Forums / Discussion / General

If not “MSM,” what news sources do conservatives use? I want to know what you use. I suspect it’s not Fox News.

Oh, they totally use Fox News. "Mainstream media" is a buzzword that refers to the political leanings of a media outlet, rather than its actual popularity. If a media source 3ver reports anything you disagree with or don't want to believe, just call it "mainstream" and ignore it!

Of course, liberal extremists do this too. Crying "mainstream media" is a sign of idiocy regardless of political affiliation.

Story's been out for a few hours. I heard it from the NYT first because the tablet I'm using has the app by default.

From the article:

"The appearance of the dossier, which does not appear to have been generated by an American intelligence agency as it does not contain its standard caveats or guidance about levels of "confidence," is another twist in the sometimes surreal story about Trump's historic political success. Senators and intelligence leaders on Tuesday described the dangers of foreign mischief in the political systems of the U.S. and its allies, and the Trump-Kremlin dossier is a quintessential example."

I'm curious as to how they even found out about this before it was verified. Why would these be let out to news companies before they could even verify any of its info?

I'm barely right-leaning, but I'll answer for myself: I generally don't. Over time, I've become less reliant on a particular news source and instead developed a methodology to inform myself, though I must admit that I have a bit of a righty bias with all the hysteria that I've had to look into since last year. As far as I'm concerned, "fake news" is far less pervasive and problematic (not to mention easier to spot) than bad journalism. Generally speaking though, if your site looks like balls and/or you have more than a detached voice in a non-op piece or if you go full HuffPo and do your "due diligence" in reminding me of how much of a (insert buzzwords here) Trump is every time I have to read a Trump-related piece from you, I'm probably never going to take you seriously as a news source.

>those twitter comments

I am completely out of the loop, but if this is a purely unsubstantiated rumor gone viral, it's very saddening that it's being spread like this.

EDIT: So I did my research, and speaking of bad journalism, Buzzfeed reminds me of why they're just awful.

Though the above article has the e-mail of Buzzfeed's editor-in-chief, here's a link to the tweet with the e-mail.

Literally publishing unverified info when other, far more reputable sources than your clickbait garbage declined to because it was unverified and was even noted to be perhaps irregular in form, is possibly the prime example of bad journalism.

Some do, but I think a lot of conservatives here recognize that if outlets like CNN and MSNBC have agendas, then Fox News has one as well. So I figure anyone using "MSM" with a negative connotation would avoid it, but I don't know what outlets are remaining that would have a small enough audience to not be "mainstream" but be large enough to stay afloat (because you can't really stay a decent journalism outlet without some solid reporters and investigators with resources, and you have to be able to pay them high-grade beans (otherwise, they'd just take their talents elsewhere, and you'd be left with less reputable and hard-working journalists).

I was most interested in broadcast journalism when I left (ha!) high school wanting to attend UGA's Grady School, so I worked in radio for a bit before I got my diploma. And even at a radio station where the political leanings were of the religious right, they told me that most stations got their news from Associated Press/newswire. You'd get very specific bits of news and nothing else.

The AP has probably branched out and would suffer the same issue that journalism has right now:

• an audience wanting to know news first more than they want to know the actual news
• and an audience that is very forgiving if the news sounds the way they want, right, wrong, or unverified.

So it's not beyond the AP to want to be the first if they're no longer the premier news source (and I suspect they can't be). But their articles are generally pretty straight with little leaning.

NPR feels very liberal, but I never got the feeling as if they had it out for conservatives in any of the news shows they had.

[If not “MSM,” what news sources do conservatives use? I want to know what you use. I suspect it’s not Fox News.]

There are a couple I swear by, but there's only one that really counts: the Drudge Report.

There's this conception that Drudge is this right-wing fanatic, which is somewhat incorrect. He's definitely conservative, there's no question about that, but most of his links actually go to CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. He uses just about every single internet news source there is. He's a news aggregator with conservative leanings.

What is conservative about the Drudge Report is not its sources, but its editorial policy. Big stories are usually posted with headlines which present the story from a conservative perspective. As an example, this latest Russian-Trump claim's link is titled "Are corrupt US intel agencies blackmailing Trump with their own dirt cleverly tagged to 'Russian' operatives?" which (unusually) links to Drudge's Twitter which itself links to the CNN story. And smaller stories tend to be those interesting to conservatives and conservative issues.

There's a tabloid quality to the headlines, and there are very rare times he gets something factually wrong, but really the Drudge Report is an indispensable news site. Even liberals able to look past the headlines would find it useful, since the majority of his links direct users to MSM sites. It is particularly useful for breaking news stories.

As I mentioned, there are a couple other sites I use quite a bit for news. One is a conservative blog, which I find helpful for political analysis. There are a number of sites I check regularly for news about ISIS and terrorism, but really the most helpful I've come across is liveuamap. It's a good reference point for what is going on with ISIS at any given moment.

