees this as an opportunity to let them deal with the consequences of their exit. There is a sickness within the liberals in this country that they are not willing to address. Until they understand what ails them can they hope to find the cure. This is a step in the right direction in finding the #CureForWellness. “
if this part of the article has even a fucking shred of truth to it, he needs to be removed IMMEDIATELY:
“The President has no incentive in helping the state of California. The state harbors more illegal immigrants than any other state and has multiple sanctuary cities that violate federal laws. The state very publicly supported Hillary Clinton throughout the election and the President views the state as being responsible for his loss in the popular vote, something he has had trouble with accepting. They have also recently threatened to leave the Union through their #CalExit campaign, and the President sees this as an opportunity to let them deal with the consequences of their exit. There is a sickness within the liberals in this country that they are not willing to address. Until they understand what ails them can they hope to find the cure. This is a step in the right direction in finding the #CureForWellness. “
yup. I'm actually starting to think that he wants to be removed.
if this part of the article has even a fucking shred of truth to it, he needs to be removed IMMEDIATELY:
“The President has no incentive in helping the state of California. The state harbors more illegal immigrants than any other state and has multiple sanctuary cities that violate federal laws. The state very publicly supported Hillary Clinton throughout the election and the President views the state as being responsible for his loss in the popular vote, something he has had trouble with acceptin. They have also recently threatened to leave the Union through their #CalExit campaign, and the President sees this as an opportunity to let them deal with the consequences of their exit. There is a sickness within the liberals in this country that they are not willing to address. Until they understand what ails them can they hope to find the cure. This is a step in the right direction in finding the #CureForWellness. “
I thought more would be upset of the above bolded.
if this part of the article has even a fucking shred of truth to it, he needs to be removed IMMEDIATELY:
“The President has no incentive in helping the state of California. The state harbors more illegal immigrants than any other state and has multiple sanctuary cities that violate federal laws. The state very publicly supported Hillary Clinton throughout the election and the President views the state as being responsible for his loss in the popular vote, something he has had trouble with acceptin. They have also recently threatened to leave the Union through their #CalExit campaign, and the President sees this as an opportunity to let them deal with the consequences of their exit. There is a sickness within the liberals in this country that they are not willing to address. Until they understand what ails them can they hope to find the cure. This is a step in the right direction in finding the #CureForWellness. “
I thought more would be upset of the above bolded.
A true man of "his" people. This kind of attitude is how we get another response to a disaster like Katrina.
But yeah to the point... it's going to be an endless stream of gaffes and errors and slightly shocking behaviours on the part of the orange one. Realistically, nobody should be surprised at anything he does anymore.
On a side note, I can't recall if there was any public statement made at all when it was reported that Trump got peed on in the hotel room by prostitutes. Was this fake news? Was it factual? Did he address it? Is the bar so low for him that it really doesn't matter?
But yeah to the point... it's going to be an endless stream of gaffes and errors and slightly shocking behaviours on the part of the orange one. Realistically, nobody should be surprised at anything he does anymore.
On a side note, I can't recall if there was any public statement made at all when it was reported that Trump got peed on in the hotel room by prostitutes. Was this fake news? Was it factual? Did he address it? Is the bar so low for him that it really doesn't matter?
Recent word was that intelligence confirmed the pee dossier.
if this part of the article has even a fucking shred of truth to it, he needs to be removed IMMEDIATELY:
“The President has no incentive in helping the state of California. The state harbors more illegal immigrants than any other state and has multiple sanctuary cities that violate federal laws. The state very publicly supported Hillary Clinton throughout the election and the President views the state as being responsible for his loss in the popular vote, something he has had trouble with acceptin. They have also recently threatened to leave the Union through their #CalExit campaign, and the President sees this as an opportunity to let them deal with the consequences of their exit. There is a sickness within the liberals in this country that they are not willing to address. Until they understand what ails them can they hope to find the cure. This is a step in the right direction in finding the #CureForWellness. “
I thought more would be upset of the above bolded.
why would anyone give a shit about a baseless partison insult?
But yeah to the point... it's going to be an endless stream of gaffes and errors and slightly shocking behaviours on the part of the orange one. Realistically, nobody should be surprised at anything he does anymore.
On a side note, I can't recall if there was any public statement made at all when it was reported that Trump got peed on in the hotel room by prostitutes. Was this fake news? Was it factual? Did he address it? Is the bar so low for him that it really doesn't matter?
Recent word was that intelligence confirmed the pee dossier.
They've confirmed some of the dossier but not the pee stuff. The fact that some of it is proven true though should be worrying to the White House. It shows there's smoke to this story, and where there's smoke...there's fire.
So a couple revelations in the last couple of hours has me thinking. First, KellyAnne states that Flynn has the full support of the President. Now it's coming out that Flynn called Pence recently to apologize for misleading him. Flynn has admitted guilt basically and has the full support of the President? If Flynn still has the support of the President after humiliating the VP on national tv, there's only one logical assumption- Trump knew/directed Flynn going into that phone call with the ambassador from Russia to discuss sanctions.
So there's that part of it. Now, think of what this does to the main players in this admin. Flynn misled Pence, Spicer, and Priebus, and all three of those men now look like blatant liars on TV. By siding with Flynn- it shows who really has the Presodent's ear. That would be Flynn, Bannon and Miller. These two factions couldn't be more opposite. The group with the VP are your traditional Republicans with DC experience. If the President wants to get anything through Congress, he needs this group. Then Flynn group is the one who wants to see the world burn. They want to kick ass and take names with anyone who will help them.
