http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/12/trump-makes-bizarre-claims-at-press-event-as-cabinet-members-take-turns-praising-him.html
After a weekend dominated by discussion of whether he had committed obstruction of justice, the president called in reporters for what he billed as his first full Cabinet meeting. He began with an opening statement laced with the sort of wild, self-congratulatory boasts that are his trademark.
"Never has there been a president, with few exceptions … who has passed more legislation, done more things," Trump declared, even though Congress, which is controlled by his party, hasn't passed any major legislation.
He hailed his plan for the "single biggest tax cut in American history," even though he hasn't proposed a plan and Congress hasn't acted on one. He said "no one would have believed" his election could have created so many new jobs over the past seven months (1.1 million), even though more jobs (1.3 million) were created in the previous seven months.
Taking turns to praise the leader
Typically, a president's initial comments mark the end of on-camera coverage of White House Cabinet meetings, with administration aides then escorting members of the small press "pool" out of the room. But Trump invited reporters to remain as he called on his senior-most advisers to "go around, name your position" and say a few words about the administration's work.
"Start with Mike," Trump said, referring to his vice president. Mike Pence, whom Trump kept in the dark for two weeks after learning that then-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn had given the vice president false information earlier this year, responded by saying that serving as Trump's number two is "the greatest privilege of my life."
"An honor to be here," said Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who recently offered his resignation amid strains over the Russia investigation.
"My hat is off to you," said Energy Secretary Rick Perry, referring to the president's explanation of his decision to abandon a global climate change agreement.
"We thank you for the opportunity and blessing you've given us to serve your agenda and the American people," said Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, the subject of recent reports that Trump may fire him.
The spectacle was so unusual that Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer and his aides made a video mocking it.
New Gallup numbers don't look good
In more than three decades of covering the White House, I've never seen such an extended public display of flattery for a president from his chosen subordinates. At moments it resembled the kind of fawning that some of the strongmen rulers Trump has praised — such as Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte — might receive from their deputies.
When it was over, reporters in the room asked questions of the president related to the ongoing Russia investigations. Trump answered, "Thank you," signaling his aides to usher the media out of the room.
Trump succeeded in getting cable television networks to air the spectacle. What's unclear is whether that helps or hurts the president with his political problems.
Shortly after the Cabinet coverage, the Gallup organization released its updated tracking poll of how Americans view their president's performance. He is fighting from a deep hole: 36 percent approve his handling of the job, 59 percent disapprove.
>>148769
Have to ask why he did this. Just to stroke his ego? The whole media is blowing up about how unusual the Cabinet meeting was right now. Instead of talking about any real policy issues or criticizing Trump over Comey/Russia. He's constantly finding ways to shift the narrative
>>148765
Well gee that's not a bullshity partisan title at all
>>148771
Yeah probably. I posted this cause it's really stupid, but it's also not surprising at all. The seems to need constant praise and his cabinet knows it.
>>148772
Well...I mean...is it wrong? Trump said he passed a lot of legislation, and he hasn't. Isn't that just a statement of fact at this point? What's the non-partisan way to say this buddy?
>>148773
>I posted it because it's not surprising at all
Ok bud
>>148774
Because it's 100% wrong bud
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-first-100-days-laws-passed-compared-obama-bush-clinton-2017-4
"President Donald Trump signed more bills into law in his first 100 days than his last three predecessors, but that doesn't mean he got more done."
"In his first 100 days, Trump signed aNASA bill to send humans to Mars, and a resolution to keep the government funded and prevent a shutdown for another week."
"He's also passed 78 executive orders and cut over 630 government regulations"
>>148777
I think you're the one wrong bud. Read into the details please, don't just blindly accept the numbers.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/votes/
Almost the entirety of these "bills" are either nominations or repeals of previous administration laws, he's done pretty much nothing new himself besides some useless base-pleasing shit about abortions and first-responders
>>148780
Well...I mean...is it wrong?
You're arguing something completely different now
I think we need to define what legislation means. I certainly don't count repeals in that.
>>148777
>and cut over 630 government regulations
That is fucking fantastic, holy shit.
Axe more regs pls.
>>148790
That's still jack shit in terms of accomplishments.
>>148798
Don't be a party poopah you got to start somewhere
>>148799
But Trump claimed to do the most doe. Like this wouldn't be a problem if Trump was bragging about having a bigger dick then he actually has.
>>148829
Who cares if he brags, doesn't bother me
>>148852
Are you implying they're all good?
