Interesting that those pictures all seem to be from slanted democratic sources?
Trump wins
- Thread starter whitecockedhubby
- Start date
Interesting that those pictures all seem to be from slanted democratic sources?
well lets see... right now a bunch of Dems and even 16 different Republicans want the election looked into because there were definite signs of Russian hacking and interference
he is pals with several of the publishers on fake news
and we all know about how the right went out of their way to block minorities voting.... under this probe from Jill Stien they found 90,000 minority votes in Ohio that registered BLANK!
and he is a master entertainer and con man!
and like Bush... he did not win the majority of the vote... he won the electoral college
besides... for me.... it's not so much about Trump... as more of what he/and the right... are planning
like his claim to drain the swamp... and yet has added even more to it! for us!
those are facts!... slanted towards dems or not
he is or will be my pres! and I like a few of the things he has planned.... but the majority of the people he has appointed to different positions have to make me wonder what all his "other" agendas are....
a labor sec... that doesn't like raising wages.... a sec of the interior that approves of fracking... on and on...
and they just announced yesterday... he still plans on drawing pay for the apprentice while he is pres!
the scary part of Trump is.... he treats all of this just like another biz adventure.... and we all know how many times he went bankrupt!
Last edited:
how can you be anything... being Canadian
doesn't anyone find it "odd" that big oil is glad to see Pruitt in that position and welcome him to attend their meetings... something the gov has not done in 8 years!
and with his appointment of sec of the int.... we could see fracking and etc nationwide... among other things... and I'm sure some of these national parks will now get the ok to start drilling!
how appropriate to see an oil rig on top of Yellowstone!
and with his appointment of sec of the int.... we could see fracking and etc nationwide... among other things... and I'm sure some of these national parks will now get the ok to start drilling!
how appropriate to see an oil rig on top of Yellowstone!
did he?.... he will make it to the white house... but that's as far as it goes
besides it was never about Trump or Hillary to MOST people... sure there are those that worship.... but it was/is about what they bring to the table.... and congress is only going to go so far!
right now congress is elated... but lets see when he wants something and they won't give... or vice versa
it will be interesting....
I also saw on the news yesterday that Colo..... is more than pissed... the maj of the state voted Dem... but that's not how the vote showed... so they are working on making changes in the state legislature to do away with the elect college.... going about it wrong and probably not make it... but they have the right idea... and just a matter of time before it does become the right idea
this is twice now we have a pres that the people did not vote for
this is twice now we have a pres that the people did not vote for
you must have some fetish of some kind for the man... Bi? just kidding.... and we all know about bi people... they can't make up their mind what they want and their tastes change from moment to moment
that is not entirely true... I have voted for a few republicans... I like Branstadt... but for the most part yes! I am a democrat... I can not support a party that only serves those with wealth and goes all out at the expense of those without to give the wealthy more
I think the blacks expected more out of him...but he as president has to represent ALL the people... he did what he could but for the most part his hands were tied because of the obstructionists in congress.... remember McConnell saying they were going to do everything they could to make him a one term pres?... it didn't work for Obama.. the blacks supported him again... but Hillary did get caught in the crossfire for a dysfunctional gov
he was a state senator...
regretful.... BUT crime and murders always goes up when people are not working... and Obama put forth several different programs to ty and help the job market but the right would not go along with any... they wanted the dems to fail so they could get their way... people didn't see it that way and voted for Trump... hoping for a change... but the people responsible for the mess are still there!... and in control!
also a lot of that is gang violence.... but then again that goes back to unemployment.... I remember one young man getting killed and his mom was on tv crying... that he was quitting the gang as he had just got a job and was due to start the next Monday!
Last edited:
another speech today about bringing back mfg jobs.... he had the chance with carrier.... all of those jobs are still going to mexico... what happened there?
Chart shows exactly how Trump's tax plan could affect you
President-electDonald Trump's tax plan aims to "reduce taxes across the board." But how exactly will it impact you? Will your taxes actually end up lower?
