Top products from r/POTUSWatch

1.) It's a Foxconn factory and will cost Wisconsin state taxpayers up to $3 billion and could employ up to 13,000 workers. Most econimist would agree that incentives like these are generally an awful way to lure jobs.

2.) What evidence is there of him reaching out? Most CEOs have pulled away from him. In fact, after his controversial withdraw from the Paris accord, Musk and Iger pulled out of his advisory councils. Then after his controversial comments on Charlottesville several more CEOs departed his advisory councils, to which he replied:

>For every CEO that drops out of the Manufacturing Council, I have many to take their place. Grandstanders should not have gone on. JOBS!


The councils were then dissolved by Trump. I guess he didn't have "many" CEOs to take their place.

3.) There are many people working on moving America over to renewable energy and this is seen as the safest and most effective way to maintain our energy independence by experts in the field. That said, the US has become not only energy independent, but we did so back in 2012 under Obama. We are now a net exporter of petroleoum products and we are the 3rd largest producer of crude oil.

Trump's talks with Bill Gates were largely over foreign aid, a topic that is important to Gates. Trump threatened to cut foreign aid in his budget plan.

4.) What has Trump done for the Ameri-I-Can program? A search for "Trump" of their website brings up nothing. Plus this is a small NGO that has received no money or support from Trump other than Jim Brown meeting with Trump and liking him.

5.) Nominating a supreme court justice is about all Trump has accomplished, and considering that Congress was controlled by the Republican party at the time, it was an easy thing to accomplish. You say you think he's a good pick. Can you elaborate on why you think this? What do you know about Justice Gorsuch other than he was picked by Trump.

6.) Yes back in February there were reports that PM Abe might pitch a package that would offer 700,000 job to Americans. Nothing has been reported since. Now, unfortunately Japan has to worry about US escalation with North Korea, which doesn't really incentivise Japan to export jobs to America, or maybe it does since we are in affect their standing army. I'll be surprised if anything comes of this "pitch" that has yet to even be pitched. If you can find more recent news on it, I'd love to read it.

7.) Federal response to Hurricane Harvey has been good. I'll give him that, but I wonder if there would have been a repeat of Katrina we're the affected area not his base supporters. He loves playing to his base, and this was a chance to do just that. Also, this along with the SCOTUS nomination are both pretty baseline presidential tasks, not real ground-breaking stuff.

8.) Otto Warmbier is dead, no thanks to Trump. His dad may praise Trump, but the kid might be alive if negotiations went better. I wouldn't call that a win.

9.) I would disagree with your sentiment. Voter turnout in 2016 was fairly stagnate. We'll see what the mid-term elections bring next year, but even if there is an increase in political participation, it is largly dispite Trump, not because of him.

10.) You talk about the media like it's this single cohesive thing. It's not, and yet you give no evidence to your claims about the media. The Paris accord is not wealth redistribution. It's not even a treaty. It was a benchmark of goals agreed upon by the UNFCCC with no way to enforce the goals. It is essentially a goodwill gesture to the rest of the world that the US will do it's part to mitigate climate change. The Trump administration has actively denied climate change, ignoring scientific consensus.

11.) Pulling out of the TPP was not necessarily a good thing. It may have saved a fraction of US job, which isn't all that certain, but it did leave China in the power position to control trade across SE Asia. Trade agreements are an often misunderstood thing. Trump always rails on NAFTA and other trade agreements. Bernie did also, but that's another story. Trade agreements are good. Countries that trade together usually don't go to war, and trade wars (the product of failed trade agreements) can lead to real wars. Trade agreements have a net positive effect for all members of the agreement; it's not a zero-sum game. The problem is that the cost of these agreements is usually concentrated while the benefit is spread out to everyone. Some workers lose their jobs, but the cost of goods goes down for everyone, not to mention we export a standard of living in these agreements that has a lasting impact on the countries we deal with.


It's obvious to me that you don't really take your own advice on getting your news from a spectrum, since you refer to the media as a singular thing. There are plenty of decent media outlets that are doing good work; people just often confuse news with the editorial sections of these organizations. Beyond reading news on the internet, people should be reading books, and scholarly journals if they want to educate themselves on specified topics.

