Right over the heads of the Media. Trump on Day 1.

[anatess2]

You know it would be cool if Trump would declare... I will not have a press corps.  Rather, I will instruct my Press Secratary to post all Press Releases on Social Media and answer sincere questions from the Public through the same medium.  Wouldn't that put them all on a tailspin...

So yeah, here's Trump's Day 1 birds-eye plan.  And... it didn't get released through the press... but straight to Youtube!

Okay, my take.  It's a good Day 1 target.  I'm not a fan of the 1 new regulation requires the elimination of 2 old ones.  I would rather you go through every single regulation and kill every one of them that are useless/bad/etc even if it takes you the entire 4 years to do.  I'm a fan of the no lobbying for 5 years and a lifetime ban for foreign lobbies.  That's super cool.  But, there's easy work-arounds to that one - appoint a puppet lobbyist... you know, kinda like how Romney used McMullin...

 

[Just_A_Guy]

I actually do like the idea of bypassing the press corpse (oops? Was that a typo?  ), and Trump's management of them has provided some good entertainment fodder.  (He left the building.  And went to dinner.  Without telling us!  The nerve!)

[anatess2]

12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I actually do like the idea of bypassing the press corpse (oops? Was that a typo?  ), and Trump's management of them has provided some good entertainment fodder.  (He left the building.  And went to dinner.  Without telling us!  The nerve!)

JAG!  My heart just jumped... We agree on something about Trump!  I'm like... wooooo-hoooo!!!!!  I may yet get to crawl into JAGs-list-of-cool-people.  You're like... on the top portion of my list and I hated being on the other side of the fence from you.

 

Edited November 23, 2016 by anatess2

[Colirio]

What the media (and many others) don't seem to understand about Trump's decision making is that this is what a corporate takeover looks like in the real world. 

 

[Guest Godless]

18 hours ago, anatess2 said:

You know it would be cool if Trump would declare... I will not have a press corps.  Rather, I will instruct my Press Secratary to post all Press Releases on Social Media and answer sincere questions from the Public through the same medium.  Wouldn't that put them all on a tailspin...

So yeah, here's Trump's Day 1 birds-eye plan.  And... it didn't get released through the press... but straight to Youtube!

I actually like this, believe it or not. I loved Obama interacting with people on the POTUS Twitter account, and it's cool to see Trump taking a similar approach. The media will hate it, but this is one area where I feel that they don't have a legitimate 1A argument.

18 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I'm not a fan of the 1 new regulation requires the elimination of 2 old ones.  I would rather you go through every single regulation and kill every one of them that are useless/bad/etc even if it takes you the entire 4 years to do.  

 

This was one of my biggest concerns too. Killing regulations for the sake of killing regulations is stupid and dangerous, especially where the financial sector is concerned.

[NeuroTypical]

Oh wow - a rule that if you're going to have a new regulation, you must dump two old regulations?  I'm a fan.  If Hillary had won and did that, I'd be a fan too.

I didn't expect to feel positive about anything I heard from Trump so soon.

[prisonchaplain]

I have this image of President Trump standing over a pile of useless regulations. He has a steak knife in his hand keeps pummeling them, yelling, "DIE! DIE!! DIE!!!"  The press corps is off to one side, giving sober psycho-babble analysis of the "unhinged destruction of well-balanced protections." Government bureaucrats are huddled in another corner, weeping, gnashing their teeth, and renting their clothes.  In yet another corner @anatess2 is throwing a great party, complete with diverse foods, a half dozen non-alcoholic beverages, and untold numbers of intelligent conversations being carried out.  Guess which corner I'm in?

[anatess2]

On 11/24/2016 at 11:47 AM, prisonchaplain said:

I have this image of President Trump standing over a pile of useless regulations. He has a steak knife in his hand keeps pummeling them, yelling, "DIE! DIE!! DIE!!!"  The press corps is off to one side, giving sober psycho-babble analysis of the "unhinged destruction of well-balanced protections." Government bureaucrats are huddled in another corner, weeping, gnashing their teeth, and renting their clothes.  In yet another corner @anatess2 is throwing a great party, complete with diverse foods, a half dozen non-alcoholic beverages, and untold numbers of intelligent conversations being carried out.  Guess which corner I'm in?

With the steak knife? 

 

[prisonchaplain]

I might have been--but I'm allegedly something of a chow hound.  As for Mr. Trump's weapon of choice, he could have used a machete, or even a machine gun, but my sense is that our President-Elect likes to do these things "up close and personal."