As to the latest "But teh Russians," I have to say, I'm done with it. I don't believe it, and the fact that we keep receiving dribbles of allegations makes me doubt doubt there is any solid proof. It's all anonymous and un-sourced allegations presented by people whose skill set includes making up anonymous and un-sourced allegations. There's no way to prove what is true or not, so at this point it's comes down to whether you trust US intelligence agencies. Since one's position on the issue is a matter of faith, and since that won't change unless real, indisputable evidence gets released, and since I am near certain that will never happen, I can't see any reason to continue discussing the issue.

The last point I feel like contributing to this story is the fact that John McCain is involved in this process does nothing to change my suspicions. I've read enough about him to know he's as connected with and as corrupted by the political system as Hillary Clinton is, and he has very specific reasons for supporting intelligence agencies working to pin a Russian conspiracy on Trump, and these reasons go beyond Trump's comments about McCain being a POW. It's a very long and complicated story I won't delve into here. There are other places you can find such information if you're interested.

You know i was giving it a skeptical but honest chance, the same i did with the emails from clinton. But the stuff in the actual story, this report being unverified, nobody being willing to comment despite having every reason to have people in them who would like to see Trump takem down by this, the fact the report didn't follow any US protocols or in other words did not look like it was legit.

Then i found out this was from Buzzfeed, and all my little trust.went down the pooper.

There are a number of sites I check regularly for news about ISIS and terrorism, but really the most helpful I’ve come across is liveuamap.

While it has a left lean, I've found this week in war by The Political Notebook interesting to see every now and then. It's a long list of, well, what happened this week relating to war. It seems to occasionally throw a few other things into it every now and then, but it focuses primarily on war.

It covers a lot of stuff that you'll probably hear nowhere else unless you have some other war-focused news source.

The most interesting thing I get from it, honestly, is the realization that shit is always going down. Constantly.

Tell me about it.

Liveumap is almost real-time. I generally stick to the ISIS filter, but it's got several other options. It allows you get a sense of scale for Sunni-Shia terror attacks and other strife we don't hear about in the West but is part of the daily grind for a large part of the world. And it provides similar coverage for the Ukraine conflict, which we hear nothing about.

Spend 20 minutes on Liveumap and you'll realize we live in a violent world. And even they probably cover about .01 percent of what is actually happening.

Whoever runs their US political coverage is pretty biased towards the left IMO though. There's a lot of cherry-picked Tweets and other things taken out of context that are superficially true but presented in a deceptive way.

Do they present all factions present in the area?

FBI states there's no evidence current RNC computer systems were hacked by Russia.

Verbose said:

what news sources do conservatives use?

My parents watch Fox and occasionally read Breitbart while my brother's a fan of Drudge's news aggregator. I tend to just use Google News and sift the articles depending on which way the site leans (MSNBC, Huffpost, Salon, Slate, NPR, WAPO, NYT, the Gawker sites, and LA Times to the left; ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, USA Today, Detroit News, Mlive, and Time more in the middle with an occasional left lean; and Fox, Washington Times, Breitbart, WSJ, National Review, and OAN to the right).

And what do you think of this document?

After looking at it, I'm highly skeptical. I could format that in Word in a few minutes and then fill it with "Source B, a White House staffer with close links to the oval office, stated that Obama rapes puppies every evening in order to quote 'calm down after dealing with Biden's shit.'"

If it was actually captured on camera, show some screenshots. Not useless "unnamed sources." In other words, pics or GTFO.

Also,

The former MI6 agent’s writeup of the alleged info on Trump was reportedly paid for by those supporting other Republicans, and then by those supporting Hillary Clinton.

The alleged author has a very blatant agenda so I'm inclined to trust him even less.

Michael Cohen: ''It is fake news meant to malign Mr. Trump.''

I don't think urination is a political policy, but we're a meme site so it's fine.

So what's this I hear about Trump "nationalizing himself"?

So what say you on this? Apparently, Trump has conceded that Russia hacked the DNC.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/politics/trumps-press-conference-highlights-russia.html?_r=0

RUN AWAAAY!

Somewhat of a derailment to the conversation, but something I am thinking about these days:

Are we coming to a point in our history where we can create an Ecological Casus Belli?

Ultimately, if the fears of AGW becomes more and more apparent, and not enough is done by numerous nations, mostly third world, would nations such as the US declare war to force ecological legislature? Would the US be declared war upon if the environmental damage that it is causing is directly affecting another nation?

I doubt it honestly.

If you think about it, a lot of people don't really fervently care that much about the environment. I mean a lot of people understand the needs for the environment, but a lot of people also don't realize that living things are pretty hardy. I mean everything that's currently living survived 5 and even possibly 6 if you consider the time of humans a mass extinction event. Also if we develop a way to survive without the environment then you can be sure we'll probably care a lot less about it. In the end, the need for industry will probably trump the necessity of the environment, and we'll either develop a way to live without it or die because of our own stupidity.

