Donald John Trump: 2016 President-Elect

[Rapunzel]

15 minutes ago, parisprincess said:

HumblePi, a fourth reason that not many Trump supporters post here could be that, after seeing the people he is picking for his cabinet, they're starting to  have a case of buyer's remorse. At the rate he's going, I imagine that it won't be long before there are millions suffering from the same thing. I'm not a vindictive or revengeful person, but if and when it happens, I'll be there, gleefully saying "told you so".

I would hope that they are having buyer's remorse not just based on who he is appointing to key positions or nominating for his cabinet but also for the things he's already done regarding his own personal business, his kids and security clearance, his relationship with Russia, etc. Hillary did some things that may have been remotely questionable, however, she was not the first to have a private server and she was found to have not committed any crimes - more than once. Trump has far surpassed Hillary in the "questionable" area and has just decided to violate any existing rules, the Constitution, etc. and make up the rules as he goes along and look out for himself and his businesses. He doesn't care about the rust belt or the blue collar workers who voted for him - he has no reason to pander to them anymore. He doesn't care about their retirement, their health care, their jobs, etc. If they don't see that by now, then they're even dumber or more hate filled than I thought.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Rapunzel

[HumblePi]

10 minutes ago, windsprints said:

Sorry if this is a dumb question - could Congress make some kind of ruling that his hotel is off limits to anyone visiting the White House on official business?  I'm sure not but just asking/grasping at a straw.

Oh no, it's not dumb at all! Sure Congress can make a ruling like you suggest but there's already a law in place that says;

The Constitution’s “Emoluments Clause,” provides that “no person holding any office of profit or trust under” the United States “shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

The diplomats’ efforts in seek Trump’s favor by staying in his hotel “looks like a gift,” Painter told ThinkProgress in an email, and thus is the very kind of favor the Constitution seeks to prevent."

But his Congress will be a Republican Congress and one that will never choose to rule negatively against the new President.

[sistermagpie]

2 minutes ago, Rapunzel said:

I would hope that they are having buyer's remorse not just based on who is appointing to key positions or nominating for his cabinet but also for the things he's already done regarding his own personal business, his kids and security clearance, his relationship with Russia, etc. Hillary did some things that may have been remotely questionable, however, she was not the first to have a private server and she found to have not committed any crimes - more than once. Trump has far surpassed Hillary in the "questionable" area and has just decided to violate any existing rules, the Constitution, etc. and make up the rules as he goes along and look out for himself and his businesses. He doesn't care about the rust belt or the blue collar workers who voted for him - he has no reason to pander to them anymore. He doesn't care about their retirement, their health care, their jobs, etc. If they don't see that by now, then they're even dumber or more hate filled than I thought.

Honestly, I would gladly welcome any Trump supporter with buyer's remorse into the fight to stop all of these things. I would hope they would be able to see this stuff for what it is if they really are the honest voter they claimed to be, somebody who really cares about these things and aren't bigoted and don't want to hurt the country or the civil rights of others. But if it's just a case of wanting to be reassured that this stuff is fine because they're nice people, no way.

[windsprints]

6 minutes ago, HumblePi said:

Oh no, it's not dumb at all! Sure Congress can make a ruling like you suggest but there's already a law in place that says;

The Constitution’s “Emoluments Clause,” provides that “no person holding any office of profit or trust under” the United States “shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

The diplomats’ efforts in seek Trump’s favor by staying in his hotel “looks like a gift,” Painter told ThinkProgress in an email, and thus is the very kind of favor the Constitution seeks to prevent."

But his Congress will be a Republican Congress and one that will never choose to rule negatively against the new President.

I read that but didn't think it meant they could actually block people from staying there. Thanks.

[Rapunzel]

2 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Honestly, I would gladly welcome any Trump supporter with buyer's remorse into the fight to stop all of these things. I would hope they would be able to see this stuff for what it is if they really are the honest voter they claimed to be, somebody who really cares about these things and aren't bigoted and don't want to hurt the country or the civil rights of others. But if it's just a case of wanting to be reassured that this stuff is fine because they're nice people, no way.

Agreed SisterMagpie. I am hoping some of those Republican elected officials are among those who have "buyer's remorse" and try to help fix this mess. I've seen Rand Paul make some statements against Trump recently and disagreeing with how he is handling things and he claims to be close with at least 3-4 other Republicans that feel the same. The Republican majority is slim - I think it's something like 48-52? So if Rand is correct and he has those other Republicans with him and can get a couple more who realize that Trump really is not a Republican and is just harming the Republican Party and American Politics in general, then maybe something can be done about that asshat.

[ruby24]

1 minute ago, Rapunzel said:

Agreed SisterMagpie. I am hoping some of those Republican elected officials are among those who have "buyer's remorse" and try to help fix this mess. I've seen Rand Paul make some statements against Trump recently and disagreeing with how he is handling things and he claims to be close with at least 3-4 other Republicans that feel the same. The Republican majority is slim - I think it's something like 48-52? So if Rand is correct and he has those other Republicans with him and can get a couple more who realize that Trump really is not a Republican and is just harming the Republican Party and American Politics in general, then maybe something can be done about that asshat.

McCain as well, interestingly. I do think we will have 3-4 decent Republicans who know how bad this is and will try to prevent the worst from happening.

And hopefully we can win that Louisiana senate race in December and make it 51-49. That would be helpful.

[HumblePi]

3 minutes ago, Rapunzel said:

Agreed SisterMagpie. I am hoping some of those Republican elected officials are among those who have "buyer's remorse" and try to help fix this mess. I've seen Rand Paul make some statements against Trump recently and disagreeing with how he is handling things and he claims to be close with at least 3-4 other Republicans that feel the same. The Republican majority is slim - I think it's something like 48-52? So if Rand is correct and he has those other Republicans with him and can get a couple more who realize that Trump really is not a Republican and is just harming the Republican Party and American Politics in general, then maybe something can be done about that asshat.

I honestly don't imagine any of Trump supporters will feel buyers remorse unless something happens that's so horrible that they'll stop and question, 'what the hell did I do?' But, it's going to take a lot and something really awful to make people openly admit they were wrong and voted a monster into the White House. People hate admitting mistakes, especially his supporters.

Edited November 20, 2016 by HumblePi

[Rapunzel]

2 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

McCain as well, interestingly. I do think we will have 3-4 decent Republicans who know how bad this is and will try to prevent the worst from happening.

