Trump, the man with a dream of a Wall

[Tero]

I kind of doubt it. Trump plans with public spending have been pitiful so far. And McConnel and Ryan are penny pinchers. So short of Trump turning Democrat nothing will appear by 2018 election time
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/23/opinions ... index.html

He only wants to spend on the wall.

[Seabass]

[Tero]

Trump's $1 trillion plan inspires 'Hunger Games' angst
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/ ... tes-373775

[Animavore]

Trump and his cabal of fossil interests to roll back air pollution regulations.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-withdr ... 1516935178

They really are detestable scum.

[Scot Dutchy]

The Trump supporters have taken so much shit they are immune. It is a state that Trump is trying to push more and more people into. By the elections he will be able to say anything. In 1984 this form of brainwashing is fully described. By shouting constantly fake news while spreading it around is causing complete confusion.

[Forty Two]

The Trump supporters have taken so much shit they are immune. It is a state that Trump is trying to push more and more people into. By the elections he will be able to say anything. In 1984 this form of brainwashing is fully described. By shouting constantly fake news while spreading it around is causing complete confusion.

What would help his opposition is if the mainstream media would stop spreading fake news, and concentrate on the real criticisms. They seem to get caught up in what they think will make a big splash.

I mean, over the weekend, MSNBC was screaming on and on about how the President had committed obstruction of justice by not firing the special counsel Robert Mueller. They said that somebody said that Trump "tried to" fire Robert Mueller, but that the White House counsel said he would resign if Trump followed through with doing that which was against the attorney's advice. So, Trump followed his attorney's advice, and did not fire the special counsel. Even if that's true, it's not even immoral or unethical, much less a crime. Arguably, the President was entitled under the constitution to fire Mueller, and that the consequences would be political (possible impeachment) and not criminal. That's all well and good - impeachment is political, and if the Congress votes to impeach then he's impeached. But, here, all that's being alleged is that the President took the advice of counsel. I mean, if the President ran by an invasion of Canada by his counsel and the counsel said "dude, that's a violation of international law, and if you follow through, I'm going to have to resign", and then the President said "O.k., I won't do it, then," the mere fact that the President WANTED to invade, or "tried to" invade, doesn't mean he committed an offense of any kind.

None of this could have come from the White House Counsel's office, of course, because if it did, that would be a violation of attorney-client privilege and the attorneys involved in leaking that kind of communication could be disbarred. And, of course, the allegation that Trump "called for" the firing came from "one person familiar with the matter." Not a name. One person "familiar with the matter." How was he or she "familiar?" Through hearsay? How many layers of hearsay? Was it personal knowledge? How? Was the person "familiar with the matter" in the room and heard it from Trump's mouth? Really? Huh - funny how the article leaves all that out. https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/25/politics ... index.html

Yet, all over CNN, and MSNBC, they were acting like this was the smoking gun of "obstruction of justice." Democrats declare firing Mueller a "red line" that Trump may not cross. Outrage all over CNN and MSNBC about the fact that Trump would even consider firing Mueller.

Of course, Trump says he did not do that, and he said firing Mueller has never been on the table, and he's not going to fire Mueller. But that's not good enough because "someone familiar with the matter," whoever that may be, is saying that Trump did "try to" fire Mueller, but the daring White House counsel stood his ground and said he'd quit if Trump did that. Of course, buried in the CNN article is the blurb that "However, according to the source, McGahn [the special counsel] did not threaten to resign directly to the President."

So, to translate the bullshit. Trump says he didn't attempt to fire Mueller. Someone who wasn't directly involved but was "familiar with the matter" says he did, and he says that McGahn threatened to quit over it. But, he didn't actually threaten to quit, he just said to someone else other than the President that if Trump were to try to fire Mueller, he would quit. We don't know who he said that to, and if the "person familiar with the matter" heard that himself, or heard it from someone else entirely.

And, that's the news, folks. That's what we're expected to believe. Someone, we don't know who, says trump "tried to" do something that he did not in fact actually do, and we don't know if that "someone" heard it from Trump himself or from someone else. And, we are led to believe that white house counsel mcgahn had to threaten to quit in order to prevent trump from doing it, but really the white house counsel actually is reported to have said that to someone else (who may or may not be the "someone" reporting these events to the news outlets).

The New York Times Article that broke the "story" led with the declaration that Trump's attempt to fire Mueller was "according to four people TOLD of the matter." So, we have four people (who are they? Anonymous. Why? Why the need for secrecy? Not stated). But, the report comes to the NYT reporter via hearsay. Here is the best interpretation? Someone who personally experienced Trump's attempt to fire Mueller reported that to four other people (separately, or all together, we don't know). We don't know who the person who has the personal knowledge is and we don't know who the "four people" are who that person told. Great. Do the four people have a political axe to grind? Don't know. Was the person who told the "four people" actually there, or did that person ALSO, hear the information from someone else? We are not told.