I would recommend that you study any other US Presidential administration before you decide that you like this administration. It's a great way to see how it compares with its predecessors. Maybe just read more in general. Your argumentation is polite, but not very effective.

Profiles in Courage is a great read, a real page-turner. Read how President Kennedy, his brother Robert Kennedy, and members of JFK's cabinet dealt with the Cuban Missile Crisis. Then try and imagine that Trump and his cabinet were in a similar situation. How do you think they would perform? Compare Tillerson and McNamara, Trump and Kennedy.

FYI, "made in the USA" does not mean "all materials sourced from the USA." Also, while you sourced one safety harness which indicates at the bottom of the site that it is "Made in the USA," it is also many times more expensive than the common ones found on Amazon.

Also, I believe you dodged my point. Do you agree or disagree that tariffs are compatible with the formerly-conservative idea of free market capitalism?

>There are products that it is in your national interest to make domestically.

And yet, the United States did not impose tariffs on rare earth substances imported from China, which are used in all variety of electronics and military hardware.

If it's not in the national interest to minimize the cost of raw materials used in one's national security, then what is? Or do you believe the government is deliberately importing inferior materials from China?

>The anonymous author of “A WARNING” did not take an advance and intends to donate some of the royalties to nonprofit organizations that focus on government accountability and supporting truth-tellers in repressive countries, including the White House Correspondents’ Association, Latimer said.
>
>“The author could have received a seven-figure advance for writing this book,” Latimer said. “But ‘A WARNING’ was not written for financial reasons. The author sees this as an act of conscience and of duty, which is why the author refused any advance and is donating a substantial portion of any royalties to charities that protect those seeking the truth around the world.”

Available for pre-order on Amazon.

What a time to be alive.

The book is called snow but the guy was also honored for multiple previous books.

https://www.amazon.com/Snow-Orhan-Pamuk/dp/0375706860/ref=nodl_

https://www.amazon.com/Mad-Politics-Keeping-Sanity-World/dp/1621578038

The reviews are pretty telling. You've got your obvious cultists at the 5-star mark, and nobody in the 2-4 star range. Everyone who bothered to read it and who isn't already a raging redcap went right to 1-star.

>You want this to be false so bad that you're projecting you're own illogical conclusion on to other people.

Yeah. I don't think we should air sexual assault allegations on national TV based purely on word of mouth. Fuck me, right?

And pay no attention to the perfect timing of the book which hits bookstores and Amazon today, titled: "The Education of Kavanaugh: An Investigation". Get it while it's hot!

What? The book I cited is a work with it's own sources. The articles you are posting do not refute any point made or to be made. Call a sourced book a meme all you want, but you're wrong.

 

Black Flags: The Rise of ISIS https://www.amazon.com/dp/0804168938/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_f4oAzbBAQ37H4

> Under what authority are you accusing him?

Hey I am a WHISTLEBLOWER and my identity MUST be kept SECRET!

> Sorry, I'm unfamiliar with anyone called that.

Ok. Not my problem, tho.

> Actually, we don't know that this was false given the obstruction of justice from Trump and his team.

Exactly! Trump was not exonerated! And neither was Obama! Or Clinton! No one is innocent! Everyone either is a Russian agent, or we just haven't investigated enough! If the evidence hasn't appeared, by definition they're obstructing! Which takes us back to my initial accusation, which has not been adequately investigated and that is the sole reason evidence may be lacking.

> The media did not cover for either,

Rowan Farrow just wrote a book about how NBC spiked his reporting on Weinstein. It's called Catch and Kill. Here's the link:

https://www.amazon.com/Catch-Kill-Conspiracy-Protect-Predators-ebook/dp/B07TD413RV/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=farrow&qid=1573240663&sr=8-1

ABC anchor Amy Robach was caught on a hot mic complaining that she had the Epstein story - in her words, "everything" including Clinton - but ABC refused to run it. The person who leaked it is apparently at CBS and so CBS fired her.

Which makes it 3 for 3. All three "major networks" covering for sex abusers and pedophiles.