And hopefully we can win that Louisiana senate race in December and make it 51-49. That would be helpful.

Yes - I had forgotten that Louisiana goes late. I think I saw on one of the MSNBC shows last night that the chances for the Democratic candidate are pretty good.

[ruby24]

4 minutes ago, HumblePi said:

I honestly don't imagine any of Trump supporters will feel buyers remorse unless something happens that's so horrible that they'll stop and question, 'what the hell did I do?' But, it's going to take a lot and something really awful to make people openly admit they were wrong and voted a monster into the White House. People hate admitting mistakes, especially his supporters.

The really strange thing about this is that he's so unpopular already, even among the people who voted for him. They KNEW he was a horrible person, but also that he was unqualified and incapable of doing the job and they voted for him anyway. So....I mean, are they expecting this to be a disaster but they will still support him anyway? Or do they just hate Hillary that much and will be open to whoever the next Democrat is?

The country being at risk clearly was not much of a concern either way. When it all goes to shit, will they just flock back to the responsible candidate? I don't know. Either way, if we can't get rid of the fucking Electoral College by 2020 then we need to get a wildly charismatic, outsider candidate Democrat to up the turnout in those midwest states. I think that'll do it. I mean, Obama and Hillary got more votes than anyone else in history, but because of this stupid, outdated, pointless system we have to cater everything to the rust belt. But it's SO ridiculous. The person who wins the most votes should win the election, period. The fact that she wins by 2 million votes and it's not enough, because it didn't come from the right places is just maddening.

Everyone's vote should count for the same.

[callmebetty]

28 minutes ago, Padma said:

That would be nice. I'm not normally like this either, but feel very spiteful and resentful of what these people have voted into power (controlling all three branches of govt, too).  But I don't think there's any buyer's remorse. And I think he'll continue to successfully bamboozle them for quite a while, esp. since he will just find someone else to scapegoat when things go wrong (Dem opposition in Congress? Foreigners? The dishonest media? Someone, surely).  And I think his supporters will believe him, no matter what bad things happen and what excuses he gives.

That makes me think of a quote from last week's episode of The Walking Dead. Negan to Rick "I just slid my dick down your throat and you thanked me for it"

That's is all.

[HumblePi]

1 minute ago, ruby24 said:

The really strange thing about this is that he's so unpopular already, even among the people who voted for him. They KNEW he was a horrible person, but also that he was unqualified and incapable of doing the job and they voted for him anyway. So....I mean, are they expecting this to be a disaster but they will still support him anyway? Or do they just hate Hillary that much and will be open to whoever the next Democrat is?

The country being at risk clearly was not much of a concern either way. When it all goes to shit, will they just flock back to the responsible candidate? I don't know. Either way, if we can't get rid of the fucking Electoral College by 2020 then we need to get a wildly charismatic, outsider candidate Democrat to up the turnout in those midwest states. I think that'll do it. I mean, Obama and Hillary got more votes than anyone else in history, but because of this stupid, outdated, pointless system we have to cater everything to the rust belt. But it's SO ridiculous. The person who wins the most votes should win the election, period. The fact that she wins by 2 million votes and it's not enough, because it didn't come from the right places is just maddening.

Everyone's vote should count for the same.

The really horrible thing is that we're all going to be so fucked that we'll be too fucked to even care about gloating and saying "see? told you so".

[Rapunzel]

16 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

The really strange thing about this is that he's so unpopular already, even among the people who voted for him. They KNEW he was a horrible person, but also that he was unqualified and incapable of doing the job and they voted for him anyway. So....I mean, are they expecting this to be a disaster but they will still support him anyway? Or do they just hate Hillary that much and will be open to whoever the next Democrat is?

The country being at risk clearly was not much of a concern either way. When it all goes to shit, will they just flock back to the responsible candidate? I don't know. Either way, if we can't get rid of the fucking Electoral College by 2020 then we need to get a wildly charismatic, outsider candidate Democrat to up the turnout in those midwest states. I think that'll do it. I mean, Obama and Hillary got more votes than anyone else in history, but because of this stupid, outdated, pointless system we have to cater everything to the rust belt. But it's SO ridiculous. The person who wins the most votes should win the election, period. The fact that she wins by 2 million votes and it's not enough, because it didn't come from the right places is just maddening.

Everyone's vote should count for the same.

Agreed. I've made the same argument myself. The EC was started back when white males who owned land were the only people who were allowed to vote. It served a certain purpose back when it had to and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison came up with the idea, but there hasn't been a need for it in decades - or even longer. The system is absurd and you cannot tell a person to "get out vote because every vote matters" while the EC is still a factor. The EC totally defeats the purpose of having every vote matter.

I've seen the argument about how all the power shouldn't go to the most populated states, like my state of CA, but how does that matter once someone is actually elected based on a popular vote? If every person in the country has their vote count and the candidate with the most votes across the entire country wins, how does that give a state with a higher population more control over things? Once the President is elected by popular vote, which is the way it is in most other countries in this world, they govern as usual and just because CA has more people than NE doesn't mean that CA would get priority over NE.

Think of how different things could have been if Al Gore were made President in 2000 and if Hillary were made President in this election. That's what the people wanted. We got shit on, plain and simple. Our votes definitely didn't matter - if they had, we would have had two different Presidents in the last 16 years and, with this last election, we wouldn't be dealing with a moron who thinks he can re-write history and the Constitution and be best buds with Putin and throw Twitter tantrums that could land us in a nuclear war.

ETA: How about Al Franken for 2020? I've loved him since his SNL days and the movie "Stuart Saves His Family" or whatever it was called. Just remember what Stuart always said while looking in the mirror: "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and gosh darn it, people like me." :-)   Sorry, I grew up in MN and though I've lived all over the world and split time between CA and London now, I still love my MN sports teams and Al Franken.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Rapunzel

[Jolee]

1 hour ago, HumblePi said:

I'm wondering why we really haven't been able to have some communicate in this forum with people that support Donald Trump. They're here, I know it. I have only seen one or two comments and they were both anti-Hillary and not pro-Trump. Do they choose not to dialog because they feel a bit outnumbered, are they fearful of being ganged up on, or are they just not open to an honest dialog with Trump detractors?

Everyone here is articulate and respectful from what I've seen and I don't think a Trump supporter would be admonished or belittled intentionally. But I honestly would like the perspective of someone that really believes all the campaign promises and why they believe it. I want to understand how they're comfortable and hopeful with the incoming President. For the past months all I've taken away from debates and rallies has been insults at each other, mean spirited antagonism and boastful promises. What I never really saw between any candidate was a calm and honest discussion and detailed plans of the ideas they have for the future of the United States. I'd like to get some real insight, thoughts and feelings as to what attached them to Donald Trump other than a dislike of Hillary Clinton.

I'm not blind by Democratic loyalties I know the party failed a lot of Americans and I'm more than happy to welcome change as long as it's positive change for everyone.

There are a few of us here.

[Ceindreadh]

28 minutes ago, HumblePi said:

I honestly don't imagine any of Trump supporters will feel buyers remorse unless something happens that's so horrible that they'll stop and question, 'what the hell did I do?' But, it's going to take a lot and something really awful to make people openly admit they were wrong and voted a monster into the White House. People hate admitting mistakes, especially his supporters.

You mean unless something happens to them personally. Plenty of horrible things seem to be already on the cards. 

[ruby24]

4 minutes ago, Rapunzel said:

Agreed. I've made the same argument myself. The EC was started back when white males who owned land were the only people who were allowed to vote. It served a certain purpose back when it had to and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison came up with the idea, but there hasn't been a need for it in decades - or even longer. The system is absurd and you cannot tell a person to "get out vote because every vote matters" while the EC is still a factor. The EC totally defeats the purpose of having every vote matter.

I've seen the argument about how all the power shouldn't go to the most populated states, like my state of CA, but how does that matter once someone is actually elected based on a popular vote? If every person in the country has their vote count and the candidate with the most votes across the entire country wins, how does that give a state with a higher population more control over things? Once the President is elected by popular vote, which is the way it is in most other countries in this world, they govern as usual and just because CA has more people than NE doesn't mean that CA would get priority over NE.

Think of how different things could have been if Al Gore were made President in 2000 and if Hillary were made President in this election. That's what the people wanted. We got shit on, plain and simple. Our votes definitely didn't matter - if they had, we would have had two different Presidents in the last 16 years and, with this last election, we wouldn't be dealing with a moron who thinks he can re-write history and the Constitution and be best buds with Putin and throw Twitter tantrums that could land us in a nuclear war.

Exactly. Also, this does not happen all the time. Every single president of the 20th century came in with the popular vote anyway. I think the only reason we've kept this thing so long is because it usually doesn't matter in the end. But the disaster of 2000 was new, and now this? Where we have the biggest gap between the actual vote and electoral college in history? And she wins the vote by bigger margins than many actual presidents won by? I think this is a total malfunction of democracy. Most Americans did not choose and do not want what is happening. And this shit has major consequences. We're like in a totally different timeline right now where awful things are going to happen that would not be happening if the majority of the voters were not ignored by a system that only existed in the first place to benefit slaveholding states.

[HumblePi]

3 minutes ago, Rapunzel said:

Think of how different things could have been if Al Gore were made President in 2000 and if Hillary were made President in this election. That's what the people wanted. We got shit on, plain and simple. Our votes definitely didn't matter - if they had, we would have had two different Presidents in the last 16 years and, with this last election, we wouldn't be dealing with a moron who thinks he can re-write history and the Constitution and be best buds with Putin and throw Twitter tantrums that could land us in a nuclear war.

Just to add another fact that might even be adding insult to injury. The number of elector college votes allocated to each State is supposed to be representative of the population of that State. In 2010 there was a reapportionment of electoral votes but California didn't get even one additional electoral college vote when in fact, according to the U.S. census numbers, California should have close to three times as many votes as they currently have if it's based on population.

[Mozelle]

2 minutes ago, Ceindreadh said:

You mean unless something happens to them personally. Plenty of horrible things seem to be already on the cards. 

HumblePi's comment is what was going to bring me out of lurker mode for this particular forum, but your answer--which is along the lines of what I was going to say--hits the nail on the head.

I don't see any buyer's remorse happening unless they are personally affected by a policy enacted by Pence or Ryan and the like (I leave The Orange One's name out because it's clear to me that he has no desire to govern; he only wants to attend rallies where people scream his name in praise). As long as there are goats to scape (or something like that) and there isn't something that negatively changes their lives, I wouldn't suggest breath holding on that whole buyer's remorse thing. 

[Rapunzel]

21 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

Exactly. Also, this does not happen all the time. Every single president of the 20th century came in with the popular vote anyway. I think the only reason we've kept this thing so long is because it usually doesn't matter in the end. But the disaster of 2000 was new, and now this? Where we have the biggest gap between the actual vote and electoral college in history? And she wins the vote by bigger margins than many actual presidents won by? I think this is a total malfunction of democracy. Most Americans did not choose and do not want what is happening. And this shit has major consequences. We're like in a totally different timeline right now where awful things are going to happen that would not be happening if the majority of the voters were not ignored by a system that only existed in the first place to benefit slaveholding states.

Right. I think prior to the Gore v. Bush election in 2000, there were only two other instances in which the candidate that won the popular vote didn't end up President because they lost the EC - both were back in the 1800s, I believe. Back in the 1800s, I don't think it was considered as big of an issue as it is now given that not all Americans could vote then anyway. When things happened in 2000, that was a real eye opener and started to point out the huge flaws in the EC system. Again, if we truly want every vote to count and to be like the majority of other countries in the world, that system has to go away. It serves no purpose other than to cause resentment because our voice was not truly heard - we didn't get the person we wanted in office and that is just wrong. People stand in line for hours and are so proud to have this right that every American Citizen over 18 who hasn't been convicted of a felony is entitled to. People died so people could have the right to vote. To have the EC basically tell them that none of that matters and their vote doesn't count is just a huge slap in the face and it dishonors our Country and everyone who fought to ensure people had the right to vote.

Trump has no respect for this country, for the popular vote, for the Constitution, for those who fought for our rights and freedoms, etc. He does not deserve to be President - he hasn't even come close to earning it and the American people know it.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Rapunzel

[sistermagpie]

26 minutes ago, Mozelle said:

I don't see any buyer's remorse happening unless they are personally affected by a policy enacted by Pence or Ryan and the like (I leave The Orange One's name out because it's clear to me that he has no desire to govern; he only wants to attend rallies where people scream his name in praise). As long as there are goats to scape (or something like that) and there isn't something that negatively changes their lives, I wouldn't suggest breath holding on that whole buyer's remorse thing. 

And remember that conversation Gingritch had with the reporter as an example. When she pointed out that crime rates were down, he insisted that they "felt like" they were up. Many of these people spent 8 years convincing themselves that Obama was tanking the economy, causing a crime wave, that policemen were getting shot everywhere, hell that Obama was president during 9/11. It's not like we can trust there would be a cause and effect reaction even if every factory in the Rust Belt closed tomorrow they might still "feel" open for a long while after that. It took a long time for Bush to become unpopular, at least that's how it seemed to me (I am open to correction!) and even then the story quickly became how he wasn't being terrible enough...and now we have Trump who's so much more terrible.

ETA: I was actually reading an article recently by someone who grew up in a very pro-Trump area and they explained how much of the culture in which he grew up was structured around never being wrong. Anything that made you question what you’d been taught to believe was gone, and outsiders were always wrong. He said the only thing that sometimes had an effect was when it got personal, but even then they’d work very hard to come up with a reason that the values weren’t actually wrong.

Edited November 20, 2016 by sistermagpie

[greenbean]

And over the coming decades, more and more people will live in cities/urban areas. So the issue of population disparity between states is going to grow. 

[ruby24]

11 minutes ago, Rapunzel said:

Right. I think prior to the Gore v. Bush election in 2000, there were only two other instances in which the candidate that won the popular vote didn't end up President because they lost the EC - both were back in the 1800s, I believe. Back in the 1800s, I don't think it was considered as big of an issue as it is now given that not all Americans could vote then anyway. When things happened in 2000, that was a real eye opener and started to point out the huge flaws in the EC system. Again, if we truly want every vote to count and to be like the majority of other countries in the world, that system has to go away. It serves no purpose other than to cause resentment because our voice was not truly heard - we didn't get the person we wanted in office and that is just wrong. People stand in line for hours and are so proud to have this right that every American Citizen over 18 who hasn't been convicted of a felony is entitled to. People died so people could have the right to vote. To have the EC tell basically tell them that none of that matters and their vote doesn't count is just a huge slap in the face and it dishonors our Country and everyone who fought to ensure people had the right to vote.

Trump has no respect for this country, for the popular vote, for the Constitution, for those who fought for our rights and freedoms, etc. He does not deserve to be President - he hasn't even come close to earning it and the American people know it.

Yes, well said!! This is a huge problem, and you're right, in the 1800's it happened twice, but obviously only certain people could vote back then. And for what it's worth, both of those presidents were forgotten one-termers. If you come in without the vote, you're not in a strong position.

This should not be happening in a modern democracy. At all. No other country can understand how someone receives 2 million less votes and still gets to be the president. It's absurd.

[slf]

So Trump actually owes $650 million to Bank of China, twice the amount he publicly claimed. How much money does this guy actually have?

[HumblePi]

1 minute ago, slf said:

So Trump actually owes $650 million to Bank of China, twice the amount he publicly claimed. How much money does this guy actually have?

We'll check when we see his income tax returns and keep you posted on that.

[Kromm]

3 hours ago, HumblePi said:

As President, he pretty much can. There are swastikas popping up everywhere, there's a cabinet of civil rights deniers being formed and we have a leader who put a white nationalist right at his side. These aren't signs of unity, these are warning shots fired directly at everyone that's not white, straight or Christian*.

*sorry meant Christian, not Muslim

All but the declared White Supremacists (vs. the legion of undeclared ones, like Jeff Sessions) will avoid swastikas. But the red hats are already acting in place of those. I already anticipate a time where if you go certain places, even if you are white, if you aren't wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat, you will be questioned and assumed to be an enemy. Especially if you have a Northeastern or West coast accent.

[HumblePi]

1 minute ago, Kromm said:

All but the declared White Supremacists (vs. the legion of undeclared ones, like Jeff Sessions) will avoid swastikas. But the red hats are already acting in place of those. I already anticipate a time where if you go certain places, even if you are white, if you aren't wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat, you will be questioned and assumed to be an enemy. Especially if you have a Northeastern or West coast accent.

 I better think about practicing a Southern drawl and ditch the New England sound, 'y'all'

[Rapunzel]

6 minutes ago, slf said:

So Trump actually owes $650 million to Bank of China, twice the amount he publicly claimed. How much money does this guy actually have?

I've heard he's pretty cash poor - any money he actually has is in property and it's debatable how much of those he owns vs. banks/investors. It's suspected that he's borrowed a ton from foreign banks, including those in Russia, which is one of the reasons he didn't want to disclose his taxes.

He wants to give at least the illusion of wealth, so this is probably part of the reason he is so intent on having everything painted that gaudy gold color that would chip off if you ran a fingernail along it. He filed for bankruptcy 6 times, steals from his "charity," his daughter is trying to hawk some horribly tacky looking bracelet while she is on 60 Minutes for $10k (I wouldn't have paid $19.95 for that thing), etc. The man is no where near as wealthy as he pretends to be. I don't care how many gold toilets he might have.

[Nysha]

8 hours ago, HumblePi said:

V.P. Mike Pence and President Trump better get used to being booed. It's going to happen and it's all part of being the winner.

I think it's going to be worse than usual. The office of the President and Vice President usually commands a great deal of respect. However, the Republicans encouraged and abetted the lack of respect given President Obama and I think it's going to be even worse for Trump and Pence because their "reign" is such a joke. Nobody that has been appointed by Trump, with the exception of Pence, is qualified for the job, including Trump. Pence is going to be dragged down by association, which is the least of what he deserves. A lot of people who would normally be respectful because it's "The President" or The Vice President" just don't give a damn at this point. 

[Padma]

This is for those who want to see more from Trump voters and why they say that they chose him, Washington Post:  Why I Voted For Trump

re: foreign loans. It's a disgrace that the broadcast media (and HRC surrogates) did not attack him on this conflict of interest. As written above, he owes $650 million to the National Bank of China (who is also a tenant in his SF building).

But his biggest lender is Deutsche Bank, which federal regulators are imposing a $14 billion fine on for issuing toxic mortgages during the U.S. banking crisis.   If the German government bails them out, Germany will be a Trump creditor like the state-owned Bank of China is..

He has 16 loans with Deutsche--about $360 million. Two loans ($125 million) are for the Doral golf club.  A third (for $69 million) is for the Trump Hotel in Chicago.  Most recently, in 2015 he borrowed $170 million for his new D.C. hotel.  These all come due in 2024.

"Since 1998, Deutsche has been a lender or co-lender in at least $2.5 billion in loans to Trump or his companies." Per the Washington Post (see below), it is the only big Wall Street bank that kept lending to him even as he declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy (six times).

But Hillary's the "crooked" one.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/30/trumps-unthinkable-conflict-millions-in-debts-to-german-bank-now-facing-federal-fines/

Edited November 20, 2016 by Padma

[windsprints]

Quote

You mean unless something happens to them personally. Plenty of horrible things seem to be already on the cards

I don't think much of his base has the same definition as horrible.  Do they view Bannon as horrible? Probably not. Do they see members of their base treating people badly all over the place horrible? No, they cheer for it. 

[Kromm]

20 minutes ago, Nysha said:

I think it's going to be worse than usual. The office of the President and Vice President usually commands a great deal of respect. However, the Republicans encouraged and abetted the lack of respect given President Obama and I think it's going to be even worse for Trump and Pence because their "reign" is such a joke. Nobody that has been appointed by Trump, with the exception of Pence, is qualified for the job, including Trump. Pence is going to be dragged down by association, which is the least of what he deserves. A lot of people who would normally be respectful because it's "The President" or The Vice President" just don't give a damn at this point. 

But they WILL get that respect. 

As long as they are in a Red State.

And mark my words. Those places will hold out SHOCKINGLY long before they turn on Trump and his Cabal.  Assuming there's still a society and infrastructure to turn against our dicta... er... leader if they eventually come to their senses. Or free media around to report broken promises. 

Edited November 20, 2016 by Kromm

[KerleyQ]

5 hours ago, Padma said:

Appreciate your thoughts on twitter. I find it a lot more congenial in format and concept than fb, so maybe this is the time to take the plunge.

I like it a lot more for political stuff, because I'm on there anonymously, so I don't have to deal with getting into it with some of my right wing family and friends.  If you take the plunge, you can private message me on here if you'd like my Twitter name.  Anyone else on here who wants it can message me, too.  I just don't want to post it publicly, but I'd be happy to follow and chat with any of you on there, too.  (You just have to put up with my sports tweets, too, since sports and politics are literally all I talk about there.) 

3 hours ago, Duke Silver said:

I'm likely being redundant at this point, but please go look at this string of (7) tweets:

https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/800072169632002048

Yeah, when I saw that whole deal with the reception for foreign diplomats, I was thinking "there is no way this shit is OK."  Of course, I also thought it reminds me of the timeshare presentations this resort we go to tries to get us to agree to when we're there.  It's fancier, but, let's face it, that's what this little cocktail reception was - a hard sell on the benefits of foreign government officials staying in the President's hotel when they visit the US.  I saw a comment from one of the diplomats who attended who said something to the effect of "well, of course, you have to stay in his hotel when you visit his country.  It would be rude not to."  And that's exactly the impression he wants to be in all of their minds - that it would be some big breach of respect and protocol to stay at one of his competitors' hotels while visiting "his" country.  The ethical implications are blatant there.  

2 hours ago, Duke Silver said:

Just more awfulness in this space:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/alt-right-washington-dc-meeting-231671

Can the Trump supporters who say they are not racist & shrug their shoulders when it's pointed out that they, in the very least, did not let a racist agenda stop them from supporting this scum, at least acknowledge that when trash like Spencer loves Trump & what he is doing, that it's not a good thing for this country?

When I saw the comment about wanting college to be restricted to "the cognitive elite," I felt the hair on the back of my neck stand up.  This is some very real, very serious shit, and these people feel emboldened by Trump's win.  Who knows what kind of shit he'll agree to if they kiss his ass just right, given their complete and utter support of his campaign.  Also, Tila Tequila (who is, inexplicably, a white nationalist) tweeted out a picture of her and a few other attendees at that meeting doing the Hitler salute.  It's so nice for them that they don't need to feel any of that pesky shame for their repulsive views anymore.  

1 hour ago, Rapunzel said:

Agreed SisterMagpie. I am hoping some of those Republican elected officials are among those who have "buyer's remorse" and try to help fix this mess. I've seen Rand Paul make some statements against Trump recently and disagreeing with how he is handling things and he claims to be close with at least 3-4 other Republicans that feel the same. The Republican majority is slim - I think it's something like 48-52? So if Rand is correct and he has those other Republicans with him and can get a couple more who realize that Trump really is not a Republican and is just harming the Republican Party and American Politics in general, then maybe something can be done about that asshat.

I saw a story a little while ago where McCain was being interviewed and said that if Trump even tries to reinstate the use of torture, he'll drag his ass into court.  McCain's always hard to predict.  I think that, as he gets towards the end of his career, he's become less "party over all else" than he was, and he does have a moral compass in there, so I can see him doing the right thing here and there.  It won't be all the time, because the Tea Party (and now, the Trump Party) can be merciless with the RINO crap, but I'm thinking that, under Trump, he's going to find a way to pick his battles.  And, hopefully, he picks the right ones.  There is so much bad that Trump, Ryan, and McConnell want to do, but I don't think we can realistically expect guys like McCain and Rand Paul to go against all of it, but, hopefully, the two of them are able to identify the biggest red flags and go against those.  

Honestly, if I was the Dem leadership, I'd start befriending the two of them.  Maybe pick a pet issue of theirs that you're willing to sign on and support with them, earn their trust (and a favor or two), and call on the two of them together when something major comes up that you need to fight against or for.  Just having those two agreeing to vote your way on an issue would make all the difference, given the current Senate numbers. 

1 hour ago, Rapunzel said:

Yes - I had forgotten that Louisiana goes late. I think I saw on one of the MSNBC shows last night that the chances for the Democratic candidate are pretty good.

I would like to think that, given what happened on Election Day, the Dems in Louisiana are going to be extra motivated to get their asses to the polls, come hell or high water.  They have to realize how much is at stake.  

39 minutes ago, Kromm said:

All but the declared White Supremacists (vs. the legion of undeclared ones, like Jeff Sessions) will avoid swastikas. But the red hats are already acting in place of those. I already anticipate a time where if you go certain places, even if you are white, if you aren't wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat, you will be questioned and assumed to be an enemy. Especially if you have a Northeastern or West coast accent.

Lucky for me, I lived with a roommate from the southern part of Illinois (which is much more red than the Chicago area) for six years.  I picked up her accent during that time, and while I don't regularly lapse into it these days, I still do sometimes and can still do it intentionally when I want to.  That may come in handy as my "undercover" gimmick in the United States of Trump.  