Eventually Trump is going to have to start using the Congress. He can't do EOs forever. He's going to need the group headed by the VP to navigate congress. It's interesting to watch. A guy like Pence, he wants to be President. He has an invested interest in this playing out well and if the writings on the wall in 2020- he's gone. I'm amazed he even signed on to this lose-lose deal. But the Bannon group? They never thought they'd get this far and they will probably never come close to it again- so they have nothing to lose.
I'm just shocked the President appears to be siding with Flynn. The perception of it is awful. It makes him look complacent and at the same time humiliating members of his administration that he needs going forward to be successful.
Comments
The daily tracking poll found that just 40% of Americans approve of President Trump's job as president so far, compared to 55% who say the disapprove. The negative 15-point spread is the highest recorded in the poll since Trump took office January 20.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/13/politics/donald-trump-approval-poll-low-gallup/index.html
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/donald-trump-support-popularity-vigo-county-214774
He had low approval ratings during the entire campaign. The question is are the approval ratings electorally significant?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/real-time/Heres-why-President-Trump-attacked-NBA-owner-Mark-Cuban-out-of-nowhere.html
Later in the day, Cuban seemed to figure out why Trump decided to launch an attack on him out of the blue.
“Someone close to him told me it was a New York Post article saying I was a 2020 threat,” Cuban told the Huffington Post. “That’s all I know.”
Posted at 6:52 a.m., less than an hour before Trump launched his early-morning attack on Cuban, a story by Penn graduate Aaron Short went live on the Post’s website suggesting that the White House’s “biggest fear” is that Cuban would run against Trump in 2020.
“If you believe in the Trump revolution, you can believe a candidate like Mark Cuban could win an election,” one White House source told Short. “And Mark is the kind of guy who would drop half a billion dollars of his own money on the race.”
www.headstonesband.com
again, I don't think he's genius. I think he got incredibly lucky with his timing.
I agree with you; I'm still not convinced Bernie would have beat him either. more spending on social programs, which many people deem a dismal failure by obama would have killed him in the end.
I honestly think what won trump this election is the media: if people thought he had no chance of winning, people simply did not bother going to the polls.
www.headstonesband.com
http://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/live-blog/trump-trudeau#/
and also, what do think of his complete and utter buffoonery when it comes to private national security issues, like having conversations with a foreign national in AN OPEN DINING ROOM. And letting guests at the "winter white house" take pictures with and POST SAID PICTURES TO FACEBOOK about who is carrying the nuclear codes? "hey, this is rick. he's awesome, and he's got the nuclear football".
if obama had let that happen you'd be calling for his head.
www.headstonesband.com
http://sacramentodispatch.com/trump-denies-ca-plea-for-federal-funds-cites-sanctuary-cities/
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
“The President has no incentive in helping the state of California. The state harbors more illegal immigrants than any other state and has multiple sanctuary cities that violate federal laws. The state very publicly supported Hillary Clinton throughout the election and the President views the state as being responsible for his loss in the popular vote, something he has had trouble with accepting. They have also recently threatened to leave the Union through their #CalExit campaign, and the President sees this as an opportunity to let them deal with the consequences of their exit. There is a sickness within the liberals in this country that they are not willing to address. Until they understand what ails them can they hope to find the cure. This is a step in the right direction in finding the #CureForWellness. “
www.headstonesband.com
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-turns-mar-a-lago-club-terrace-into-open-air-situation-room/2017/02/13/c5525096-f20d-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.d379d4d72d11
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
http://sacramentodispatch.com/bombshell-trump-and-putin-spotted-at-swiss-resort-prior-to-election/
Unconfirmed, but what a shit storm that could be.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
I got sidetracked on the movie trailer.
But yeah to the point... it's going to be an endless stream of gaffes and errors and slightly shocking behaviours on the part of the orange one. Realistically, nobody should be surprised at anything he does anymore.
On a side note, I can't recall if there was any public statement made at all when it was reported that Trump got peed on in the hotel room by prostitutes. Was this fake news? Was it factual? Did he address it? Is the bar so low for him that it really doesn't matter?
www.headstonesband.com
So a couple revelations in the last couple of hours has me thinking. First, KellyAnne states that Flynn has the full support of the President. Now it's coming out that Flynn called Pence recently to apologize for misleading him. Flynn has admitted guilt basically and has the full support of the President? If Flynn still has the support of the President after humiliating the VP on national tv, there's only one logical assumption- Trump knew/directed Flynn going into that phone call with the ambassador from Russia to discuss sanctions.
So there's that part of it. Now, think of what this does to the main players in this admin. Flynn misled Pence, Spicer, and Priebus, and all three of those men now look like blatant liars on TV. By siding with Flynn- it shows who really has the Presodent's ear. That would be Flynn, Bannon and Miller. These two factions couldn't be more opposite. The group with the VP are your traditional Republicans with DC experience. If the President wants to get anything through Congress, he needs this group. Then Flynn group is the one who wants to see the world burn. They want to kick ass and take names with anyone who will help them.
Eventually Trump is going to have to start using the Congress. He can't do EOs forever. He's going to need the group headed by the VP to navigate congress. It's interesting to watch. A guy like Pence, he wants to be President. He has an invested interest in this playing out well and if the writings on the wall in 2020- he's gone. I'm amazed he even signed on to this lose-lose deal. But the Bannon group? They never thought they'd get this far and they will probably never come close to it again- so they have nothing to lose.
I'm just shocked the President appears to be siding with Flynn. The perception of it is awful. It makes him look complacent and at the same time humiliating members of his administration that he needs going forward to be successful.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm