I'm starting to loathe the actions of President Trump

Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 12208
I haven't yet seen anyone use the term Post-Trump Stress Disorder, but it seems to something someone would have come up with by now.

If not, I guess I'll have to take credit and trademark it.
Mar 19, 2017 12:42 PM
0 0
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 181
Janson JinnistanI haven't yet seen anyone use the term Post-Trump Stress Disorder, but it seems to something someone would have come up with by now.

If not, I guess I'll have to take credit and trademark it.

eh I know too many people with legit PTSD to want to co-opt their condition.

besides we're not in the "post-Trump" part yet.
Mar 19, 2017 5:19 PM
0 0
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 22574
Janson JinnistanI haven't yet seen anyone use the term Post-Trump Stress Disorder, but it seems to something someone would have come up with by now.

If not, I guess I'll have to take credit and trademark it.

Oh yeah, I've seen a few. President Trump Stress Disorder, Post-Election Stress Disorder. The APA has made statements about it, because it's very much a real thing.
Mar 19, 2017 5:26 PM
0 0
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 12208
Popsicle PeteOh yeah, I've seen a few. President Trump Stress Disorder, Post-Election Stress Disorder. The APA has made statements about it, because it's very much a real thing.

But I just spent a fortune on T-shirts....
Mar 19, 2017 6:39 PM
0 0
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 12208
Oxnard Montalvobesides we're not in the "post-Trump" part yet.?

Like trauma, or disease, the "post" refers to after the initial exposure.
Mar 19, 2017 6:42 PM
0 0
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 22574
Can someone explain to me exactly what would have to go down for the next president to possibly undo everything this administration will do? Would they have to go crazy with repeals and executive orders like Trump? I'm not looking forward to 4-8 years of a weaksauce Democrat steadily inching us in the direction of where we were at before. At best. Certainly nothing better.
Mar 19, 2017 6:49 PM
0 0
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 181
Janson Jinnistan
Oxnard Montalvobesides we're not in the "post-Trump" part yet.?

Like trauma, or disease, the "post" refers to after the initial exposure.

whoops, my bad

still, if I could stop thinking about Trump every 15 minutes or so that would be just fine with me. how much distraction is healthy for one's mental well-being, I dunno. at least I'm getting a solid 8 hours of sleep a night.?
Mar 19, 2017 6:55 PM
0 0
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 9665
DaMU
Janson JinnistanSo what's everybody's favorite cut proposed in Trump's budget? ?The EPA, NIH, NASA, USAID? ?Is it the elimination of safe industrial chemical testing? ?The elimination of endocrine disrupting studies? ?Or maybe it's the slashes in education funding? ?The State Department? ?Meals on Wheels? ?There's so much to choose from! ?Maybe you're enthusiastic to see the cuts to the secret service rent payments to Trump Tower (haha, psych!).

I think the most remarkably cynical one-two punch is in cutting assistance to low-income people for their heating/cooling bills while also cutting the program to weatherproof low-income housing in order to lower the costs anyway. ?I like this cut precisely because of its unambiguous grope of citizens' vulnerabilities.

The Meals on Wheels thing sucks, but what stood out to me is obviously the cut to the EPA (climate change = most consequential issue of our day), as well as the cuts to NASA, specifically the abandonment of the NASA mission to Europa, which is one of the most likely sources of extraterrestrial life. So many other cuts are awful (the EPA one is loathsome but predictable by now) - the NASA cut is like some sort of ultimate fuck-you to American optimism.


Having a background in science, I find this most bothersome. EPA, NASA, and other cuts in that area (alternative energies) just kills any possible advancements or kills any environmental protection. How hypocritical is it to claim climate change is not proven and needs further study and then with a stroke of a pen wipes out its funding for further study. It's mind numbing. I just shake my head in amazement on how stupid and idiotic this group is.
Mar 19, 2017 7:18 PM
0 0
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 181
pugman
Having a background in science, I find this most bothersome. ?EPA, NASA, and other cuts in that area (alternative energies) just kills any possible advancements or kills any environmental protection. ?How hypocritical is it to claim climate change is not proven and needs further study and then with a stroke of a pen wipes out its funding for further study. It's mind numbing. ?I just shake my head in amazement on how stupid and idiotic this group is.