Howmuch.net, a cost information website, has created a handy infographic to help answer that question.
As you'll see in the chart below, Trump's tax plan is a simplification. He wants to reduce the number of individual tax bands from seven to three: 12 percent, 25 percent and 33 percent.
"But simplifying is not necessarily the same as reducing taxes," the cost information site explains.
"Some taxpayers would definitely benefit from Trump's tax reform — especially those at the higher end of the income scale. There are others, however, who would see their tax rates go up. Especially those on lower incomes."
Howmuch.net also notes that "the graph does not take into account other aspects of the Trump tax plan not directly related to the changes to income tax bands, such as the increase of standard deductions and a cap on itemized deductions, although of course these would also have an impact on net incomes."
CNBC's John Harwood calls Trump's tax reform a " remarkable paradox ," as middle America may not benefit as much as coastal elites.
Check out the chart to see how you may be affected.
While it's impossible to know exactly how Trump's tax reform will play out, financial advisors are encouraging clients to start preparing today for any changes that may be on the horizon.
Check out the full report on Howmuch.net.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/chart-shows-exactly-trumps-tax-185043506.html
President-electDonald Trump's tax plan aims to "reduce taxes across the board." But how exactly will it impact you? Will your taxes actually end up lower?
Howmuch.net, a cost information website, has created a handy infographic to help answer that question.
As you'll see in the chart below, Trump's tax plan is a simplification. He wants to reduce the number of individual tax bands from seven to three: 12 percent, 25 percent and 33 percent.
"But simplifying is not necessarily the same as reducing taxes," the cost information site explains.
"Some taxpayers would definitely benefit from Trump's tax reform — especially those at the higher end of the income scale. There are others, however, who would see their tax rates go up. Especially those on lower incomes."
Howmuch.net also notes that "the graph does not take into account other aspects of the Trump tax plan not directly related to the changes to income tax bands, such as the increase of standard deductions and a cap on itemized deductions, although of course these would also have an impact on net incomes."
CNBC's John Harwood calls Trump's tax reform a " remarkable paradox ," as middle America may not benefit as much as coastal elites.
Check out the chart to see how you may be affected.
While it's impossible to know exactly how Trump's tax reform will play out, financial advisors are encouraging clients to start preparing today for any changes that may be on the horizon.
Check out the full report on Howmuch.net.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/chart-shows-exactly-trumps-tax-185043506.html
When some one asks me if i am a Conservative or Liberal.
I respond:
I respond:
TAX LAW CHANGES
The Trump Plan will revise and update both the individual and corporate tax codes:
Individual Income Tax
Tax rates
The Trump Plan will collapse the current seven tax brackets to three brackets. The rates and breakpoints are as shown below. Low-income Americans will have an effective income tax rate of 0. The tax brackets are similar to those in the House GOP tax blueprint.
Brackets & Rates for Married-Joint filers:
Less than $75,000: 12%
More than $75,000 but less than $225,000: 25%
More than $225,000: 33%
*Brackets for single filers are ½ of these amounts
***If you are single and earn less then $25,000 a year you will pay ZERO federal income tax.
***If you are a married couple and earn less then $50,000 a year you will pay ZERO federal income tax.
The Trump Plan will retain the existing capital gains rate structure (maximum rate of 20 percent) with tax brackets shown above. Carried interest will be taxed as ordinary income.
The 3.8 percent Obamacare tax on investment income will be repealed, as will the alternative minimum tax.
Deductions
The Trump Plan will increase the standard deduction for joint filers to $30,000, from $12,600, and the standard deduction for single filers will be $15,000. The personal exemptions will be eliminated as will the head-of-household filing status.
In addition, the Trump Plan will cap itemized deductions at $200,000 for Married-Joint filers or $100,000 for Single filers.
Death Tax
The Trump Plan will repeal the death tax, but capital gains held until death and valued over $10 million will be subject to tax to exempt small businesses and family farms. To prevent abuse, contributions of appreciated assets into a private charity established by the decedent or the decedent’s relatives will be disallowed.
Childcare
Americans will be able to take an above-the-line deduction for children under age 13 that will be capped at state average for age of baby, and for eldercare for a dependent. The exclusion will not be available to taxpayers with total income over $500,000 Married-Joint /$250,000 Single, and because of the cap on the size of the benefit, working and middle class families will see the largest percentage reduction in their taxable income.
The childcare exclusion would be provided to families who use stay-at-home parents or grandparents as well as those who use paid caregivers, and would be limited to 4 children per taxpayer. The eldercare exclusion would be capped at $5,000 per year. The cap would increase each year at the rate of inflation.
The Trump Plan would offer spending rebates for childcare expenses to certain low-income taxpayers through the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The rebate would be equal to 7.65 percent of remaining eligible childcare expenses, subject to a cap of half of the payroll taxes paid by the taxpayer (based on the lower-earning parent in a two-earner household).
This rebate would be available to married joint filers earning $62,400 ($31,200 for single taxpayers) or less. Limitations on costs eligible for exclusion and the number of beneficiaries would be the same as for the basic exclusion. The ceiling would increase with inflation each year.
All taxpayers would be able to establish Dependent Care Savings Accounts (DCSAs) for the benefit of specific individuals, including unborn children. Total annual contributions to a DCSA are limited to $2,000 per year from all sources, which include the account owner (parent in the case of a minor or the person establishing elder care account), immediate family members of the account owner, and the employer of the account owner. When established for children, the funds remaining in the account when the baby reaches 18 can be used for education expenses, but additional contributions could not be made.
To encourage lower-income families to establish DCSAs for their children, the government will provide a 50 percent match on parental contributions of up to $1,000 per year for these households. When parents fill out their taxes they can check a box to directly deposit any portion of their EITC into their Dependent Care Savings Account. All deposits and earnings thereon will be free from taxation, and unused balances can rollover from year to year.
Business Tax
The Trump Plan will lower the business tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent, and eliminate the corporate alternative minimum tax. This rate is available to all businesses, both small and large, that want to retain the profits within the business.
It will provide a deemed repatriation of corporate profits held offshore at a one-time tax rate of 10 percent.
It eliminates most corporate tax expenditures except for the Research and Development credit.
Firms engaged in manufacturing in the US may elect to expense capital investment and lose the deductibility of corporate interest expense. An election once made can only be revoked within the first 3 years of election; if revoked, returns for prior years would need to be amended to show revised status. After 3 years, election is irrevocable.
The annual cap for the business tax credit for on-site childcare authorized by Sec. 205 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 would be increased to $500,000 per year (up from $150,000) and recapture period would be reduced to 5 years (down from 10 years).
Businesses that pay a portion of an employee’s childcare expenses can exclude those contributions from income. Employees who are recipients of direct employer subsidies would not be able to exclude those costs from the individual income tax and the costs of direct subsidies to employees could not be used as a cost eligible for the credit.
Note:
***If you are single and earn less then $25,000 a year you will pay ZERO federal income tax.
***If you are a married couple and earn less then $50,000 a year you will pay ZERO federal income tax.
The Trump Plan will revise and update both the individual and corporate tax codes:
Individual Income Tax
Tax rates
The Trump Plan will collapse the current seven tax brackets to three brackets. The rates and breakpoints are as shown below. Low-income Americans will have an effective income tax rate of 0. The tax brackets are similar to those in the House GOP tax blueprint.
Brackets & Rates for Married-Joint filers:
Less than $75,000: 12%
More than $75,000 but less than $225,000: 25%
More than $225,000: 33%
*Brackets for single filers are ½ of these amounts
***If you are single and earn less then $25,000 a year you will pay ZERO federal income tax.
***If you are a married couple and earn less then $50,000 a year you will pay ZERO federal income tax.
The Trump Plan will retain the existing capital gains rate structure (maximum rate of 20 percent) with tax brackets shown above. Carried interest will be taxed as ordinary income.
The 3.8 percent Obamacare tax on investment income will be repealed, as will the alternative minimum tax.
Deductions
The Trump Plan will increase the standard deduction for joint filers to $30,000, from $12,600, and the standard deduction for single filers will be $15,000. The personal exemptions will be eliminated as will the head-of-household filing status.
In addition, the Trump Plan will cap itemized deductions at $200,000 for Married-Joint filers or $100,000 for Single filers.
Death Tax
The Trump Plan will repeal the death tax, but capital gains held until death and valued over $10 million will be subject to tax to exempt small businesses and family farms. To prevent abuse, contributions of appreciated assets into a private charity established by the decedent or the decedent’s relatives will be disallowed.
Childcare
Americans will be able to take an above-the-line deduction for children under age 13 that will be capped at state average for age of baby, and for eldercare for a dependent. The exclusion will not be available to taxpayers with total income over $500,000 Married-Joint /$250,000 Single, and because of the cap on the size of the benefit, working and middle class families will see the largest percentage reduction in their taxable income.
The childcare exclusion would be provided to families who use stay-at-home parents or grandparents as well as those who use paid caregivers, and would be limited to 4 children per taxpayer. The eldercare exclusion would be capped at $5,000 per year. The cap would increase each year at the rate of inflation.
The Trump Plan would offer spending rebates for childcare expenses to certain low-income taxpayers through the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The rebate would be equal to 7.65 percent of remaining eligible childcare expenses, subject to a cap of half of the payroll taxes paid by the taxpayer (based on the lower-earning parent in a two-earner household).
This rebate would be available to married joint filers earning $62,400 ($31,200 for single taxpayers) or less. Limitations on costs eligible for exclusion and the number of beneficiaries would be the same as for the basic exclusion. The ceiling would increase with inflation each year.
All taxpayers would be able to establish Dependent Care Savings Accounts (DCSAs) for the benefit of specific individuals, including unborn children. Total annual contributions to a DCSA are limited to $2,000 per year from all sources, which include the account owner (parent in the case of a minor or the person establishing elder care account), immediate family members of the account owner, and the employer of the account owner. When established for children, the funds remaining in the account when the baby reaches 18 can be used for education expenses, but additional contributions could not be made.
To encourage lower-income families to establish DCSAs for their children, the government will provide a 50 percent match on parental contributions of up to $1,000 per year for these households. When parents fill out their taxes they can check a box to directly deposit any portion of their EITC into their Dependent Care Savings Account. All deposits and earnings thereon will be free from taxation, and unused balances can rollover from year to year.
Business Tax
The Trump Plan will lower the business tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent, and eliminate the corporate alternative minimum tax. This rate is available to all businesses, both small and large, that want to retain the profits within the business.
It will provide a deemed repatriation of corporate profits held offshore at a one-time tax rate of 10 percent.
It eliminates most corporate tax expenditures except for the Research and Development credit.
Firms engaged in manufacturing in the US may elect to expense capital investment and lose the deductibility of corporate interest expense. An election once made can only be revoked within the first 3 years of election; if revoked, returns for prior years would need to be amended to show revised status. After 3 years, election is irrevocable.
The annual cap for the business tax credit for on-site childcare authorized by Sec. 205 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 would be increased to $500,000 per year (up from $150,000) and recapture period would be reduced to 5 years (down from 10 years).
Businesses that pay a portion of an employee’s childcare expenses can exclude those contributions from income. Employees who are recipients of direct employer subsidies would not be able to exclude those costs from the individual income tax and the costs of direct subsidies to employees could not be used as a cost eligible for the credit.
