Jump to content

The Media's Portrayal of Trump and His Presidency


Nanker

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

 

Oh please. 

 

You keep supporting the man who is single handedly making the GOP a laughing stock. 

 

The man is a FRAUD and always has been.  

 

Golfing by Obama VERY BAD 

Executive orders by Obama VERY BAD 

 

Yet, here comes Don making Obama look like a Saint.  

 

 

Has any other Republican POTUS driven more Republicans from the party?

 

and sure lets add in the Democrat side as well.    

Has any other Democratic POTUS driven more Democrats from the party?

 

You're laboring under the delusion that Trump is a republican, worried about protecting the brand. That's 100% not what he is. His first term was spent gutting the republican party of the rot from within (bye-bye Paul Ryanm see-ya No Name) and exposing the snakes who play for team "establishment" over party (hi, Mr. Rubio!). This has never been about the GOP v the DNC, or right v left -- this presidency has been about using an outside force to wreck the establishment forces who, for many decades, have spent their time in power feathering their own nests instead of serving the People who elected them. 

 

There are as many "bad" Republicans as there are dems. It's just the Republicans got shown the door first. Second Trump term will be the democrat's turn.

Edited by Deranged Rhino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You're laboring under the delusion that Trump is a republican, worried about protecting the brand. That's 100% not what he is. His first term was spent gutting the republican party of the rot from within (bye-bye Paul Ryan) and exposing the snakes who play for team "establishment" over party (hi, Mr. Rubio!). This has never been about the GOP v the DNC, or right v left -- this presidency has been about using an outside force to wreck the establishment forces who, for many decades, have spent their time in power feathering their own nests instead of serving the People who elected them. 

 

There are as many "bad" Republicans as there are dems. It's just the Republicans got shown the door first. Second Trump term will be the democrat's turn.

image.thumb.jpeg.ddb3e03cabf40df0ab0784ced101fc57.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

 

Oh please. 

 

You keep supporting the man who is single handedly making the GOP a laughing stock. 

 

The man is a FRAUD and always has been.  

 

Golfing by Obama VERY BAD 

Executive orders by Obama VERY BAD 

 

Yet, here comes Don making Obama look like a Saint.  

 

 

Has any other Republican POTUS driven more Republicans from the party?

 

and sure lets add in the Democrat side as well.    

Has any other Democratic POTUS driven more Democrats from the party?

 

Have you every considered that a likely majority of the population despises Washington politicians and media for good reasons?  Trump was/is an outsider which is a big part of his appeal.  He's certainly flawed and those flaws are frequently on display.  Lots of people want illegal immigration finally fixed, want fiscal responsibility and want our military removed from Middle East conflicts.  Additionally Trump has exposed China for the cheating pricks that they are.  Add to that health insurance reforms.  We're a better country if we tackle those 5 things.  Trump has had only limited success in these areas but has had little to no help.  Trump's support is rooted in his willingness to take on politicians, media and the leadership of other countries.  The often baseless attacks from his political opposition and the media only fuel his popularity. 

 

He's been lousy on fiscal responsibility and frankly he could be calling out his political opposition much better IMO.

Edited by keepthefaith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mainstream Media Is at the Point of No Return

by Steve McCann

 

Original Article

 

A recent landmark poll of 20,000 citizens undertaken by the Knight Foundation and Gallup found that Americans’ hope for and trust in an objective media is all but lost. They see not only an ever-growing partisanship in news reporting but a determination by the mainstream media to push a political agenda instead of honestly disseminating the news.

 

While generic faith in the media has been gradually declining over recent decades, the precipitous drop in trust and questions about what motivates the mainstream media can be traced to June 2015 and Donald Trump’s entry into the presidential sweepstakes.

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/9/2020 at 1:57 PM, Doc Brown said:

Out of curiosity, how many of your tenants didn't pay rent since Covid hit compared to normal times?  I just own one duplex that I rent out and the couple downstairs were able to finally pay the water bill after stalling for five months because of the jacked up unemployment benefits.

 

Sorry, just now seeing and replying to this, Doc.  I have many rent houses, and I'd say 60% are paying late, or not at all (probably 80% late, 20% not at all).  All of them have their reasons/excuses, and I'm a fair guy, so I try to work with those that aren't just trying to jerk me around.  The problem is, I'm neutered in my ability to demand rent, as I can't evict, as there's a moratorium on evictions for not paying rent.  It's all well and good the extending of unemployment benefits;  most of the people I deal with are making MORE now than they ever did working.  But because they know they can't be evicted, they're just not paying.  It's going to make a NASTY back-log of evictions once this stuff is figured out.  And even then, I'm going to have to file liens on people's future income.  I understand why they did it, but giving people EXTRA money to stay at home, AND neuter landlords, it was a VERY BAD combination.  Most people that I rent to, rent because they have sucky credit ratings, and, thus, can't get a loan to buy a house.  And I'm NOT renting in the crappy-part of my town;  I rent to the mid-level people. The people that COULD afford to own - but don't manage their money well.  The exact people that extending unemployment benefits.

 

WHY did we EVER do the thing we just did;  the unemployment-per-area +600.00?  Why didn't we just make it so that, you got 100% (or some lesser amount) of what you were making?  When you make it unemployment +600/week, everyone HAD to know that there were a bunch of people that were going to be making WAY WAY more than they ever made, sitting at home.  That was a CRAZY, STUPID idea.  And I'm glad the "R's" are fighting against extending that.  Trump's thing offering +$400.00 is STILL too much, in my opinion.  Why couldn't they have just passed a short-term thing that said, you make 100% of what you made, while sitting at home doing nothing (I've still had to work this whole time).  They didn't have to give a freebie +money.  They could have just said that unemployment insurance now pays 100% of what you were making.  Definitely shouldn't have been more;  maybe even a little less, to incentivize. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, TtownBillsFan said:

Sorry, just now seeing and replying to this, Doc.  I have many rent houses, and I'd say 60% are paying late, or not at all (probably 80% late, 20% not at all).  All of them have their reasons/excuses, and I'm a fair guy, so I try to work with those that aren't just trying to jerk me around.  The problem is, I'm neutered in my ability to demand rent, as I can't evict, as there's a moratorium on evictions for not paying rent.  It's all well and good the extending of unemployment benefits;  most of the people I deal with are making MORE now than they ever did working.  But because they know they can't be evicted, they're just not paying.  It's going to make a NASTY back-log of evictions once this stuff is figured out.  And even then, I'm going to have to file liens on people's future income.  I understand why they did it, but giving people EXTRA money to stay at home, AND neuter landlords, it was a VERY BAD combination.  Most people that I rent to, rent because they have sucky credit ratings, and, thus, can't get a loan to buy a house.  And I'm NOT renting in the crappy-part of my town;  I rent to the mid-level people. The people that COULD afford to own - but don't manage their money well.  The exact people that extending unemployment benefits.

 

WHY did we EVER do the thing we just did;  the unemployment-per-area +600.00?  Why didn't we just make it so that, you got 100% (or some lesser amount) of what you were making?  When you make it unemployment +600/week, everyone HAD to know that there were a bunch of people that were going to be making WAY WAY more than they ever made, sitting at home.  That was a CRAZY, STUPID idea.  And I'm glad the "R's" are fighting against extending that.  Trump's thing offering +$400.00 is STILL too much, in my opinion.  Why couldn't they have just passed a short-term thing that said, you make 100% of what you made, while sitting at home doing nothing (I've still had to work this whole time).  They didn't have to give a freebie +money.  They could have just said that unemployment insurance now pays 100% of what you were making.  Definitely shouldn't have been more;  maybe even a little less, to incentivize. 

It's too difficult to implement that from a federal level and a more complicated formula you're talking about would've pry taken months to straighten out depending on the state.  The relief was needed immediately with the initial lockdowns.  That extra 600 dollars increases consumer spending which has helped keep the economy afloat during this pandemic.  That $600 had mostly bipartisan support in the initial bailout bill.  Now that states are opening back up I agree that the federal boost in unemployment should at least be reduced in half.  Maybe even tie the amount of federal unemployment money given out to the unemployment rate so it will be reduced over time.  If the company you worked for went out of business/isn't calling you back and you're making more than before.....why would you look for a job when you're likely getting paid more to do nothing at home?

 

I feel for you as owning multiple rental properties right now has to be a nightmare.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

It's too difficult to implement that from a federal level and a more complicated formula you're talking about would've pry taken months to straighten out depending on the state.  The relief was needed immediately with the initial lockdowns.  That extra 600 dollars increases consumer spending which has helped keep the economy afloat during this pandemic.  That $600 had mostly bipartisan support in the initial bailout bill.  Now that states are opening back up I agree that the federal boost in unemployment should at least be reduced in half.  Maybe even tie the amount of federal unemployment money given out to the unemployment rate so it will be reduced over time.  If the company you worked for went out of business/isn't calling you back and you're making more than before.....why would you look for a job when you're likely getting paid more to do nothing at home?

 

I feel for you as owning multiple rental properties right now has to be a nightmare.    

Thanks, Doc.  It is a nightmare, as about half of them have treated this as freebie-time for them, knowing I have no 'teeth' to demand rent without eviction.  I don't know what they think will happen when I'm finally able to go to court and make it happen, though.!

 

As to the $600 vs $300 vs whatever amount, I agree the $600 was a good, quick-fix, when we were all initially shut down.  HOWEVER, I think it's (I want to say ######ed, but know I can't say that) STUPID that we put out an additional $600-across-the-board, across all cities/states/, regardless of the situation.  THAT was bad legislation.  IF the goal was to make everyone the same as they were, then they should have just made it so unemployment insurance agencies at the state level paid 100% of what you made, in the last 6 or 8 or whatever it is now, weeks.  I had to go on unemployment once in the last 20 years;  right after 9/11 (had nothing to do with it, I just remember it because of what was going on).  At that time, my unemployment paid, I think it was, 66% of the average of what I made, per week, over the last 8 weeks.  So, I assume the insurance works the same way now.  They could have just made it so that the insurance pays 100%, instead of the 66% (or whatever it is now).  Point being, they should have NEVER made it a straight-dollar amount.  It should have ALWAYS been a %, and should have paid you, if they wanted to get people through, 100% of what you were making.  But NEVER should have paid more.  That was ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump has successfully destroyed the GOP

 

Trump calls QAnon GOP primary winner a 'future Republican Star'

 

And no doubt, in the remnants of the GOP, once the party of "Family Values" now the party of racism, misogyny, greed, corruption and hypocrisy, the Party of Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene will indeed be a star, and one more nail in the GOP coffin.  
 

Thoughts and prayers.   

                                                                                                 POLITICO uncovered hours of videos where she demeans blacks, Muslims and Jews.                    
 

New GOP headache as candidate condemned for racist videos wins Republican primary

 

image.thumb.jpeg.48a987a75f1a608c7059a572822e0133.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...