yeah one wonders how bad our climate change policies (or lack thereof) will come back to bite us once the rest of the world starts suffering from its effects. (well, more so than they are now)
Mar 19, 2017 8:01 PM
0 0
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 12208
To put Trump's budget proposal in perspective, WaPo looked at the amount of taxpayer money being spent by Trump's travels, specifically his weekend trips to Mar-a-Lago, which costs an estimated 3 million dollars each trip. If Trump continues his pattern of weekend visits to Mar-a-Lago, then he will be set to surpass the entire vacation costs spent by the Obamas during his entire eight years (96 million) by this time next year, suggesting that Trump could sextuple Obama's expenses assuming he serves an equal amount of time. And that's solely in costs accrued from this one destination versus Obama's total travel expenses. As in we're not even counting the expenses accrued by other Trump family members, the rented floors at Trump Tower, the expenses in international travel, etc, etc.

Obviously this is a better use of our dollars than after-school programs for children in high-risk neighborhoods.
Mar 20, 2017 7:33 PM
0 0
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 12208
Popsicle PeteCan someone explain to me exactly what would have to go down for the next president to possibly undo everything this administration will do? Would they have to go crazy with repeals and executive orders like Trump?

Basically.

And Obama knew this was a Pandora's Box, which is why he resisted the vigorous use of EOs until his second term.

But what I find more scary is the Congressional Review Act, which the Congress has also been using to shut down some of Obama's regulatory initiatives. According to that law (passed in 1996), if Congress overturns a rule or regulation, then any future president is prohibited from issuing the same rule later on. For example, the recent reversal of the rule about energy companies not being able to dump pollutants into rivers and streams? Done under CRA, and therefore the rule cannot be issued ever again by any president. (However, Congress can make a law banning the practice, but that would require environmentally-friendly majorities.)
Mar 20, 2017 7:46 PM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 1356
The thing that is so aggravating is we are teased on the news if we get this bit of information it will allow us to come to a conclusion. So last week rolls along and they need another week to complete the investigation. Now its Monday Comey rolls in and confirms there is no evidence of wiretapping. Spicer says the investigation is still ongoing. Its all wheel spinning and ongoing aggravation to follow it.

One thing about all the indignance about Trump complaining about Obama wiretapping him. MSNBC which I watch, is particularly fuming about this issue.
But well, Obama was wiretapping us all and so was the UK. And this seems to be forgotten in the discussion on all the news channels.I was reminded of "these good old days" when Trump made the "We have something in common" joke to Merkel. We all have it in common.

I am one of those people who is grateful to Snowden and think he did the nation a great service. Maybe I should have put this in the "unpopular opinion"?
thread. Obama's reaction to Snowden was really a disappointment. Obama usually can sum up what's truly objectionable. But his reaction was anger the wholesale capturing?
of communications was revealed. He knew about it. That's what he was the most indignant about. Not that people were having their data and conversations recorded and investigated without warrant. He was going to take care of the abuses in his own time. But that is cold comfort because even if he did we would never have known we were being listened to by our own government.
As much as I am biased to want to see Trump squirm and confess he lied or made something up, how stupid is it that I would be indignant at an accusation
Obama wiretapped Trump. Nothing has really much changed. Our data is still collected and held and all it takes is an agency deciding investigating it is in the nations security interests to obtain it.
Mar 20, 2017 9:11 PM
0 0
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 12208
Robin McDonaldAs much as I am biased to want to see Trump squirm and confess he lied or made something up, how stupid is it that I would be indignant at an accusation Obama wiretapped Trump.