Which part of this is "debunked?" Did Farrow not write the book? Did Robach not say what she said? Or are both lying? Did CBS not fire someone for either "accessing" or leaking while at ABC?

Obama put 9 whistleblowers in jail, and spied on tons of people besides Trump. I'm not sure he would have been as cooperative as you imagine.

But the point is that Obama didn't have hardly any MSM attacking him, in spite of all the laws he broke: http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/06/president-barack-obamas-complete-list.html

People have written entire books on Obama's abuses of power. https://www.amazon.com/Faithless-Execution-Building-Political-Impeachment/dp/1594037760/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

The media decide what the population should be outraged about. I'd be interested to know what you think Obama's top few most impeachable scandals are from that pretty complete list. Mine is probably the $100B to Iran, and the Iran deal. However, I also think Obamacare could be as well since it was such a disaster, and involved lies in passing it.

Here, we've got impeachment on made-up Trump crimes in Ukraine.

>Just look at how the Democratic party is blaming their loss on Russia.

>The first sentence I disagree with. I don't see anyone besides some off-kilter people using this as an excuse.

WashingtonPost - Hillary Clinton Blames Russian Hackers and Comey

Hillary Clinton and President Obama increasingly pointing to Russia to help explain her loss

New book where Hillary staffers reveal that the DNC Chair Podesta & Hillary campaign manager Mook devised a plan to blame Russia within 24 hours of her loss. [Shattered:Inside Hillary's Doomed Campaign]
(https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0553447084/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1498631657&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=shattered+inside+hillary+clinton%27s+doomed+campaign&dpPl=1&dpID=51yTq5B34JL&ref=plSrch)

It's just how the game is played. Politics is all about reputation. You never see a politician offer up any confession or say sorry. Even when some evidence surface, they say things like "I did not inhale" or "I'm not a crook". Just look at the refugee crisis caused by the bombing of Libya. Hillary says Obama made the decision, while he said she went there and did all the negotiating. They blame each other and no one admits fault, so I don't see why Trump should be held to a higher standard. Would I like him to be able to admit fault? Yes. But because he didn't, doesn't make him any worst than Obama or other past president.

 

>I mean, I don't think I can convince you to consider Trump negatively nor do I necessarily want to.

I agree, that's why this sub exists to discuss to come closer to the truth. I'm not here to convince you, but to provide you some of the information I've come across and to hear what you've come across. I'm not here to win a debate, but to find out things I didn't know.

 

>It may be easy for you to lock this away in the back of your mind and say he was just "doing what he needed to do,"

That's not my thoughts at all. I always try to put myself in Trump's shoes, and figure out what his thoughts were. I personally haven't come across any evil or ill-intent message. I don't believe he was "doing what he needed to do", as in the end justifies the means. If you have any specific quote you're referring to, let me know. To give you an idea of my thoughts. Here's a doctor's blog. He dislikes Trump, but admits that his campaign rhetoric actually was "feel-good pro-diversity rhetoric", he wrote this blog to get people away from false accusations against Trump, and focus on real things to be upset at Trump. Btw, some of the things the doctor writes about, he doesn't have the full picture. For example, he believes Trump was really mocking a disabled reporter, but after my research, that's most likely not the case. Let me know if you want more details.

 

>Regarding how Trump is with staff and people who he doesn't need to necessarily cozy up to for his own benefit

I read through the sources:

1. First article - only staff named with a bad experience was Bernard Goupy. He said he was fired after 6 months because a customer didn't like his ceaser salad. Trump confronted him, Groupy insults Trump, then Trump furiously storms off and fires him the next day. Theres obviously another side to this story. How could he insult Trump and Trump just storms off? Sounds like this guy has a grudge against Trump (being fired then tried suing but lost). Sounds like he might have been rightfully fired. This article even says Trump doesn't like to fire people, and his VP said he never heard Trump say the words. He always wants someone else to do it. I'm not sure what that means, maybe he doesn't find pleasure from firing people? Also, they mentioned Corey Lewandowski in here, as an example that Trump doesn't hire experienced people. Trump trusted him and supported him dispite other staffers not liking him. The article claimed his kids orchestrated his dismissal. How is this Trump mistreating his staff?
   