Edited November 28, 2016 by prisonchaplain

[Guest Godless]

[NeuroTypical]

On 11/24/2016 at 2:24 AM, Colirio said:

What the media (and many others) don't seem to understand about Trump's decision making is that this is what a corporate takeover looks like in the real world. 

Well, you know what kinds of corporations get taken over?  Ineffective, bloated, corrupt corporations that are failing to maximize shareholder value.  They get taken over, all the bloat and fat and dumb gets carved out of it, and then you've got a shinier more effective corporation.  Stinks for all the people who lose their jobs, it's good for the shareholders. 

Not saying I agree with your analogy.  I'm just wondering what is your point.  For the analogy to work, US citizens are the shareholders, and therefore, by definition, end up with a better deal.

Edited November 28, 2016 by NeuroTypical

[Colirio]

That is exactly my point. 

 

I have great hopes that Trump is going to be an effective corporate head and trim the "bloat and fat" as you put it. 

 

Whether he does, or not, is quite another thing. But so far, he seems to be following such a procedure:

"Interviewing" for different positions, structuring certain people in positions where they would be most effective, setting policies and procedures that will help the company run leaner and more efficiently... He seems to be hitting the right notes. 

[anatess2]

The guy is tireless.  I love that about him.  And I love the way Trump/Pence is one seamless machine even as they may not say the same thing.

Okay, here's an example - Trump said on a liberal-mainstream TV interview after the election:  Obamacare will be Repealed and Replaced at the same time.  There won't be a space between them.

So, naturally, people started to be concerned that Obamacare won't be repealed immediately like they mandated.

So then Pence goes on a Fox News TV interview yesterday and said:  Obamacare will be Repealed immediately.  The replacement bill will be put in place in phases to address immediate concerns immediately.

So... it sounds like Pence is saying something different than Trump.  But, having worked in corporations most of my life, I see how Trump talks like the CEO - here's the Vision/Mission Statement (using liberal TV to drive it home).  Then Pence talks like the COO - this is how it's going to happen to achieve that Vision/Mission statement (using conservative TV to assure the base as the liberals are not the ones that need that message).

And then, as that is not enough to assure people... Trump, like a good CEO, appoints Tom Price as head of HHS.

Okay, no questions left... Obamacare is going bye bye bye...

Now let's see how Trump/Pence/Price/Ryan drives the ship to get this Mission/Vision statement accomplished... will it be accomplished like a well-oiled corporation?  Or will it be accomplished like a big government overcoming the well-oiled corporation.  It's a cultural shift folks, and it will definitely be a rough ride.

Oh... Pelosi retained her seat.  But she's now smooching up to Trump.  "We won't be the party of No".  Really?  Let's see how that works out with Obamacare...

One more thing... Trump/Pence masterfully orchestrates the media... drives them on a tailspin on one end, going through them on another end, or just bypassing them altogether.  But one thing is certain... the mainstream media has lost their power to control the narrative.  Trump can control the narrative just by tweeting something.  Trump can control the narrative just by who he allows through the Trump Tower elevators...  Awesome, isn't it?

Edited December 1, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest Godless]

59 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

One more thing... Trump/Pence masterfully orchestrates the media... drives them on a tailspin on one end, going through them on another end, or just bypassing them altogether.  But one thing is certain... the mainstream media has lost their power to control the narrative.  Trump can control the narrative just by tweeting something.  Trump can control the narrative just by who he allows through the Trump Tower elevators...  Awesome, isn't it?

How to establish a dictatorship.

Step 1: Suppress or undermine the media, ensuring that your voice is the only one that matters.

Step 2: Call into question any aspect of a free election that may cast doubt on your victory. 

Step 3: Fill your highest positions of power with only your closest allies. If a former opponent wants a seat at the table, first demand a public apology and statement of allegiance (Romney).

[Vort]

6 minutes ago, Godless said:

Step 3: Fill your highest positions of power with only your closest allies. If a former opponent wants a seat at the table, first demand a public apology and statement of allegiance (Romney).

Can you point out Romney's apology and statement of allegiance? I seem to have missed that.

[Guest MormonGator]

12 minutes ago, Godless said:

How to establish a dictatorship.

Step 1: Suppress or undermine the media, ensuring that your voice is the only one that matters.

Step 2: Call into question any aspect of a free election that may cast doubt on your victory. 

Step 3: Fill your highest positions of power with only your closest allies. If a former opponent wants a seat at the table, first demand a public apology and statement of allegiance (Romney).