Other than the misappropriation of the decision coming from Obama, rather than the FBI, I think that the notion of Trump being surveilled seems eminently reasonable considering how at least four of Trump's associates on his campaign staff, some in rather senior positions, had already been under surveillance for what could possibly have been an unprecedented foreign interference in our election. I'm someone who finds the large bear in the room more compelling than the little details that everyone would prefer to talk about. Trump made those tweets in order to suck air out of that larger issue, to distract or consume energy from his Congressional investigations. I'm sorry, Robin, but MSNBC is just shit because they've fallen into a pattern of salivating over these morsels of distraction that Trump likes to drop on them. The fact that they would spend all the time in the build-up to this Senate hearing talking about whether or not Obama ordered a wiretap on Trump Tower - as opposed to talking about what Comey may have to say about the conveniently profitable foreign moonlighting of Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page and others, or the extent of cyber-extractions of a foreign intelligence service, or the use of weaponized disinformation in social media - only shows how glib and piss-panted that channel is (assuming this is all true, I don't watch).

As for the larger issue of Snowden, yes not some of Obama's finest decisions, either in continuing and expanding the post-9/11 surveillance of citizens or in his reaction to the leaks. But let's not forget that Trump has called for Snowden's execution if he returns, so he may not exactly be someone who's willing to reform such data collection programs.

He's kind of full of shit, if you haven't noticed.
Mar 20, 2017 9:44 PM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 1356
Janson Jinnistan
Robin McDonaldAs much as I am biased to want to see Trump squirm and confess he lied or made something up, how stupid is it that I would be indignant at an accusation Obama wiretapped Trump.

Other than the misappropriation of the decision coming from Obama, rather than the FBI, I think that the notion of Trump being surveilled seems eminently reasonable considering how at least four of Trump's associates on his campaign staff, some in rather senior positions, had already been under surveillance for what could possibly have been an unprecedented foreign interference in our election. ?I'm someone who finds the large bear in the room more compelling than the little details that everyone would prefer to talk about. ?Trump made those tweets in order to suck air out of that larger issue, to distract or consume energy from his Congressional investigations. ?I'm sorry, Robin, but MSNBC is just shit because they've fallen into a pattern of salivating over these morsels of distraction that Trump likes to drop on them. ?The fact that they would spend all the time in the build-up to this Senate hearing talking about whether or not Obama ordered a wiretap on Trump Tower - as opposed to talking about what Comey may have to say about the conveniently profitable foreign moonlighting of Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page and others, or the extent of cyber-extractions of a foreign intelligence service, or the use of weaponized disinformation in social media - only shows how glib and piss-panted that channel is (assuming this is all true, I don't watch).

As for the larger issue of Snowden, yes not some of Obama's finest decisions, either in continuing and expanding the post-9/11 surveillance of citizens or in his reaction to the leaks. ?But let's not forget that Trump has called for Snowden's execution if he returns, so he may not exactly be someone who's willing to reform such data collection programs.

He's kind of full of shit, if you haven't noticed.

NPR is my reliable news source. MSNBC and FOX are the only two US news channels that have decent apps for my Amazon Fire TV. I can get broadcast but I don't watch it. I like that MSNBC questions everything about Trump but get frustrated at their obsessions and slant. Like all cable news they get people/me agitated and hysterical. The 'possible' Russian scandal feels just more of the same coyote vs roadrunner chase. Everyone thinks they are getting close to their prey, tying the napkin around their necks, knife and fork out and drooling then they run will into an anvil.
Mar 20, 2017 10:53 PM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 10778
Janson Jinnistan(assuming this is all true, I don't watch

It is, and they're horrible. Having been held captive by my grandmothers viewing habits this summer when I was between residences, I was frequently stuck in an apartment where I had to watch this channel from morning until night, and watch them time and time again get suckered into hysteria over piles of nothing (all the while there is mountains of proper reporting about proper stories they were neglecting). CNN was frequently the same, but at least they don't have the smug unpleasantness of Lawrence O'Donnell on deck, or Chris Matthews getting red faced with glee over having a president he can spend an hour yelling about every night. Barf.
Mar 20, 2017 11:01 PM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 1356
crumbsroom
Janson Jinnistan(assuming this is all true, I don't watch

It is, and they're horrible. Having been held captive by my grandmothers viewing habits this summer when I was between residences, I was frequently stuck in an apartment where I had to watch this channel from morning until night, and watch them time and time again get suckered into hysteria over piles of nothing (all the while there is mountains of proper reporting about proper stories they were neglecting). CNN was frequently the same, but at least they don't have the smug unpleasantness of Lawrence O'Donnell on deck, or Chris Matthews getting red faced with glee over having a president he can spend an hour yelling about every night. Barf.