Note:
***If you are single and earn less then $25,000 a year you will pay ZERO federal income tax.
***If you are a married couple and earn less then $50,000 a year you will pay ZERO federal income tax.
Last edited:
....Basically, if you're not incorporated or you aren't a corporation, the US tax codes don't really apply anyway ... think about it. Individuals really have one deduction ... mortgage. The poor & low-middleclass don't even have that. The tax codes were written by the rich, for the rich, and the rich are not going to give up a frik'n red cent ... they'll simply "shift" the tax elsewhere, which usually results in the working poor paying more. That's Reaganomics for you.
....Also, spare me on the "poor don't pay any income tax". They might not pay federal income tax, but they pay state taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, and a more recently becoming popular tax, the "usage" tax for getting cars repaired, having contractor work done on your dwelling, etc Also, keep in mind that a large chunk of those not paying federal income taxes are the elderly retired on fixed incomes. So, in reality, the poor pay a larger % of their income to taxes than the rich.
....When those federal income brackets get cut to 3 and lowered, trust me (as the Donald says) they'll offset some of those huge tax cuts for the wealthy by cutting socially funded programs ... they're already talking about Medicare, Medicaid, and of course cutting ACA. And what the middleclass & working poor don't pick up, will go to the Nat'l debt ... period. The rich will not suffer a dime under the proposed tax brackets. Those 74,000+ pages in the federal tax code book weren't written with the middleclass or working poor in mind. Remember ... "by the rich, for the rich".
Last edited:
nope, they only have earned income credit, Head of household, deductions for ch|ldren and other dependants. - nope they don't get deductions at all.
Raising taxes on the Rich would also have ZERO effect - you said it yourself -
So do the rich, and I think your math is off a bit Larger % of their income? A percentage is a percentage is a percentage. 7% of 100 is 7% of 100 rich or poor. I'm curious about Payroll taxes. I never paid them until I became an employer.
Raising taxes isn't the answer anymore than lowing them - but I can tell you after entering the work ******* at age 15, I had MORE money in my pocket during a Republican presidency than during a Democrat presidency.
I can agree with that statement - the problem I have with it is you truly believe that the Democrats are for the little guy. Again I'll ask. When Democrats are in - why is the tax code not changed to help the little guy?
....And again I'll answer ... you keep pegging me for a *******, far-left liberal; how many times have I said that #1 I'm a moderate liberal, and #2 that I have issues with both parties. As far as why the tax codes not changed to help the little guy ... actually several reasons. One, the little guy does not have voice in Washington (no money, no voice) and two, a lot of the democrats in Washington are rich and secretively support many of the conservative's biased tax laws. In essence, they're not going to agree to tax themselves more; and if they do, they simply write another tax code to get around it. Again, its WHY we have 74,000+ pages of tax codes. And you wonder why the numbers of the poor continue to rise. Giving "trickle down" tax cuts doesn't work ... 35 years of it has proven it does nothing but increase the national debt because they're so afraid to offset their "tax cuts for the rich" with adequate spending cuts that would mostly come from social programs.
....Do I once again need to attach Charles Koch's TV comments that the tax system is tilted unfairly to the richest Americans? Several of the richest in the US have openly admitted this ... their money gives them favorable legislation in Washington; they know it. Get the money & lobbyists out of Washington, make all donations to politicians transparent, reverse Citizens United, put term/age limits on politicians, and suddenly we can have a more functional government. Washington (and politics in general) is openly corrupt, and those that are there dare anyone to stop them.
....Here in NC, for example, in the recent election one of the conservative state judges lost his seat to a liberal (also black), thus the party tilt in NC is now 3 Liberal & 2 conservative judges. Our conservative legislators are now encouraging our out-going Republican governor to appoint 2 new conservative judges before he leaves office in January so conservatives will maintain their edge on state judges. Now, its not as much that our Republican legislators are doing this as much as they are OPENLY saying why they are doing it ... and they're daring anyone to stop them.