It disturbed me in 2008 when Obama did this, and it disturbs me in 2016 when Trump does this. You are absolutely correct on this @Godless

[Guest Godless]

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

Can you point out Romney's apology and statement of allegiance? I seem to have missed that.

Romney has not made a public apology. And to be fair, upon further investigation, it seems that the call for an apology came from Trump's lapdogs, not Trump himself. Trump should really do a better job of selecting the people who influence his narrative. 

[anatess2]

55 minutes ago, Godless said:

How to establish a dictatorship.

Step 1: Suppress or undermine the media, ensuring that your voice is the only one that matters.

You mean... like how the Democrats made major news outlets an extension of the Democrat Party Propaganda Machine?

So you're now saying that a Republican rejecting these propaganda machines disguised as major news outlets IS THE ONE that is suppressing and undermining the media?

Here's an illustration:  Do you know that Obama complained on a Rolling Stones interview about Fake News?  Rolling Stone.  The guys who had to pay over $7M on a lawsuit  for faking news...

 

55 minutes ago, Godless said:

Step 2: Call into question any aspect of a free election that may cast doubt on your victory.

 

If Clinton would have won and Trump cast doubt on her victory it would be... Undermining the Democracy.  But Jill Stein casting doubt on Trump's victory is very Democratic and so anybody calling Stein (or any aspect of a free election) into question is the one undermining the Democracy - because Trump won.  Or whatever... I'm getting confused over who is casting doubt on what... Goes to show how you can spin anything to disparage the people you don't agree with.

 

55 minutes ago, Godless said:

Step 3: Fill your highest positions of power with only your closest allies. If a former opponent wants a seat at the table, first demand a public apology and statement of allegiance (Romney).

 

36 minutes ago, Godless said:

Romney has not made a public apology. And to be fair, upon further investigation, it seems that the call for an apology came from Trump's lapdogs, not Trump himself. Trump should really do a better job of selecting the people who influence his narrative. 

Nikki Haley and Betsy DeVos just got added to Trump's cabinet.  Do you see their apology?  Do you see Trump's "lapdogs" asking for their apology?

Looks like you need to pay closer attention to the cast of characters going up and down those Trump Tower elevators...

 

In any case, those who fearmonger using the word "dictatorship" as it applies to America has no confidence in the lasting strength of the US Constitution and its ability to correct itself.

Edited December 1, 2016 by anatess2

[mordorbund]

39 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

In any case, those who fearmonger using the word "dictatorship" as it applies to America has no confidence in the lasting strength of the US Constitution and its ability to correct itself.

One of the lasting strengths of the US Constitution is that it prevents the Executive branch from performing like a well-oiled corporation. Do you have confidence that the Constitution still maintains the strength to drive the POTUS to cooperate, compromise, and work with Congress (even when lacking a same-party majority) in the best interest of Americans (which, admittedly, may mean deadlock)? Or has it weakened to the point that we've handed the steamroller keys to "our guy"?

For my own education, how has the US Constitution corrected itself in the last 20 years? I don't know that I've seen it since I started paying attention. There hasn't been an amendment in 2 1/2 decades. The Clinton-Bush-Obama presidencies have been an ever-expanding set of powers via executive orders. So (I'm genuinely asking), what has been the self-correcting mechanism?

[Guest Godless]

35 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You mean... like how the Democrats made major news outlets an extension of the Democrat Party Propaganda Machine?

Part of the beauty of a free press is that news outlets can take sides if they want to. They really shouldn't, but they have a constitutional right to. You can call CNN and MSNBC an extension of DNC propaganda, and I can say the same about Fox News and the GOP. Neither of us would be wrong. Politicians will occasionally lament the media bias (and rightly so), but a good politician can overcome that bias without undermining the media machine. Whatever faults we have in our media industry (and there are plenty), we have always been light years away from having an actual state-run media. Trump seems to have seen that and responded with "Challenge accepted". Exhibit A: his top staffer is the head of Breitbart, the very media outlet that played a significant role in his rise to power. That combined with his blatant rejection of just about every other media outlet sends a dangerous message.

35 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So you're now saying that a Republican rejecting these propaganda machines disguised as major news outlets IS THE ONE that is suppressing and undermining the media?

Like I said, a good politician can gripe about the media without undermining it. Obama has been known to copmlain about Fox News from time to time, but he never made any attempts to subvert or undermine their coverage of him. The more Trump wages war on the media, the more they're going to fight back. Trump can't win that battle through any constitutional means. He needs to thicken his skin a bit and take the high road for a change. Because right now he's acting like a child who reacts to losing a board game by flipping over the table. All the while, we're talking about a man who won the election. How much legitimacy does he really have in complaining about media coverage and electoral fraud?