TL:DR Prepare for a Forge World Earth

This is largely why I feel we need to focus our efforts on green energy and astronautics. I believe if Humanity wants to survive we need to start spreading out. I believe within the next 200 years humanity will absolutely need to start to spread out into space-stations, mars colonies, and moon colonies if it is going to survive. The first nation to create a cheap system of transporting stuff into space would have such a massive economic advantage that they would probably become an economic super power alone.

I also dislike private space agencies being the future. The advantage of NASA is that when they create a scientific advancement everyone gains access to that technology (Smoke Detectors, Scratchless glass, etc). If a private company creates a new technological advancement they can technically just keep it to themselves. I think Elon Musk has the right idea and the right heart, but I just don't trust private companies.

One of my greatest fears of this republican government is that they won't push for advancement in astronautics which is a huge industry just waiting for the right pieces to fall into play.

Are we coming to a point in our history where we can create an Ecological Casus Belli?

Declaring war to solve an ecological crisis is like using a flamethrower to kill weeds in your garden. Also seeing as most (if not all) of the major pollutant makers are nuclear superpowers that will likely kill any thought of an outright war.

One of my greatest fears of this republican government is that they won’t push for advancement in astronautics which is a huge industry just waiting for the right pieces to fall into play.

Rather optimistic thinking I'd say. As much as I'd like to put boots on Mars within this lifetime I'd rather not devote resources to it at the moment. It's a billion-dollar investment with a serious life-threatening risk for many people involved (both astronauts and engineers). The rewards seem too insubstantial or too speculative for the short-term in order for there to be sustainability for the long term. In other words, if there's no solid investment within a few short years it's not going to be sustainable for decades, at least to me.

Just look at the technological rewards we have thanks to space race alone

The race to mars would provide a massive technological bounty. The need for crops on mars would help farming to be safer and more effective with less space. We could improve solar energy generation, radiation protection, and rocket engines.

I don't think the "risk to human lives" is a very good argument. The space race was a massive risk to human life, many people died during it, but they all chose to do it. No one would be forcing anyone to go to a one way trip to mars. You could go out and ask the people of America "Would you be willing to train to be an astronaut to go to mars, knowing that you might die and even if you made it you could never return" you would still probably have thousands of volunteers. SpaceX already has plans on how to go to mars.

The prospective economics of space are a long term reward. you likely will never see a short term reward in space, but you match that with a very massive long term reward. But I feel that it is important to pursue these technologies now, because the best way I see to help planet Earth avoid an ecological disaster is to get humanity off the planet to ease the burden. If you go for mars and find a way to protect from radiation, you could make billions off that because every space station and manned mission would need it.

Now I'm not talking like this is possible in the next 10 years. I see this more as a 20-50 year goal. But if we don't push for it now, it could take even longer, and the longer we wait the more other nations might loop around us. I don't think we want to have to become Chinese citizens to be able to live on a space station.

>Boots on Mars

Forget the Red Planet for now, we need to get booking back to the Moon. It only took the Apollo missions a couple weeks to reach it, whereas Mars will take a year if not years. Luna needs to be prospected for what mineral riches it holds. Find something good, and every major power on Earth will join the Second Space Race. It'll be like Yukon and California, but colder and with less air.

The moon is hardly a suitable environment for long-term colonization, which is what it will take to establish a long-term effort like mining. I don't think there is much, if any, long-term potential for earth's moon at this time. Mars is more viable in my opinion due to it's earth-like qualities and terraforming potential.

We could improve solar energy generation, radiation protection, and rocket engines.

Listing the technology we NEED to get to Mars is not a reason to start planning to go to Mars. By that logic we should start planning to go to the Andromeda galaxy because we could invent FTL engines and cryogenic sleep.

The prospective economics of space are a long term reward. you likely will never see a short term reward in space, but you match that with a very massive long term reward.

But what I'm saying is if there is not enough to sustain the time it will take to reach the long-term goal, it will not even come to fruition. We need a decent short-term gain other than speculated technological improvements. We're talking about a potential centuries-long investment, which means there needs to be some serious rewards within the first couple of centuries before we start dreaming of the rewards 300 years from now.

Mind you, I do want to go to Mars and colonize it, but I don't want a 3 trillion dollar Lost Colony.

Luna is, however, closer. It will be much easier to resupply at the moment than a mission to Mars. Plus, it acts as a stepping stone to the rest of the system if development is put in.

One short term reward I can see is the technology needed itself. We could probably use a lot of that new technology we'll develop for applications besides trying to get to Mars. I mean a lot of technology nowadays was originally developed by NASA.

Neil Cavuto decides takes a shot at roasting CNN.

It would seem that "turnabout is fair play" is going to be a mantra for the next four years… or so.

To bring up the mars thing, Terraforming is an untested science and for starters, may not even work. And for another, would take hundreds if not thousands of years to actually accomplish. We think terraforming is easy because everyone thinks that global warming is terraforming. It isn't, and the investment would take far longer thent he supposed 200 year ticking timebomb that's been placed on humanity.

Which is another point I wanted to bring up. The chances of humanity needing to get to Mars or else we'll run out of resources seems unlikely to me.

What's much more likely is that we'll see humanities population drop like a stone when some new form of virus is released into the world. Especially with how many diseases are starting to become immune to medical treatment or disinfectants, or how there is a slow rise in parents not getting their children vaccinated, as well as the massive spike in chemicals in our water from people dumping their medicines down the sink and in the trash, or otherwise having a lot of chemical inbalances that would normally see them die off or get shunned, finding treatment to have children and spread their chemically imbalanced genes to another generation.

Basically, humanity will cull its numbers substantially in a way that doesn't involve war or active participation, before we can actually make the trip to mars. We're brewing the deadly cocktail of our own genetic undoing as we speak, people just have absolutely no way to stop it, even if they tried.

Related to CNN

I know CNN cutting off that Congressman was real because those columns of color on the screen are a relic from the days of analog TV. I highly doubt they are still using analog equipment. How stupid do they think we are?

The guy's reaction as well is suspicious. His "oh no" sounds way less genuine then what you would expect with an actual loss of signal and way more like someone going "that's a real shame" sarcastically

What I would like to know is how does the guy know automatically what happened?
How would he know that they just lost his satellite feed. Something else could've possibly happened.
Also nice that the only thing he had to say about that was "that sucks."

CNN in general are very blatant about silencing people.Like i mentioned above,the screen error is straight out of 1984 from some VHS tape,also the acting and the way the guy talks is very obvious like black graphic T mentioned.

Don't know if they are really that stupid when it comes to hiding their shadyness or if they are unintentionally bad at it.This happens all the time and in some cases they even make up stories.CNN straight up made their camera man act and interviewed said guy to for a story on the election results.

Dems are really pissed off at Comey, after a classified debriefing. Schultz was also upset at Comey for not making sure the DNC didn't have terrible cybersecurity and didn't return the FBI's phone calls for two weeks after they learned of the original hack.

Also, regarding the Russia-Trump thing, the FBI way back in October had nearly completely determined there was no link between Trump's campaign and Putin.

And Lockeed Martin's CEO has said they are close to working out a deal with the feds that would "significantly lower the cost" of the F-35.

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow joked Wednesday that if President-elect Donald Trump were to appear on her show, her first question would be whether he planned to send her “to a camp.”

Maddow -- host of “The Rachel Maddow Show,” MSNBC's highest-rated program -- was a guest on Bravo's “Watch What Happens Live With Andy Cohen."

“If you booked Donald Trump on your show, what would your first question be?” Cohen asked Maddow, reading a viewer question.

After a pause, Maddow deadpanned: “Are you going to send me or anybody that I know to a camp?”

An amused Cohen quickly changed the topic and moved on.

Maddow has been consistently outspoken against Trump since he launched his presidential campaign.

In July, Maddow shared that she had been prepping for a possible Trump presidency by studying the first few months of Adolf Hitler's tenure as German chancellor, beginning in 1934.

“Over the past year I've been reading a lot about what it was like when Hitler first became chancellor. I am gravitating toward moments in history for subliminal reference in terms of cultures that have unexpectedly veered into dark places, because I think that's possibly where we are,” she told Rolling Stone magazine.

They really need to stop this shit. All it does is make Trump look better when he inevitably behaves better than their dire predictions, and make them look hyperbolicly hysterical in the going.

They're still going on about that?
Come on, at least I thought they lightened up a bit and saw him as an incompetent or Russian sympathizer.

Source

It's a good idea to provide a source, and designate what is the quote and what is your own addition.

My apologies, I had a moment of laziness.

Well this is unnerving

Well it wouldn't be surprising that people would want them dead.
I mean they were a factor that sort of cost Hillary Clinton the election (among another myriad of problems she had). And you all know how people who annoy the Clintons often commit suicide by shooting themselves in the back of the head.

With his inauguration less than a week away, I have to ask: What do you actually feel about Donald Trump?

I know how people have said that he's been a victim of mainstream media(and they're not entirely wrong nor do I believe they are incredibly correct, but I'm willing to concede what I don't know). However, my personal opinion is this:

The man hasn't had control of anything yet so he hasn't done yet to earn disgust, however, he hasn't anything to order respect either.(Calling the media ain't that brave a thing.)

Personally, I admit I didn't want him in office, but life goes on. However, from what little I do know about the relations between Russia and U.S., it's more a matter of personal dislike about how he's seemingly so ready to be good with them(again, willing to hear why it would be a good thing, but so far, it just looks wrong to me.)

What do you guys think?

@Soul28

I don't question the election nor the results. I can confidently say Russia wanted the election to go a certain way, so whether or not that's best for America, Russia believed Trump was best for Russia. That, regardless of anything else, deeply disturbs me.

But he will be the President, so I support him. Unfortunately, he lacks common sense regarding political savvy. I don't mean being PC. I mean knowing that you're in incoming President of the United States, and knowing that you don't have to comment on every criticism about you even if it's invalid. I don't mind his bombastic approach and willingness to speak his mind, but will anyone really defend the acumen in doing so in some of these situations?

Most recently, Rep. John Lewis, a Democrat in Georgia around Atlanta, was unfairly critical of Trump's election.

“It’s going to be very difficult [to cooperate with Trump]. I don’t see this president-elect as a legitimate president. I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected. And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. I don’t plan to attend the inauguration. It will be the first one that I miss since I’ve been in Congress. You cannot be at home with something that you feel that is wrong, is not right.”

I can understand to some extent not attending the inauguration, but the election, regardless of Russia's interference (or, at best, her wishes), was a legitimate election.

Now John Lewis is "only" a Representative.

Don Trump will be the President. He can't afford to respond to someone who doesn't hold a similar position in a similar way. He is, and should be, held to a higher standard. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter…doesn't matter who. But the spotlight is now on Trump.

First, Atlanta is an urban area. Of course, the crime rate will be higher than the national average. In terms of ranking (if Wikipedia is correct,) Atlanta isn't in the top 5 in any of the listed categories of crime. The POTUS can't know everything, but they should know about what they speak strongly about.

But second, Atlanta is a great city. I don't say that just because I worked there and live in Georgia. I say that, because I've lived in small, rural areas and have lived in and been to other urban cities like St. Louis, NYC, DC, Chicago, Orlando, Miami, and Indianapolis. I'd like to live in the Atlanta suburbs once I settle down and have a family.

Third, regardless of where I've lived and been to before, I did live in Atlanta for two years. I worked downtown and even went to visit the more impoverished neighborhoods, and I never felt terribly uncomfortable. And at its best, Atlanta has the CDC, Emory, Georgia Tech, Coke, the airport, all of its downtown and the events it pulls from DragonCon, MomoCon, and AWA to college football, college basketball, and professional football and basketball (often on the same weekend. Every Labor Day weekend, you'll see people in college football jerseys on the same street as people people watching the cosplays for DragonCon in the parade that goes right down Peachtree Street.) And if you ask anyone in the film industry, Atlanta is becoming Hollywood East. Look into how many movies have been (and moreso, will be) shot in Atlanta in the next few years.

Atlanta is far from from "crime-ridden," and it simply is false to say that it's falling apart.

And fourth, it was just dumb to say even if it was true.

John Lewis is best known for being a Civil Rights advocate who marched with Martin Luther King, Jr. and was beaten by police officers on Bloody Sunday

If you must give into pettiness, then John Lewis…the weekend before the federal holiday celebrating Martin Luther King's birthday and the height of the Civil Right's movement to date…could have been the worst time to do so.

Someone in his camp must let him know how to navigate his appearance better.

Dude, just stop.

…well, I'd like to say that's a start, but that's not the only Republican that said either he was out of line, uninformed about his claim, or politically ignorant here.

His ability to get bipartisan support (or full support within the Republican party) will never get better at this rate, and it's in his benefit to get people on-board with his policies if he's really wanting to help America. Like, I would want to see what a real conservative can do with a full set of cards. I'm not hopeful about that prospect at this time in America's short history, but I was hardly an adult since I've seen an active presidency with a Republican as POTUS.

Good news for Britbongs.

In two separate, and quite striking, interviews with Germany's Bild (paywall) and London's Sunday Times (paywall), Donald Trump did what he failed to do in his first US press conference, and covered an extensive amount of policy and strategy, much of which however will likely please neither the pundits, nor the markets.

Among the numerous topics covered in the Bild interview, he called NATO obsolete, predicted that other European Union members would join the U.K. in leaving the bloc and threatened BMW with import duties over a planned plant in Mexico, according to a Sunday interview granted to Germany’s Bild newspaper that will raise concerns in Berlin over trans-Atlantic relations. Furthermore, in his first "exclusive" interview in the UK granted to the Sunday Times, Trump said he will offer Britain a quick and “fair” trade deal with America within weeks of taking office to help make Brexit a “great thing”. Trump revealed that he was inviting Theresa May to visit him “right after” he gets into the White House and wants a trade agreement between the two countries secured “very quickly”.