Did anyone else see that the idiot in that Starbucks video, ranting and raving about his order taking too long and yelling "Trump!" is now suing Starbucks for "white discrimination"?  It sounds like what happened (before the video kicks in) is that he was getting pissy because it was taking too long for his order, and the guy he was with jokingly said "maybe they're taking so long because they saw the Trump sign on your truck."  This idiot took that as a call to action and started ranting and raving.  Bonus points - the police in the Miami area are very familiar with him - multiple arrests for DUIs and domestic violence.  And, he's a known crackpot who regularly sends emails to reporters at the Miami Herald, bitching about Obama, Hillary, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, gay people, etc.  One especially epic letter ranted about how President Obama got rid of 95 million jobs, in order to make everyone dependent on the government, so he can advance his perverse global goal of lesbianism, abortion, and Muslim power or some shit like that.  He seems like a fun guy.  

[auntjess]

4 hours ago, PatsyandEddie said:

The press blew it during the election

Maybe some of it did, but the real problem, as I see it, is that many, many Trump voters got all their news on Facebook feeds or word of mouth and emails from like minded friends and relatives.
You can have stellar stories, but if people don't see/hear them, that's the problem you have to solve.
Mark Zuckerberg should have policed Facebook better.  Instead, they started using bots instead of humans to figure what went in the "trending" box, with no thought to whether a story was true.

[numbnut]

23 minutes ago, Padma said:

This is for those who want to see more from Trump voters and why they say that they chose him, Washington Post:  Why I Voted For Trump

Great link. I see a lot of "I wanted to send a message to the status quo by voting for an outsider," which I totally get. DC politics can be frustrating and a maverick can shake things up, but I draw the line at picking a woefully unqualified maverick (with a history of stiffing workers to line his pockets) who's unwilling to educate himself. Their assumption seems to be that Trump will only shake things up in a good way and that his inexperience won't make things worse. I would prefer a maverick who knows the ins and outs of DC (and understands the long-term ramifications of his maverick decisions) instead of a maverick who's completely out of his depth. Do his supporters really believe that Trump knows more than "all the generals"? His hyperbolic lies and flip-flopping are off the chain (and well documented) yet never questioned. It's a scary thing when candidates aren't researched until it's too late.

[Silver Raven]

On Friday night, Trump held a glittering gala for 100 foreign diplomats at his new Washington hotel.  As part of the banquet, they gave away lottery tickets.  The winners got free stays at Trump resorts all around the world.  Diplomats were quoted as saying, "yes, of course, when we come to Washington, we're going to stay at Trump's hotel in order to curry favor with him."

 

So he's already using his position as President of the United States to drum up business for his private companies.

[windsprints]

I agree the press blew it and that many of Trump's base took the fake news as fact.  I think its more than that though - even when it was pointed out that new was false they simply did not care.  The replies I saw were generally "well, Hillary's emails!","he'll be great" or "MAGA" then it was onto the next fake story.  Mock the disabled? Ignored.  Tapes of him admitting groping women? "All men talk like that".   They believed what they wanted and blatantly ignored what they didn't like.  It was cult-like.

I found the article that has the details about the "I VOTED FOR TRUMP" Startbucks guy that KerleyQ posted about above:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/11/18/i-voted-for-trump-you-lost-white-starbucks-customer-accuses-barista-of-discrimination/

Edited November 20, 2016 by windsprints

[auntjess]

Fake news outperformed real news on Facebook.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook?utm_term=.thKV5ryw&ref=mobile_share#.khOn5wKe

[sistermagpie]

25 minutes ago, numbnut said:

I see a lot of "I wanted to send a message to the status quo by voting for an outsider," which I totally get. DC politics can be frustrating and a maverick can shake things up, but I draw the line at picking a woefully unqualified maverick (with a history of stiffing workers to line his pockets) who's unwilling to educate himself.

Or educate himself beyond learning how to best use the presidency to advance his own personal interests. Yet his supporters already are ready create a narrative where Trump is super sacrificial for the sake of America. He ran for president with nothing in it for him, he settled his fraud case to focus on the good of the country, they've fastened on his "I won't take a salary" claim as further proof of his generosity. Meanwhile the mountain of evidence that he's a selfish cheat who'd raid their own child's First Communion money if he could just gets brushed aside.

[windsprints]

Donald Trump Pauses Transition Work to Meet with Indian Business Partners

[Kromm]

So I heard a very well substantiated rumor about how a major retailer carrying Trump brand merchandise has been getting enormous pushback/complaints for doing so. I heard it specifically about the Ivanka Trump stuff, but it's got to be doubly true about the neckwear, dress shirts. etc. that are still sold under The Donald's name. 

I imagine it was true before the election too, but apparently the number of complaints has exploded. And that pretty much ALL of the nationwide retailers are getting it in stores, but even more with their online and phone sales.

[backformore]

My laugh for the day - I saw the guy's twitter page (@baked Alaska)  where he called for a "statement"  against Starbucks, asked people to post videos of themselves ordering coffee and saying their name is Trump - just to hear the Starbucks employees say Trump?  I can't believe that they think this matters to anyone working at Starbucks!  ANyway, I was reminded of a similar thing  last year or the year before - Starbucks changed their holiday cup to solid red, and employees told customers "Happy Holidays" instead of Merry Christmas.  There was outrage, then a call for people to order drinks, and say their name is "Mary Christmas", in order to force Starbucks employees to say those words. 

I imagine the heads of Starbucks laughing their asses off at this.  

And I want to go to Starbucks and say my name is "Dump Truck"

[theredhead77]

Did anyone tell Trump the internet is forever? Another tweet that was deleted (but was captured)
http://www.avclub.com/article/12-hours-later-donald-trump-still-yelling-about-ha-246202

[Padma]

I agree that Dems might, at times, be able to work together with Rand Paul and John McCain against some Trump proposal.  Another one I'd think about is LIndsay Graham. He was great in his bluntness about how awful Trump was/is.  But also, the other day, Republicans in the senate (and Ryan was urging it too) were saying maybe they should end the filibuster so they can just pass everything with 51 votes--leaving Democrats powerless (you know, like a right-wing dictatorship just got control over everything.)

I was glad to see that Graham immediately came out against it. (I think McCain was "yes" and Paul was a disappointing "maybe"). Maybe Jeff Flake would be another one who could be independent of his party at times--he did show some guts in opposing Trump (although of course he wasn't up for election so it was a little less risky. Still, Trump threatened him with payback--I think he was planning a SuperPac to eliminate all his congressional opponents--and Flake stood his ground, so that was something. 