Last edited:
sorry hate to change the subject from above
Trump turns his Twitter attacks on private citizens, raising concerns
Less than a week after Donald Trump kicked off his postelection “Thank You Tour” with a visit to the Carrier plant in Indianapolis, the president-elect took to Twitter to slam the head of the union that represents the company’s employees.
Chuck Jones, who is President of United Steelworkers 1999, has done a terrible job representing workers. No wonder companies flee country!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 8, 2016
If United Steelworkers 1999 was any good, they would have kept those jobs in Indiana. Spend more time working-less time talking. Reduce dues
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 8, 2016
To those watching the Wednesday night Twitter tirade unfold, Chuck Jones might have initially seemed like an unusual target, given that Trump had just declared victory in persuading Carrier’s parent company to reduce the number of jobs it moved to Mexico in exchange for $7 million in tax credits from Indiana.
It quickly became clear, however, that just 20 minutes before Trump fired off his first tweet about the union boss, Jones had appeared on CNN to talk about the Carrier deal. A banner at the bottom of the screen read, “Carrier Union Boss: Trump Lied His A** Off.”
The quote came from an interview with the Washington Post earlier in the week. Jones slammed Trump’s claim that, thanks to his dealmaking, “over 1,100 people” would now be able to keep their jobs at the Indianapolis plant.
On the contrary, Jones said, Carrier had agreed to keep only 800 jobs in Indiana, a number the company confirmed to the Post. Not only had Trump inflated the figure of jobs saved, said Jones, but he did so in front of a room full of union members — 550 of whom will still end up losing their jobs — during his visit to the plant.
Throughout the course of his presidential campaign — and well before — Trump has often used Twitter as his own personal bully pulpit, blasting out insults about his critics to millions of followers.
But the attack on Jones was different, many argued. Trump is no longer a businessman turned reality TV star or even a presidential candidate. He is the president-elect. And the object of his ire this time was not another public figure, but a private citizen.
Let it not go unnoticed that Trump’s tweets attacking Chuck Jones of the Steelworkers Union are insanely inappropriate for a Prez-Elect.
Mr. Trump should not be attacking strong union leaders like Chuck Jones. Trade unions have helped build the middle class of this country.
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) December 8, 2016
When people cannot criticize leaders without fear of retaliation, democracy begins to erode.
Thank you, Chuck Jones! #StandWithChuck #Trump
— Tanya (@tgreene319) December 8, 2016
This wasn’t the first time a private citizen had gotten caught in Trump’s crosshairs. In light of the Jones feud, a 19-year-old college student revealed to the Washington Post this week that she too had felt Trump’s wrath after she confronted him at a political event in New Hampshire last fall.
Lauren Batchelder, who is studying history and gender studies at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, first encountered Trump at the bipartisan No Labels conference last October. Batchelder, then 18, stood to ask Trump a question about reproductive rights and the gender wage gap, telling the Republican presidential candidate, “I don’t think you’re a friend to women.”
“I respect women incredibly,” Trump interrupted, praising his mom and pointing to the women he’s hired at his companies in an attempt to prove her wrong. Under pressure from the rest of the crowd, Trump eventually allowed Batchelder to ask her question, but he wasn’t about to let her have the last word.
The next day, as coverage of Trump’s testy performance at the problem-solving event emerged, Trump tweeted angrily about “the arrogant young woman who questioned me in such a nasty fashion” at the New Hampshire conference, claiming that she was a “plant” by Republican rival Jeb Bush.
The arrogant young woman who questioned me in such a nasty fashion at No Labels yesterday was a Jeb staffer! HOW CAN HE BEAT RUSSIA & CHINA?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 13, 2015
How can Jeb Bush expect to deal with China, Russia + Iran if he gets caught doing a “plant” during my speech yesterday in NH?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 13, 2015
Not long after that, Batchelder said, she began receiving threatening phone calls, emails and Facebook messages, many of which, according to the Post, were “sexual in nature.” Her photo was soon being shared on social media, along with her contact information.