   
2. Second Article - this is about Trump asking around to get a feel for how others think his staff is doing. I'm not a businessman, but it kind of sounds like what you should do. One criticism of Trump is that he doesn't listen or get advice from others. But here he clearly does. The article doesn't mention any unfair treatment of any staff. It's just merely the fact that he's getting other people's opinions which is considered disrespectful, and he should fire people secretly based on his own personal opinion without input from others.
   
   
3. Third Article - this article isn't really about Trump treating staff bad. They are mainly talking about micromanaging. Randall Pinkett says Trump micromanaging, not caring about diversify or his low level staff. Says he hires people that look like Trump (I'm assuming he means 'white' due to his earlier statement about diversify.) Note that Randall is a Democrat. Served as chairman for a Democrat's transition team. Almost selected as lieutenant governor by another Democratic candidate. And chair of the NJ State Democratic Committee. He sounds very biased, especially since he stands to gain power for his political party by defaming the Republican Candidate. Blanche Sprague says Trump treated her like a nanny. Blanche fired an employee for being pregnant. Resulting in the employee suing Trump's organization, Trump in turn fired Blanche, and she sued Trump as well. However she admits that she's still I'm awe with Trump. Sounds like there's a grudge here, with the firing and lawsuit. Louise Sunshine says Trump wants to build a wall because he can relate to construction. This is just speculation. Justin Goldberg says Trump negotiated deals down to the smallest details. (This is an argument that he micromanages). Aaron Sigmond says Trump picked out every cover photo for their magazine (Another argument for micromanaging). The rest of the article is about people who thought Trump was great, he treated men and women equally. His friends mother made breakfast for Trump one morning, and instead of sugar on the cereal, she poured salt.
   >Trump, trying to mind his manners, ate the whole salty, soggy breakfast. “I thought that was pretty impressive,” said Goldberg.
   
   >“He’s a billionaire without being elite,” said Stone
   
   Honestly, the third Article made me like Trump more. To summarize my thoughts on the three articles - they are mainly hit pieces and don't really show any mistreatment of staff. You can start seeing why I started liking Trump. I initially trusted these types of articles, didn't like Trump, but after I started doing deeper research, I started to find out how misleading they were and Trump's not that bad of a guy. They want you to hate Trump. From my experience, first two news sites are heavily anti-Trump, last one tends to have an Anti-Trump lean. They found people who has some type of grudge or something to gain (they represent Democrats), or twist something to try to paint a negative picture of Trump.
   
    
   
   >Either way, Trump shows a history of dehumanizing people he doesn't need on his side
   
   I have not found this to be true. There's an abundant history of him treating many people with dignity, from his senior execs down to low level staff like his driver. The media cherry picks people who've been fired or Democrats running for office. I've already given you examples of many neutral sources, people who don't stand to benefit in any way. Like askReddit, those people have nothing to gain to tell us that Trump provides them with free room and treats them with respect. When Rosie O'Donnell got a heart attack, he even wished her well dispite their feud. She said she was shocked and thanked him. There are tons of stories like this. Like the salt in the cereal. He's willing to eat salty cereal, would you be willing to do that? Can you imagine a billionaire doing that?
   
    
   
   >Interestingly, I trust a lot of Trump's cabinet
   
   Even John Kerry said Trump was very thoughtful in his cabinet selections. I like Tillerson and Sessions alot. I know Devos has experience with education, but I have no personal opinion. I've read some articles that says she's actually a good pick, but most articles say she's bad.
   
   
    
   
   >Anyway, I can tell we'll probably never reach an agreement about Trump
   
   Personally, I don't think that's the point. I feel it's about digging for truth, and based on those truth, everyone will have their own opinions. Let me just throw out a wild example. I think Trump never killed anyone, and you think he's killed many people. Obviously what we think of him will be different. But let's say, after we both presented facts, we've come to the conclusion that Trump fell asleep at the wheel, crashed, and killed his passengers. We still can have different opinions, but at least we both are working off of the same information now. I might think, he didn't mean to kill. You might think, driving while tired means he purposely put his passenger's lives in danger.
   
   That's why I want to get the information you've been viewing, to see if we have the same information, and if not, how does it affect my views.