Yeah I can't watch Lawrence O Donnell. He's as scummy as Hannity its just not as obvious because he looks like he could be your dad. I still like Chris Mathews
but I see your point.
Mar 20, 2017 11:09 PM
0 0
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 12208
Robin McDonaldThe 'possible' Russian scandal feels just more of the same coyote vs roadrunner chase. Everyone thinks they are getting close to their prey, tying the napkin around their necks, knife and fork out and drooling then they run will into an anvil.

Well, when you spend an entire post talking about Trump's claims that Obama had wiretapped him, I can see how your perspective on the facts regarding the actual Russian scandal might seem obfuscated.

Good thing I read the news instead. The internet can be pretty nifty at sourcing fact from rumor so I don't have to bother with these cartoon cable shows.

crumbsroomIt is, and they're horrible. Having been held captive by my grandmothers viewing habits this summer when I was between residences, I was frequently stuck in an apartment where I had to watch this channel from morning until night, and watch them time and time again get suckered into hysteria over piles of nothing (all the while there is mountains of proper reporting about proper stories they were neglecting). CNN was frequently the same, but at least they don't have the smug unpleasantness of Lawrence O'Donnell on deck, or Chris Matthews getting red faced with glee over having a president he can spend an hour yelling about every night. Barf.

That Katy Tur though. (OK, I peak sometimes.)

Mar 20, 2017 11:15 PM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 1356
Go go Katy Tur. No problems there.
Mar 21, 2017 1:14 AM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 1356
I'm feeling coffee hysterical right now. But here's another thing that I noticed a lot over the last three weeks that smells funny.
When cable and other media outlets talk about Russians they all say "Drip drip drip", 'the drip drip drip of information". "the constant drip drip drip"
always three drips. Like its a talking point the dems or reps use. Its something John Stewart would have done a ten minute bit on if he was
still on the air.
Mar 21, 2017 1:26 AM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 55958
Trump campaign rally, July 2016, a few days after the RNC:

"We're gonna build a wall!!!"

"YEAH!!!"

"And I'm gonna get your jobs back!"

"WOOOO!!!"

"We're gonna kick out the Muslims!"

"HOO HOO HOO!!! USA! USA! USA!"

"And we're gonna LOCK HER UP!!!"

"LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP! YEAH, YOU TRUMP THAT FUCKING CUNT!!!"

"But you know what's REALLY pissing me off these days? You wanna know what I just got a wild hair up my ass about? YOU WANNA KNOW???"

A hush falls over the crowd. A pregnant pause. A talking point these irate behatted simpletons have never heard before. They eagerly await their orange god's next words...

"NATO SANCTIONS!!!"

Silence.

"Uh-yeh...YEAH!!!! FUCK NATO!!! WE KNOW WHAT THAT IS!!!"

Why didn't we all notice until now how weird that was? Who would have thought that this isolationist populist with ZERO concrete foreign policy, whose entire platform could be boiled down to "Fuck everyone who isn't white and Republican" would give a flying shit about... Russian sanctions? What the fuck?

Can you picture him sitting on his golden toilet flipping through his little notebook of stump speeches like "Okay, build that wall, bring back the jobs, climate change is a hoax... Oh, I should throw NATO in there. That will really resonate with my base of coal miners and 4chan trolls."

It's just such a very specific thing to go out on a limb with. And who was even talking about this shit before Trump showed up and made it the ONE thing he HAD to change about the Republican party platform? WHO, besides Russia, had EVER publicly said "You know, I'm not sure about this NATO thing."

However this shakes out, I'll go to my grave believing he and probably a significant portion of Republicans absolutely colluded with the Russian government. I just don't believe this guy, THIS fucking guy, came up with this ONE idea all by his goddamn self AND unlike every other thing he has EVER said, he NEVER deviated from it or contradicted himself.

Come the fuck on.
Mar 21, 2017 2:49 AM
0 0