There might be a few with backbone--at least on certain issues--just not many. 

[SyracuseMug]

8 hours ago, HumblePi said:

I'm wondering why we really haven't been able to have some communicate in this forum with people that support Donald Trump. They're here, I know it. I have only seen one or two comments and they were both anti-Hillary and not pro-Trump. Do they choose not to dialog because they feel a bit outnumbered, are they fearful of being ganged up on, or are they just not open to an honest dialog with Trump detractors?

Everyone here is articulate and respectful from what I've seen and I don't think a Trump supporter would be admonished or belittled intentionally. But I honestly would like the perspective of someone that really believes all the campaign promises and why they believe it. I want to understand how they're comfortable and hopeful with the incoming President. For the past months all I've taken away from debates and rallies has been insults at each other, mean spirited antagonism and boastful promises. What I never really saw between any candidate was a calm and honest discussion and detailed plans of the ideas they have for the future of the United States. I'd like to get some real insight, thoughts and feelings as to what attached them to Donald Trump other than a dislike of Hillary Clinton.

I'm not blind by Democratic loyalties I know the party failed a lot of Americans and I'm more than happy to welcome change as long as it's positive change for everyone.

I’ve been wanting to contribute something from the “pro-Trump” side, but I know that it’s going to take some time for me to gather my thoughts and present them coherently (there’s quite a lot I’d like to say, and I tend to be very long-winded). So if you’re willing to wait a few days for an answer to this post, I’ll try to get started on it.

I’ve maintained my silence thus far out of respect for the general mood of the posters here. I’m not interested in confrontations or in trying to change anyone’s mind, but I may be able to offer a slightly different perspective. We’ll see.

[HumblePi]

6 hours ago, SyracuseMug said:

I’ve been wanting to contribute something from the “pro-Trump” side, but I know that it’s going to take some time for me to gather my thoughts and present them coherently (there’s quite a lot I’d like to say, and I tend to be very long-winded). So if you’re willing to wait a few days for an answer to this post, I’ll try to get started on it.

I’ve maintained my silence thus far out of respect for the general mood of the posters here. I’m not interested in confrontations or in trying to change anyone’s mind, but I may be able to offer a slightly different perspective. We’ll see.

I hear you, and I understand.

In this situation, on this particular thread, there's 99.9% more comments that are made out of fear, anger or dread for Donald Trump. It's getting better, but I don't think those things will go away until we see something concrete that will relieve the fear, subside the anger and make us feel confident in his Presidency. I think everyone would welcome someone with a rational voice that will bring forth a positive, hopeful and calming viewpoint. Thanks for that response.

Regarding the question as to where President Trump and his family will be spending their time, NY, Washington or Mar-a-Lago;

Kellyanne Conway told CNN, "Obviously if his day job is in Washington, he'll be there, that's where he will be most focused.". The secret service and local police agencies will be forced to cover his whereabouts in multiple places every week. But she said something else that concerned me even more. "Obviously it's a very unique situation when somebody who has been incredibly successful in an entirely non-political industry in a city away from Washington, D.C." and this "He knows what the job entails. He's going to have the support of his family as he always has." The Presidency will be Donald Trump's 'day job' and it sounds like his children will be taking care of the real business of steering him, advising him and making decisions for him.

I think we're going to see the Presidents living quarters moved to New York City which is really bad not only for the NYPD and secret service, and not only for the people of NY who have to deal with businesses that are hurting and people's every day lives disrupted due to traffic restrictions, but to the county. This country doesn't have more symbols of National pride than exist within Washington, D.C. There's the Lincoln Memorial, Washington Monument,  Smithsonian Museums, and the White House. It's our 'Buckingham Garden' of Washington and it's more than a symbol. George Washington was living in New York at the time of his Presidency, there was no White House. The White House was built 200 years ago because people felt the country needed a central place to live and work. Washington, D.C. became the nation’s capital. It is not only the home of the President and his family, it is also the place where the leaders of our country and foreign dignitaries meet and work. The White House has always been synonymous with Government, Presidency, and Democracy.

Going forward, all tradition and 'sense of sameness' that we have found comforting will suddenly be discarded and replaced with a Presidency that is ever changing, more mobile and less accessible for this Nation emotionally and physically. It creates a sense of disconnect for me and I'm fairly certain others will feel that way. This stresses me out even more.

*I'm editing because I just read my post and something struck me about Kellyanne Conway's words. I quoted her word-for-word and noticed that when asked a question such as 'where will President Trump will be residing?' she started her answer with the word "obviously". That wouldn't immediately strike me as odd but it did reading it a second time because she began her very next remark with the same word, "obviously". This seems very insignificant to people when it's said but there is definitely a purpose for someone to use the term. “Obviously” is a purely destructive word, it’s commonly used when a new concept or idea is being built of preexisting notions. Do the American people have a preconceived notion that our sitting President should NOT reside in the White House? Short answer, no. The word “obviously” instantly distracts us from the real point, which is that he is completely breaking with tradition by not physically residing in the White House as a permanent residence for the next four years. It's all semantics folks, but we've got to be able to read these little nuances and decide for ourselves what they are really alluding to.

Edited November 20, 2016 by HumblePi

[fireice13]

I think McCain might be more willing to fight against his own party on some things because he probably won't make it to another term. I'd pretty shocked if he was thinking of running again in 6 years. Not having to worry about reelection may free him up to do things he wouldn't otherwise do. 

I did hear a few of the Republicans say they're against getting rid of the filibuster because that would screw them over in the future when the Democrats take back the Senate at some point. I don't think they'll have enough support to get rid of it. 

[HumblePi]

4 minutes ago, fireice13 said:

I think McCain might be more willing to fight against his own party on some things because he probably won't make it to another term. I'd pretty shocked if he was thinking of running again in 6 years. Not having to worry about reelection may free him up to do things he wouldn't otherwise do. 

I did hear a few of the Republicans say they're against getting rid of the filibuster because that would screw them over in the future when the Democrats take back the Senate at some point. I don't think they'll have enough support to get rid of it. 