“I didn’t really know what anyone was going to do,” Batchelder told the Post this week in her first interview since the ordeal. “He was only going to tweet about it and that was it, but I didn’t really know what his supporters were going to do, and that to me was the scariest part.”
More than a year after Batchelder’s exchange with Trump in New Hampshire, her experience echoes that of Chuck Jones, who said that he began to get menacing phone calls approximately 30 minutes after Trump lambasted him on Twitter Wednesday.
“Nothing that says they’re gonna ******* me, but, you know, ‘You better keep your eye on your *******,’” Jones told MSNBC. “‘We know what car you drive.’ Things along those lines.”
According to the Washington Post, one caller warned Jones, “we’re coming for you.”
After three decades as a union boss, Jones has said he isn’t fazed by the president-elect’s cyberbullying. But with less than two months left until he becomes president of the United States, Trump’s reactionary verbal assault on a self-described “regular working guy” like Jones has raised serious concerns from White House veterans and Washington historians.
“When you attack a man for living an ordinary life in an ordinary job, it is bullying,” Nicolle Wallace, a veteran GOP strategist who served as President George W. Bush’s communications director, told the New York Times Friday. “It is cyberbullying. This is a strategy to bully somebody who dissents. That’s what is dark and disturbing.”
Frank Sesno, director of George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs, agreed, suggesting that Trump’s use of Twitter to publicly vilify his critics, especially private citizens, could pose a real threat to Americans’ constitutional right to criticize the government.
“Anybody who goes on air or goes public and calls out the president has to then live in fear that he is going to seek retribution in the public sphere,” said Sesno, who is also an ex-CNN Washington bureau chief. “That could discourage people from speaking out.”
It’s not just Trump’s tweets that have the potential to silence critics, but also the lingering ripple effect his words appear to have on some of his supporters, even long after he’s moved on to his next victim.
Since the early days of his presidential campaign, Trump has demonstrated an ability to stoke such a fervor among his more ardent admirers that they are inspired to go after Trump’s critics themselves. Targets have included a protester at one of his rallies, a journalist who Trump believes covered him unfairly, and one of the many women who’ve accused him of sexual misconduct.
MoreIt’s been more than a year since Trump first tweeted about Batchelder, and yet, she told the Post this week, the hateful messages keep coming.
“Wishing I could f***ing punch you in the face,” read one message Batchelder said she received on Facebook just five days before the election. “id [sic] then proceed to stomp your head on the curb and urinate in your bloodied mouth and i know where you live, so watch your f***ing back punk.”
The Post points out that Trump’s Twitter following has grown from less than 5 million to more than 17 million in the time since he first lashed out at Batchelder last October. And with the acquisition of the official @POTUS account — and its 12.5 million followers — his audience will soon become even bigger.
Despite previously stating that he’d kick his Twitter habit if elected president, Trump’s continued postelection tweets suggest otherwise. In a column at the New York Daily News Friday, Trump biographer Michael D’Antonio argued that the president-elect couldn’t stop tweeting “even if he wanted to.”
“Long an advocate of responding ’10 times harder’ when his feelings are hurt — and they are very easily hurt — Trump has a tendency to strike with massive ******* without much concern for the size or vulnerability of the person in his sights,” wrote D’Antonio, suggesting that Trump will likely continue to lash out at private citizens like Jones and Batchelder “because the pain he feels when criticized doesn’t depend on the source. No matter who speaks out, he cannot bear disapproval.”
In an interview with the “Today” show this week, the president-elect defended his tweets as “a modern-day form of communication.”
“I think I am very restrained,” Trump said. “And I talk about important things.”