In the next paragraph the NYT writer refers to this as a "confrontation." However, we do not know that there was any confrontation, so we? McGahn doesn't say that. Nobody says that. Not according to either CNN or the NYT. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/us/p ... =undefined

The NYT article says that amid the Mueller investigation, Trump "argued" that Mueller had three conflicts of interest that disqualified him. That's according to "two of the people" who heard about it from someone else. Well, first, assume it's true. So? Maybe Mueller does have conflicts of interest? Maybe not? There is nothing wrong with the President discussing possible conflicts of interest of a special counsel, particular if the President is doing so with the White House's attorneys.

Now these "four people" who heard about it, also reported that McGahn got an order to fire the President, and he refused to follow that order, and said (to people other than the President) that he would resign rather than follow it. The article does not say that these four people heard it from McGahn. The article doesn't say how they heard it.

The NYT article is replete with reports on attorney-client communications. They say what the legal advisers told him. And, they even try to report that Ty Cobb, the head lawyer for the white house, "assured" Trump that the investigation was nearing an end, in an attempt to calm the President. Really? Lawyers take their advice to clients very seriously. You wouldn't have a lawyer in a divorce case, or a personal injury dispute reporting on what they assured or advised their clients. That's a serious breach of confidentiality. Yet here, we are expected to believe four "people familiar with the matter" (without any disclosure of how they know) about their reports on specific communications between White House lawyers and the President of the United States. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/us/p ... =undefined

I'm sorry, folks, but this is best described as "fake news." There is no other way to describe it, and it is a total embarrassment for the New York Times. How low they have fallen. The reporting is second-rate, yellow journalism.

The reporter writing the article, and under NYT policy at least one editor, probably more given the centrality of the anonymous sources to this story, all are supposed to know who the sources are. Anonymous sourcing is supposed to be "relatively rare" and they recognize that such sources may try to put their "impression, their spin, their agenda" on the stories.

So, here we have anonymous sources who heard information from someone who may well not have gotten their information through personal knowledge. Any room for "impression, spin, and agenda" there? Of course there is. It's a gaping hole of impression, spin and agenda. https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/ ... ic-editor/

The NYT article violates its own policy because any story with anonymous sources is supposed to have a specific note indicating that a department head or deputy has approved the sourcing. So, did a department head or deputy approve the sourcing? We don't know. It's not noted. The article also violates the policies requirement that whenever possible the article should explain how the sources knows their information, and should explain the source's motivation. No attempt is made in the article to do that.

This is not a story on some major danger, or a secret/confidential source "out in the field" who needs protection. We have some people who heard from other people about something the President unequivocally denies, and the it involves communications between attorney and client the sources apparently were not privy to (and if they were, it would be against the law for them to disclose it). Yet, we are not told anything about what level of authority or job function they have, how they came to know what they say they know, who they heard it from, etc. The anonymous sources heard much of the information reported from someone else - who was that? That primary source was never assured anonymity, was he or she? If so, why not quote that primary source instead of the down-the-line reporters of hearsay? And if he or she was not assured anonymity, why protect that person's identity?

[Tero]

Fake news. Trump never interacted with media. All the interviews are fake too.

[Forty Two]

Fake news. Trump never interacted with media. All the interviews are fake too.

Just once, I want to read the latest "Trump's crossed the line now" story and see some sort of confirmation other than that some people heard X, Y or Z from someone who is familiar with the process.

Next time a reporter writes that they got info from "a person familiar with the investigation/matter" or words to that effect, recognize it could be any one of us here at Ratz. We are all fairly familiar with it. That makes the article reliable.

[Brian Peacock]

The end is near. The economy will tank in 2019. The stocks have been climbing since Obama saved us from depression and are due for a ”correction.”

Coal jobs did not arrive no matter how fast we burn coal. Trump was a failure to working poor.

Get with it Tero. The state of the stock market is not the economy, it's merely a gauge of the level of confidence the financial sector has in its ability to secure future profits. Cutting corporate and business taxes is bound to buoy the prospect of future business profits, at least in the short term, and business leaders are far more likely to pour that windfall into the dividend than boost inward investment or the wages of their employees. And besides, Trump's tax handout has just increased everyone's wages so that companies don't have to.

[Rum]

The jury seems to be out on the impact of his policies. One thing is clear though and that is the USA debt will keep on growing. One day that surely must come to a head.

It is easy for us with 'moderate' and considered governments, still with degree of liberalism left in them to gloat of course, but it is just as much in our interests for America to do well as it is the USA itself.

[Seabass]

McCabe is out.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... wn-n842176

[Seabass]

[Tero]

Trump Payday Loan plan continues. Meanwhile, congress has no idea how to pay for it:

Doubts are growing on Capitol Hill that Republicans and Democrats can reach a long-term budget deal by Feb. 8, when the government will once again run out of money.

[pErvinalia]

Fake news. Trump never interacted with media. All the interviews are fake too.

Just once, I want to read the latest "Trump's crossed the line now" story and see some sort of confirmation other than that some people heard X, Y or Z from someone who is familiar with the process.

Next time a reporter writes that they got info from "a person familiar with the investigation/matter" or words to that effect, recognize it could be any one of us here at Ratz. We are all fairly familiar with it. That makes the article reliable.

That an article doesn't live up to your standards for handling sources doesn't make it "fake news". It just means that it doesn't live up to your standards.

[Tero]

Trump’s deep state paranoia:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/29/politics ... index.html