Trump told the Times that other countries would follow Britain’s lead in leaving the European Union, claiming it had been deeply ­damaged by the migration crisis. “I think it’s very tough,” he said. “People, countries want their own identity and the UK wanted its own identity.”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-15/stunning-pair-interviews-trump-slams-nato-and-eu-threatens-bmw-tax-ready-cut-ties-me

It's kinda awkward when the EU pre-brexit was predicting it would collapse into a mad max distopian hellscape within a years time, and when it does happen, that it would become a third world country within half a year, and now we're here in 2017 and neither has come pass. It's been just mildly uncomfortable, mostly due to the rushed job the EU did to iron out the details of the separation.

In relation to the U.S inauguration, O'Keefe of Project Veritas as found plans by antifa related groups to disrupt the inauguration with stink bombs.

>Stink Bombs

What is this, fucking 1980's High School?

They truly lack the stomach to do anything worse. Good. Proves how toothless the militant left is.

Soul28 said:

What do you actually feel about Donald Trump?

I think he'll be an entertaining president, both in the never ending stream of controversies he'll create (to anyone who thinks the trending entries will finally shift away from politics now that the election is over, I hope you're ready for the next four years) and in how mad and hypocritical he's making the left.

But I don't think he'll be a particularly good president. He'll inflame the Democratic Party and ensure the second they get a majority in Congress again they'll work to undo whatever he accomplished domestically. His brash persona will likely lead to numerous diplomatic headaches. And the vitriol that has been kicked up may not dissipate for decades, leading to gridlock, court cases, and enough opinion articles to fill the Library of Alexandria.

At the same time, there's a part of me that's hopeful. He's already trying to slash bloated defense spending, has wanted to take a more isolationist approach internationally, will likely be placing a firm conservative on SCOTUS, and wants to invest in worthwhile domestic programs like infrastructure spending and tax reform. I was wrong about who the GOP would nominate, and who would win the presidency. Who's to say I'm not wrong about how the next for years will be?

it’s more a matter of personal dislike about how he’s seemingly so ready to be good with them…

I'm actually glad he wants a detente with Russia. I'd rather not return to the 70s where we're constantly fighting proxy wars because a full one would involve nukes. It's especially ridiculous since Russia's a two bit superpower these days. They have virtually no sphere of influence left in the world and are in many ways like Iran--looking back on the old glory days, yearning for power and prestige that will never return because the world left them behind.

It could be foreshadowing us in a couple decades if we're not careful.

I didn't want him or Hillary in office. In the moments before election day though I really felt that Hillary might have been a better candidate. Simply because she is far more in control of herself. She has spent her whole career getting grilled and having everything she does questioned and yet she doesn't outburst. She is still a corrupt monster but she is clearly able to take criticism better than her opponent since that has been her whole political career.

Trump has come off as very insecure and I think he is a danger to this country simply in his lack of control. Any criticism, anything that isn't praise seems to get under his skin and send him on a Twitter rampage. How can I expect him to really run this country with any true understanding of the position when any little mocking can be enough to send him on a rampage. I think Twitter should ban him from twitter so he can focus on the job at hand instead of being up at 2:30 tweeting about how people are being mean to him.

I think what worries me most is that Trump's supporters seem to be lost in a religious cult like state. Every move Trump makes is completely calculate he is the smartest man and any criticism is false. They really come off in the same mentality of SJWs where they sit in Trump's echo chambers and refuse to accept any criticism. Yes Trump hasn't even gotten into office yet, but that doesn't mean me worrying about his behavior is just invalid. I'll agree with many criticisms of Obama and disagree with others. Just like how I'll disagree about specific Trump criticisms and agree with others. But expressing my concern isn't a personal attack on anyone, yet some circles of Trumplets will just go apeshit. If they aren't willing to accept that maybe they were wrong (something everyone has and will be at some point) then I'm scared that it will lead to political deadlock over serious issues.

And let me clarify, I didn't vote at all. My state was solid blue and isn't a battleground state. So no it didn't matter if I voted or not or for whom.

With the thing with BMW, They had planned the plant way before the election. Only Automaker left he hasnt called out is Kia. Interestling, BMW has a plant in Toluca that gives their SUVs the armor treatment thats been running since 2008. Although i see BMW having more of an issue getting the cars OUT of mexico then about taxes. Honda learned that the hard way by having entire railcars full of cars gone missing

The only thing I hope is that he'll defy the expectations for his presidency like he defied the expectations for him winning. Also, as xTSGx said, he'll probably be a good source of entertainment for the next four years. I'm not entirely sure if he'll be a good president, though, but he's been presenting a mixed bag of prospects.

Honestly, I think I'm a victim of mainstream media and leftism. They've practiced so much bad journalism, and have prattled so much nonsense in place of valuable arguments, that I became an unwitting defender of Trump in spite of my general distaste for him as a candidate.

They push the narrative that he's racist because he wants to deport Mexicans, except that he repeatedly said that he wanted to deport illegal immgirants who contribute nothing but societal woes. As for African-Americans, he said perhaps literally nothing about them except that they had nothing to lose by voting for him instead of a party that has been an active disservice to them. Trump's only floated the idea of a Muslim registry, which is possibly the worst thing on the list, but that still comes from a good place of wanting to prevent the importation of domestic terrorism. Oh, yeah, and "Muslim" isn't a race.