Just looking at some of the suggestions for certain cabinet posts, it's obvious that both the Republicans and Democrats need to get more in line with a generation that doesn't look like their on the cusp of croaking. Seriously, they're all so old that I've wondered about a few of them whether they'll be alive in one year not four. People are tired of the John McCain's, the Jeff Sessions, Newt Gingrich's and those old elites that don't really understand or connect with today's society. The country needs young and ambition Senators to step up and to be a voice for the generations that not only represent rich baby-boomers but the younger generations as well. The worries of those are far different than their 401K's and Medicare as the older generations are. Their concerns are for their tomorrows and the tomorrows of the children that haven't been born yet. Will they even have a job in the future? Will their children and grandchildren have a safe environment to live in if we ignore vital threats facing the planet today?  If we could collectively grab them all by the shoulders and shake them to bring them to their senses, maybe we could make them see that we're here and they are our only voices. I'm retired and living on what I've worked for and saved all my life. But young people today don't have the same opportunities as I had and that worries me because THEY SHOULD.

[candall]

Three random thoughts and a question:

--I'm GLAD he continues to tweet.  All the better to keep an eye on him without benefit of filters.

 

--Ha, did you see him standing on the edge of the top step and extending his hand to the supplicants as they arrived yesterday?  They had to reach up to take his hand from lower steps while he loomed over them, looking down.  Romney's a head taller than DT and still all the footage is Romney with his face tilted up beseechingly.  Points for tactical strategy.

 

--Obama's most recent soundbite, from his last stop in Peru:  "How you campaign isn't always how you govern.  [...]  Wait until the administration is in place and it's actually putting its policies together and then you can make your judgments."  Okay, communication received, Oba-wan.  It is, they are, and we're on it.  The man is so skilled at language and nuance, he can meet his diplomatic obligation and still send a message.  (Someone needs to check his blinks for Morse code.)

 

--Question.  To me, DT's comment that Romney would 'drop to his knees' was shorthand for:  "I could tell Mitt to blow me and he would."  Was that the implication other people got or am I just vulgar*?  Did others infer he only meant "assume a deferential posture"?  

Why do they keep showing the clip where Romney calls DT a "phony" to characterize the friction between those two?  The "on his knees" reference is much more indicative of the chasm between back then and the current "Hmm, maybe State Department?"  (Which I don't believe for a second.)

*It occurred to me that hour-long interview might have been spent with Romney actually on his knees, genuflecting or . . . whatever.

[fishcakes]

10 hours ago, Kromm said:

So I heard a very well substantiated rumor about how a major retailer carrying Trump brand merchandise has been getting enormous pushback/complaints for doing so. I heard it specifically about the Ivanka Trump stuff, but it's got to be doubly true about the neckwear, dress shirts. etc. that are still sold under The Donald's name. 

I imagine it was true before the election too, but apparently the number of complaints has exploded. And that pretty much ALL of the nationwide retailers are getting it in stores, but even more with their online and phone sales.

I think Donald's menswear line is no longer in production. Macy's dropped his stuff a year ago after his "Mexicans are rapists" comments and they reiterated last week that they won't be reinstating that line ever. Since Macy's was the only place to buy it, that clothing line is essentially kaput, at least for now. I did a quick Google search and I'm only seeing it sold by third-party sellers on Amazon and on eBay. I don't know for sure, but it appears that he was just licensing his name to a Macy's label line but doesn't have his own clothing company.

Macy's does still carry Ivanka's stuff though, as do a lot of other major department stores. Nordstrom in particular was targeted by the #GrabYourWallet campaign on twitter calling for a store boycott, to the point where they issued a statement saying that carrying her line was not a political position and that they wanted to let customers choose whether to buy it or not. I don't think this is going to hurt Nordstom much if at all, but it was still probably a mistake. Ivanka's stuff is not good quality (the shoes in particular look very cheap) and it's never had any designer cachet, so it's not a good fit for them and I can't imagine it's a big seller for their typical customers. They probably would have dropped the line sooner or later anyway just based on poor sales -- I know I occasionally see her things in the Nordstrom at the mall where we get parking lot gunfire, but never at the flagship store -- so I think it would have been smarter for them to just drop the line without comment, rather than issuing a statement that angered their customer base.

[HumblePi]

1 hour ago, candall said:

Three random thoughts and a question:

--I'm GLAD he continues to tweet.  All the better to keep an eye on him without benefit of filters.

--Ha, did you see him standing on the edge of the top step and extending his hand to the supplicants as they arrived yesterday?  They had to reach up to take his hand from lower steps while he loomed over them, looking down.  Romney's a head taller than DT and still all the footage is Romney with his face tilted up beseechingly.  Points for tactical strategy.

 

You have a good point about the President-elect and his Tweeting habit. I doubt that's something he'll change once he's sworn in as leader of the free world. It's just hard to comprehend that the President of one of the most powerful democracies in the world chooses to tweet unfiltered. It can be extremely dangerous as it can instantly anger people and divide those who agree with him with those that are angered by his tweets. But, as you said, we will be able to instantly know where he's going, what direction he's taking as far as policy and where his 'vendetta's du jour' are.

Notice body language and eyes when you watch President Trump welcome someone like Mitt Romney. He quickly glances to cameras in order for them to capture the warm, fuzzy moments. He places his hand briefly on their back as a sign of 'welcome'. I noticed in the infamous bus scene with Billy Bush that when he met Arianne Zucker he ever-so-quickly glanced at her breasts. Because ya know....."a woman can't be a 10 if she's flat chested". 

[Menrva]

7 hours ago, SyracuseMug said:

I’ve been wanting to contribute something from the “pro-Trump” side, but I know that it’s going to take some time for me to gather my thoughts and present them coherently (there’s quite a lot I’d like to say, and I tend to be very long-winded). So if you’re willing to wait a few days for an answer to this post, I’ll try to get started on it.

I’ve maintained my silence thus far out of respect for the general mood of the posters here. I’m not interested in confrontations or in trying to change anyone’s mind, but I may be able to offer a slightly different perspective. We’ll see.

Thank you for your respect - I imagine it can't be easy reading the many emotional and passionate posts here, most of which are vehemently opposed to the president-elect. Myself included. I admit to still being very emotional and angry and it's really, really hard to be generous when I have so many personal reasons to not be. You most likely won't change my mind, as you've said, but I would like to think we have some common ground in that we are all Americans who want the best for our country. I've decided to channel my energies into community service and voter registration and getting my kids involved too. Those are things that hopefully will benefit all people, regardless of their political beliefs.

But I also bought my ticket to the March on January 21 and I will be there to voice my dissent and to raise awareness.