He's a veteran billionaire developer surrounded by brilliant people, I'm sure he's fine
>>148852
>Are you implying all regulations are automatically bad?
Yes? How is government getting in the way of the markets ever a good thing.
>>148853
>Are you implying they're all good?
???Where did I imply that?
>>148853
>He's a veteran billionaire developer surrounded by brilliant people, I'm sure he's fine
He lost a billion dollars running a group of casinos for fuck's sake.
And he's foundering like a beached propose getting hit in the butt hole with a taser.
He's not only really bad at being president, he's not coping with the results well.
>>148855
>Yes? How is government getting in the way of the markets ever a good thing.
Oh no, it's retarded... :^(
>>148855
>"Muh free market"
>>148853
>He's a veteran billionaire developer
A man who started with a bunch of money and managed to make less money than if he had simply invested in the stock market. He also lost money with casinos like >>148861 stated, which is generally very hard to do (and no, the market was fine, he was one of the only owners to go out of business at that time). He also ran a private company, where he was the final word on anything. Had he been in charge of a corporation I could see some of that experience being useful as shareholders could be analogous to congress or the American people, but as the sole executive leader it's given him bad habits and the inability to play well with others, which he has to do in order to get things through without spamming executive orders like he criticized Obama for doing.
Obama was already lacking in government experience when he took the job, and we can see how that turned out. Now take a guy with literally zero experience in government and we can see just how much worse it can be.
>surrounded by brilliant people, I'm sure he's fine
Brilliant advisers that he chooses to ignore most of the time. Brilliant advisers that have to grovel before him at the start of each cabinet meeting in the hopes that he won't ignore them. And that's the ones that are actually brilliant, he also has a bunch of retarded yes-men who earned their positions via loyalty and people who literally bought their positions via donations. Now I expect the latter two groups to be in every administration (though hopefully few in number because having a bunch of these sycophants is horrible), but with proper leadership you can keep them from doing damage. Unfortunately Trump doesn't seem capable of keeping his yes-men in check, just as he seems incapable of taking advice from his most brilliant people.
>>148883
>He also ran a private company, where he was the final word on anything.
This.
He keeps acting like he thinks he's the owner/operator of America, not the President.
>>148883
Gee I guess making money is easy. Never thought if it that way. Wow what a great comment. You seem to know alot.
>>148862
Didsdain for the free market is basically disdain for free will
>>148914
>Gee I guess making money is easy.
It's certainly an advantage to a young real-estate developer if their dad is one of the biggest landlords in the city.
The "small' million dollar loan doesn't hurt either.
And of course the "free" college education makes me wonder why Trump wasn't a Bernie Sanders fan.
Despite all these advantages, he went genuinely broke in the 90's.
Not just a "convenient business paperwork" bankruptcy.
He actually lost more than his net worth.
The only reason anyone would lend him any money at all is that he was about to inherit a sizable portion of his Dad's 9-figure estate.
>>148921
So did apple? Have you ever been in business before? You sound like a recent college grad espousing your wisdom on how the world works while you work at a desk job
>>148923
Have you considered that the federal government is not a business and commonalities in the business world are catastrophic in public policy?
>true facts versus alternative facts
>>148924
The federal government is failing. It's been careening into fiscal calamity for 100 years. Maybe it's time for a new methodology
>>148915
hope you're joking, I don't get how you could say this with a straight face. You do know market failures happen often? That the free will of individual people commonly leads to bad group outcomes?
>>148927
is it failing? The free market sends us into fiscal calamity far more often. Where would the global economy be without U.S. government intervention after 2008 crash? Stripping regulations for business is what got us there in the first place
>>148945
Found the socialist
>>148945
>That the free will of individual people commonly leads to bad group outcomes?
>The free market sends us into fiscal calamity far more often.
[citation needed]
>Where would the global economy be without U.S. government intervention after 2008 crash?
Better off, like it would have been had FDR not prolonged the Great Depression.
>tripping regulations for business is what got us there in the first place
Bill Clinton's AHA called, wanted to remind you to keep issuing mortgages to low income families regardless of risk because everyone should own a home. Don't worry we'll cover your losses with a bailout ;)
>>148946
Nah socialism is trash. But also so is completely unrestricted capitalism. Maybe the answer isn't extremes and actually somewhere in between
>>148949
>Maybe the answer isn't extremes and actually somewhere in between
Great cop-out non answer. Go back to watching Big Bang Theory.
>>148949
Democratic socialism is garbage too
>>148948
>That the free will of individual people commonly leads to bad group outcomes?
Easily demonstrated. Hopefully you see how this logic applies to the market:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nash-equilibrium.asp
>Better off, like it would have been had FDR not prolonged the Great Depression.
You cannot demonstrate we would be better off, too many unknowns without intervention. Quite possible a lack of FDR's reform of economy and business practices leads to a similar huge depression not long after. Same with 2008, without reform of banking sector what is preventing them reverting to the same practices that initially caused the crash? If something isn't working you need to change course.
>>148952
As if calling me socialist with no following argument is any less of a non-answer?
>>148960
Hayek > Kaines
Capitalism gets the ups and downs of a free market, true. But it allows people to live the way they want and succeed and fail on their own merits. Any other system creates "creeping control" where the government expands and grows it's influence in order to offset the multiplicity of astoundingly complex issues that a "team of experts" cannot solve because individuals understand their needs better than anyone else most often.
Government sucks dick. It's a necessary evil and that's why we keep it in check.
>>148961
I agree with majority of your statements especially on creeping control and government being a necessary evil. But I disagree that pure free market capitalism allows for success/failure based on our own merits. This system doesn't prevent creeping control, it simply transfers its power from governments to businesses, as large corporations have incredible power to maintain status quo which crushes upstart competition.
Great example would be Facebook owning Instagram and deciding to blatantly copy Snapchat's story ideas for Instagram. Within a couple months Instagram already had more users on stories than Snapchat because Instagram had access to Facebook's much larger user network. As you can see the free market competition does not prevent creeping control in this case, in fact it often gives companies leeway to have even greater creeping control than a government ever would have. Snapchat had a great idea that should have succeeded/failed "on its own merits" but rather will fail due to network powers out of its control.
>>148921
>So did apple?
"So did Apple" what?
Did they float loans based on upcoming 8-9 figure inheritance?
>>148790
Finally, an average joe like me has a fighting chance at making it as a small business man now that Trump axed the regulations preventing me from dumping my coal plant waste into local river water.
>>148780
>unironically sourcing 538
>one the most biased damage control sites the left flock to
wow it's like I really care about your opinion
>>149004
Ad hominem at it's finest.
>>149129
Just enjoy the improving economy regardless.
>>149004
Enjoy drinking that toxic water. We should all be so lucky.
>>148915
Free will ends at others expense, ditto the free market
>>149129
In what way was that Ad hominem?
>>149021
you're retarded if you think there's anything "biased damage control" or opinionated about linking to an objective list of what bills have actually been passed. But please, continue to selectively accept facts only when they fit your narrative
>>149155
Free will ends at others expense? What does that mean
>>149166
Its the basic concept that your "rights" as a person only extend until they overlap with the rights of another person. As in you only have free will when your free will is not preventing someone else from exercising their free will.
Extend that logic to the free market. If we strip almost all regulations/laws from the market so you can do pretty much whatever you want, but your power prevents many others from doing what they want, is the market really free?
>>149129
Actually it's a false dilemma
>>149195
That's why you regulate to an appropriate extent, and deregulate to the extent where its inflicts.
Balance is they key I suppose.
>>149135
I was being sarcastic
>>149160
I think he meant strawman
>>149207
The problem with axing regs like this is we probably won't know the full effects for a while. And when we do, any negative effects that reg was preventing might be too late to stop.
This could lead to the more vulnerable elements of the population to get fucked over by some shifty Corp trying to maximize profits.
But then again republicans haven't cared about human decency for the last 60 years.
>>149207
Easier said to sucker somebody into backing your political campaign, than done. For fuckin once, I'd like an outline from my politicians of what, exactly, they want to remove.
You think trump will get rid of the Yacht tax exemption?
>>149231
Well never mind, those are state taxes and tax exemptions. But honestly, do any of you think he's gonna actually make himself easier to tax fairly when he's out of office?
>>148915
Beautiful
>>148915
The free market is a fucking meme you absolute gaylord
>>149247
There is free market and there is slavery, and I choose free market and all the negatives that come with it
>>149249
Prohibition of slavery as a constitutional amendment is literally a regulation of the market.
You should look into becoming a pundit. That way you can actually get paid to LARP this nonsense.
>>149258
I never said I was against regulations, just that I was pro free market
>>149258
I never said I was against regulations, just that I was pro free market