They push the narrative that he's sexist because why not, but then later pointed to "grab 'em by the pussy" in order to call him a sexual assaulter, except that he said that the women let him, so it's crude but not assaulty.

They push the narrative that he's homophobic, even when he literally said that he'd protect LGBTQ citizens from "hateful foreign ideologies" following the Orlando nightclub shooting and said that Caitlyn Jenner was free to use whatever bathroom in his Trump Tower. But Pence wants electroshock therapy for gay people, they say, except that the closest he came to with that was that he said that he wanted to give money to organizations that aim, in part, to help people move away from "sexual behaviors" that lead to increased risk of HIV transmission (the riskiest being anal sex, practiced by gay people for obvious reasons).

They'll jump on him for calling CNN fake news, even though CNN certainly did practice bad journalism during this election cycle, and even though Obama has called out Fox News on several occasions-- though, only in the midst of like-minded people, it seems.

He has good ideas-- or at least well-intentioned ideas (the only bad idea I think he's had was repealing Obamacare cold, especially with how ingrained it is, but this also seems like a party goal)-- but it would appear that he's been vilified at every turn by people beholden to the worst kind of bias that I've seen in my entire life, who bloat every move he takes into a controversy. And the worst part is that you'll find that many people, even among the so called "educated", don't know why he's bad. Or if they have reasons, they're misinformed on some level, or they reason on an insufficient level. I had a friend of a friend literally walk away from me, without any word, when I said that (<1 month after the results) that Trump hasn't presented himself terribly poorly as a president-elect.

Actually, scratch that-- the worst part is that you have people, particularly leftists, that claim to be concerned for minorities but are probably racist in a more sinister way, in that they don't expect much out of them. They don't expect black people to have ID with which they can vote or get a voter ID, which is why they think it's voter suppression. They don't consider the effects of long term welfare on disenfranchised minority communities, which is why they think welfare cuts are bad. They don't expect that Mexicans-- or any immigrant for that matter-- come here legally, and that many of them would actually like for everyone to do the same, which is why they decry Trump wanting to send back illegal immigrants. It shows in the language that they employ, in the way they word their objections, and in the way that they shun minorities who disagree with them.

I don't think that he's necessarily shaping up to be a good president in spite of this, as far as I've seen-- I think he needs to pick his battles. He doesn't need to respond to everything, or at the very least, he needs to be more temperate in how he responds. He needs to make sure that he avoids the citation of propaganda (remember when Obama cited the non-existent gender wage gap?). He needs to speak more smartly, more often. He needs to give less opportunities for people to take things that he said out of context so that they can spin it to make him look bad. Most importantly: he needs to get bipartisan support. The reason that Republicans are dismantling Obamacare as we speak is-- if only in part-- because it never got bipartisan support. If he can't accomplish that, then the minute he's out and they seat a Democrat, they'll just dismantle all his accomplishments, whatever those are, because "turnabout is fair play" seems to be the motto we're going with for the next four years.

But at least he didn't receive generous donations from a country that imprisons/executes gay people and stifle female liberties, as well as fund Da'esh, while claiming that he was all about those rights. At least he didn't pitch himself as a third term of the Obama that has given money to that same country, who-- again-- funds Da'esh, while providing a limp-wristed "we needa put more diplomatic pressure" response to the matter. At least he wants to not agitate the only country with more nukes than us, by not trying to take a military action that would put us in military conflict when we're already engaging in proxy war by using rebels who will almost indubitably defect and become terrorists. At least he didn't refuse a federal subpoena after carelessly handling top secret and beyond top secret material. At least he hasn't brazenly admitted to speaking out of both sides of his mouth. At least he's not a borderline neo-McCarthyist war-hawk, even if he's potentially naive to the true state of international politics concerning Russia at the moment.

Who knows, though? He could be all those things. But that's the point-- I don't currently know and he hasn't currently (legitimately) demonstrated to be such.

I honestly hope and pray that he's a good president-- not just because I live here, but to show up all the people who dragged him through the mud for an entire election cycle and set up the climate for the hysteria we saw following the election, the people who pushed me to legitimately consider if a meme site and a smattering of their users were perhaps the most credible news sources I had, and the people who tried to oppose him on every front of a electoral system that they benefited from in the past, and the people who took the opportunity to vilify Trump as a level 6,000,000 reincarnation of Hitler (or were even foolish enough to buy into that hype) and dared to pretend as if they had any concern for minorities and women while practicing what I feel is the worst, most deceptive, and most condescending form of racism that only served to divide.