35 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

If Clinton would have won and Trump cast doubt on her victory it would be... Undermining the Democracy.  But Jill Stein casting doubt on Trump's victory is very Democratic and so anybody calling Stein (or any aspect of a free election) into question is the one undermining the Democracy - because Trump won.  Or whatever... I'm getting confused over who is casting doubt on what... Goes to show how you can spin anything to disparage the people you don't agree with.

Important things to consider here:

1. No one on the left made any attempts to cry foul before the election. That's very important. 

2. Clinton said she would accept the election night result. She honored that statement when she conceded the election to Donald Trump. At the time, there was no possible way to suspect foul-play. This is always the case with elections. Results are analyzed after a winner is declared. 

3. If suspicion of foul-play surfaces after the election, we have a duty to the democratic process to recount and verify that we got it right. That is why the states have until the 13th of this month to finalize their results and electors. FWIW, I'm not saying that Jill Stein has a legitimate case. All I'm saying is that the call for recounts is well within our Constitutional rights. And yes, I would take that position if Trump won as well, provided that he accepted the initial election night result rather than crying foul with no evidence whatsoever, which is essentially what he threatened to do in the last debate. 

35 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Nikki Haley and Betsy DeVos just got added to Trump's cabinet.  Do you see their apology?  Do you see Trump's "lapdogs" asking for their apology?

Looks like you need to pay closer attention to the cast of characters going up and down those Trump Tower elevators...

I already corrected my previous statement. Trump himself has met with Romney without making any public demands as conditions for naming him into a cabinet position. I realize that he can't control what his surrogates say on his behalf, which is why I said he should be more careful about who he allows into that circle. I can only guess that they freaked out over Romney because he made far more waves than Haley or DeVos did due to his higher political visibility. 

35 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 

In any case, those who fearmonger using the word "dictatorship" as it applies to America has no confidence in the lasting strength of the US Constitution and its ability to correct itself.

You're not wrong about that. Trump's ability to flippantly dismiss Constitutional constructs like free press and scrutinized elections without a word of rebuke from a GOP establishment that currently controls both houses of Congress is reason enough to be very concerned. 

[anatess2]

12 hours ago, mordorbund said:

One of the lasting strengths of the US Constitution is that it prevents the Executive branch from performing like a well-oiled corporation. Do you have confidence that the Constitution still maintains the strength to drive the POTUS to cooperate, compromise, and work with Congress (even when lacking a same-party majority) in the best interest of Americans (which, admittedly, may mean deadlock)? Or has it weakened to the point that we've handed the steamroller keys to "our guy"?

For my own education, how has the US Constitution corrected itself in the last 20 years? I don't know that I've seen it since I started paying attention. There hasn't been an amendment in 2 1/2 decades. The Clinton-Bush-Obama presidencies have been an ever-expanding set of powers via executive orders. So (I'm genuinely asking), what has been the self-correcting mechanism?

The US elections of 1980, 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 in my lifetime.

[anatess2]

12 hours ago, Godless said:

Part of the beauty of a free press is that news outlets can take sides if they want to.

Actually they can't.  Just like a Doctor is bound by the Hippocratic Oath and a lawyer is bound by the Attorney Code Of Ethics, a journalist is also bound by Journalistic Code of Ethics.  The reason that the Press gets government access that a normal person doesn't is because of this.  They are the conduit between the government and the people so that the people can make the government accountable.  Journalistic Ethics demand that journalists remain politically neutral.  A model journalist is Jamie Dupree.  He takes Journalistic Ethics to its ultimate degree such that he, not only does he maintain neutrality in his job, but also he maintains neutrality in his personal life to the point that he doesn't vote in elections.  Yes, the government doesn't oversee a Doctor's adherence to his Oath in the same manner that the government doesn't oversee a Journalists' adherence to the Code.  Rather, the government has left them in policing of their own professions.  The AMA is pretty good at policing doctors.  Journalists have been getting away with all kinds of actions against the Code because they refuse to police themselves.  This doesn't mean that "they can take sides if they want to".  The government just haven't taken away their press privileges because they've been using the press for propaganda.  So it is left to the people to demand an end to journalistic corruption.

Of course, not everything on say, Fox News for example, is Press.  There's the Fox News Press (Fox News Live, Happening Now, etc.) and then there's the Fox News Opinion Shows (Sean Hannity, the Kelly File, Outnumbered, etc.).  Any guest commentator in the Press side of Fox News are not journalists and, therefore, doesn't need to be neutral.  Any hosts and guests in the Fox News Opinion Shows is not required to maintain neutrality.  But, the Press is required to be neutral.

A law almost passed that authorizes the FCC to regulate neutrality of the Press.  It did not pass because the regulation as written tried to achieve neutrality by stating that all News channels (TV and Radio) have shows that are balanced - so if you carry 3 hours of Rush Limbaugh, you'll also have to carry 3 hours of, say, Mike Malloy - but did not address neutrality on the Press side of the News channels, thus leaving the same situation where the Press is expected to police themselves.

 

 

[anatess2]

13 hours ago, Godless said:

That combined with his blatant rejection of just about every other media outlet sends a dangerous message.

I'm really doubting that you paid any attention to what's been going on in politics the past year and a half to today.

Donald Trump is all over the media.  He granted interviews on Fox one day and granted interviews on MSNBC the next, then CNN, ABC, NBC and then does it all over again the next week.  He was on the liberal New York Radio programs and he was on the uber-conservative ones.  And this on top of the almost daily rallies and tweets.  He was all over the place!  He dominated the news cycles.  Hillary Clinton/Obama wouldn't set foot in Fox except for Hillary granting the 2 rare interviews with Bret Baier and Chris Wallace.  And you never hear her on the radio.  And then she goes on press silence for 3 months.

This hasn't changed when he got elected.  Not only did he hold a press meeting with the major news outlets -paper and tv - the week after elections he even got out of Trump Tower to grace the New York Times with a special meeting in the NYT building.  Yes, the same NYT that wrote aritcle after article of false allegations about Trump's "women" in the general election.  They're the complete opposite of Breitbart.

You can find a compilation of all his televised interviews - there's a quadzillion of them - on youTube.  Google has all the print ones.

But yes, he has no problem calling out any media outlet for their corrupt practices even as he allows them full access to his message.  This includes the conservative Fox News.  And that's a good thing.  Somebody needs to slap the press upside their heads with the big book of Journalistic Ethics.

Edited December 2, 2016 by anatess2

[unixknight]

On 12/1/2016 at 11:46 AM, Godless said:

Step 1: Suppress or undermine the media, ensuring that your voice is the only one that matters.

Completed by HRC, 2016.  Trump stories were run only to be ridiculed.

Trump isn't suppressing the media, he's blowing past them.  They're still perfectly free to report whatever they want.  It's their own fault they flushed their credibility down the commode.

On 12/1/2016 at 11:46 AM, Godless said:

Step 2: Call into question any aspect of a free election that may cast doubt on your victory.

Happening now with the Green Party lawsuits calling for recounts.  (Anyone honestly think this is about getting the Green candidate elected?  Honestly?  Word of the day: Proxy) 

Meanwhile a couple weeks ago Congressional Democrats called for a vote to eliminate the Electoral College.

And what was that little scrap back in 2000 in Florida?

On 12/1/2016 at 11:46 AM, Godless said:

Step 3: Fill your highest positions of power with only your closest allies. If a former opponent wants a seat at the table, first demand a public apology and statement of allegiance (Romney).

Like Obama did with HRC when she became Sec of State after being defeated in the Democrat primaries?  Presidents-elect aren't in the habit of putting their political enemies into positions of power.  Was GWB any different?  Bill Clinton, etc...

My point here is to illustrate that either Trump is doing nothing unusual or the alternative would have been at least as bad.  These are not signs of an impending dictatorship.

[NeuroTypical]

On 12/1/2016 at 9:46 AM, Godless said:

How to establish a dictatorship.

Step 1: Suppress or undermine the media, ensuring that your voice is the only one that matters.

 

Yeah, that's relevant as long as you ignore this, and this, and this.  But yeah, as long as you just totally ignore all that, you may have a point.  

 

Step 2: Call into question any aspect of a free election that may cast doubt on your victory. 

I'll throw my lot with Justice Scalia:

"The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner Bush, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires."

 

Quote

Step 3: Fill your highest positions of power with only your closest allies. If a former opponent wants a seat at the table, first demand a public apology and statement of allegiance (Romney).

Well, Trump has notable skill at forming teams, and I guess we'll see if he wants nothing but yes-men, won't we.  

I don't know why your Step 3 is a harbinger of dictatorship, it's just a dumb mistake that people make sometimes.