I can't really add that much more to the wall you just made aside from this: The Left is destroying its own future as a political entity by alienating its former moderates (read:us). If they keep this up in public, all "casual" and swing voters will abandon them for a saner alternative.

I really hope that this coming term that Donald Trump shows everybody that he's not this horrifying boogeyman that the media made him out to be.

Oh who the hell am I kidding? Those people who think Trump is literally Hitler aren't going to change their opinions at all no matter what happens. Trump could bring about complete world peace and they'd still find some way to bitch about it.

Reminder from the experienced: If you make a long post, there will almost inevitably be something that someone disagrees with.

Although, just as a note, I mostly do agree with what you said. (Even upvoted :D)

Trump’s only floated the idea of a Muslim registry, which is possibly the worst thing on the list, but that still comes from a good place of wanting to prevent the importation of domestic terrorism.

It shouldn't even really be an option. That "good place" is being combined with the idea that it's okay to have citizens en masse go onto a database.

I am extremely against government surveillance. We don't need more of it. Does nobody find it funny at all how the government has learned so much about us, stores huge amounts of metadata, and yet we still keep getting hit by terrorists and mass shootings? When I hear more often about how the government stops attacks than the attacks themselves, then maybe I'll be more amiable towards the idea. Until then, gut the system, don't expand this.

And no, I won't accept the idea that if we just expand the system they could. They already gather an uncomfortable amount by default, which is put under too little oversight. Too much stuff hidden behind classified labels.

except that he said that the women let him, so it’s crude but not assaulty.

Letting someone doesn't make it not assault. It is, by definition, non-consensual, because they never gave consent. Not to mention the multiple stories of women saying he did sexually assault them.

You don't have to take my word for it, though. The former attorney general of Alabama and the person up for attorney general of the U.S. (the chief law enforcement officer and head lawyer of the U.S. federal government) agrees.

"My question is very simple. Is grabbing a woman by the genitals without her consent, is that sexual assault?" Leahy asked.

“Yes," Sessions responded.

Sessions did say that he wasn't sure if Trump's comments "constituted an unwanted action." If it's "wanted" though is unnecessary if what he said previously was true – no consent. And as previously noted, some women didn't want it.

(Source)

“You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful -- I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.”

“And when you’re a star, they let you do it,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”

“Whatever you want,” says another voice, apparently Bush’s.

“Grab them by the p---y,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”

(Source)

He doesn't even wait, as he said, so there is no consent.

They push the narrative that he’s homophobic, even when he literally said that he’d protect LGBTQ citizens from “hateful foreign ideologies” following the Orlando nightclub shooting and said that Caitlyn Jenner was free to use whatever bathroom in his Trump Tower.

Claiming he's homophobic is a stretch, I agree. I guess technically I'm not disagreeing with you, but I have to clarify. I see people claiming he's pro-gay. That's kind of… wrong.

WALLACE: But -- but just to button this up very quickly, sir, are you saying that if you become president, you might try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage?

TRUMP: I would strongly consider that, yes

(Source)

You might point to recent statements by Trump about how it's "settled law", but there are two issues. First, there's the seeming inconsistency in trying to argue that Roe v Wade can be overturned but Obergefell is settled law. (Yes, it's WaPo, but that doesn't get rid of the seeming contradiction.) The second is that he's been against gay marriage for a very long time. (Once again, even if you dislike the source, it doesn't legitimize the content.)

I also take issue with exactly what you said. Upholding the literal law ("Don't let your citizens be killed") isn't pro- or anti- anything. He's spinning upholding the law (basically his job description) as pro-LGBTQ.

But at least he didn’t receive generous donations from a country that imprisons/executes gay people and stifle female liberties, as well as fund Da’esh, while claiming that he was all about those rights.

I dislike this too. A lot. This doesn't make Trump any better on LGBT issues, though.

And now, some not-disagreements, but rather agreements and comments.

I honestly hope and pray that he’s a good president

It's often brought up, when this comes around, that Republican leadership had as a number one goal to make Obama a 1 term president. I'm gonna quote the place he said that, but at a different portion, where I feel similarly:

I don’t want the president to fail; I want him to change.

However, should he not change the things I dislike, failing at those is the next best option, because then he'd be failing at being bad.

the people who pushed me to legitimately consider if a meme site and a smattering of their users were perhaps the most credible news sources I had

KYM's admins try very hard to try to be objective, from what I've seen. (Don even refused to give political viewpoints at one point, when he was doing streams – although he did say he'd like Bernie v Trump for the memes.) KYM's users also tend to be, by the fact of being on this site, internet-savvy, and thus able to fact-check ourselves. We all have access to the internet. If you don't fact-check yourself, someone else will, and make you look like a fool.

Since it was posted while I was writing this…

Colonial 2.1 said:

The Left is destroying its own future as a political entity by alienating its former moderates

The Right is doing that too. In a time when people are just moving socially left, they went socially right. It's polarization of both sides, a continuing trend.