Now you know why he likes Russia pres so much and wants to be just like him!
and you really think this guy cares about the worker... look at his tweets to a labor leader... this guy is all about the wealthy!... and dictatorship!and has all these mindless followers believing in him
and can you see the tirade he will go into once the impeachment proceedings start?... and they will he is far to corrupt for them not to
like his refusal to attend security briefings?... and refusing to believe intelligence reports that show Russia played into the election... of course he is not going to admit that.... and once Pres he will have that investigation shut right down!
this guy is as corrupt as they come!.... and literally sold his soul... and our country to get the job!
Trump turns his Twitter attacks on private citizens, raising concerns
Less than a week after Donald Trump kicked off his postelection “Thank You Tour” with a visit to the Carrier plant in Indianapolis, the president-elect took to Twitter to slam the head of the union that represents the company’s employees.
Chuck Jones, who is President of United Steelworkers 1999, has done a terrible job representing workers. No wonder companies flee country!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 8, 2016
If United Steelworkers 1999 was any good, they would have kept those jobs in Indiana. Spend more time working-less time talking. Reduce dues
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 8, 2016
To those watching the Wednesday night Twitter tirade unfold, Chuck Jones might have initially seemed like an unusual target, given that Trump had just declared victory in persuading Carrier’s parent company to reduce the number of jobs it moved to Mexico in exchange for $7 million in tax credits from Indiana.
It quickly became clear, however, that just 20 minutes before Trump fired off his first tweet about the union boss, Jones had appeared on CNN to talk about the Carrier deal. A banner at the bottom of the screen read, “Carrier Union Boss: Trump Lied His A** Off.”
The quote came from an interview with the Washington Post earlier in the week. Jones slammed Trump’s claim that, thanks to his dealmaking, “over 1,100 people” would now be able to keep their jobs at the Indianapolis plant.
On the contrary, Jones said, Carrier had agreed to keep only 800 jobs in Indiana, a number the company confirmed to the Post. Not only had Trump inflated the figure of jobs saved, said Jones, but he did so in front of a room full of union members — 550 of whom will still end up losing their jobs — during his visit to the plant.
Throughout the course of his presidential campaign — and well before — Trump has often used Twitter as his own personal bully pulpit, blasting out insults about his critics to millions of followers.
But the attack on Jones was different, many argued. Trump is no longer a businessman turned reality TV star or even a presidential candidate. He is the president-elect. And the object of his ire this time was not another public figure, but a private citizen.
Let it not go unnoticed that Trump’s tweets attacking Chuck Jones of the Steelworkers Union are insanely inappropriate for a Prez-Elect.
Mr. Trump should not be attacking strong union leaders like Chuck Jones. Trade unions have helped build the middle class of this country.
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) December 8, 2016
When people cannot criticize leaders without fear of retaliation, democracy begins to erode.
Thank you, Chuck Jones! #StandWithChuck #Trump
— Tanya (@tgreene319) December 8, 2016
This wasn’t the first time a private citizen had gotten caught in Trump’s crosshairs. In light of the Jones feud, a 19-year-old college student revealed to the Washington Post this week that she too had felt Trump’s wrath after she confronted him at a political event in New Hampshire last fall.
Lauren Batchelder, who is studying history and gender studies at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, first encountered Trump at the bipartisan No Labels conference last October. Batchelder, then 18, stood to ask Trump a question about reproductive rights and the gender wage gap, telling the Republican presidential candidate, “I don’t think you’re a friend to women.”
“I respect women incredibly,” Trump interrupted, praising his mom and pointing to the women he’s hired at his companies in an attempt to prove her wrong. Under pressure from the rest of the crowd, Trump eventually allowed Batchelder to ask her question, but he wasn’t about to let her have the last word.
The next day, as coverage of Trump’s testy performance at the problem-solving event emerged, Trump tweeted angrily about “the arrogant young woman who questioned me in such a nasty fashion” at the New Hampshire conference, claiming that she was a “plant” by Republican rival Jeb Bush.
The arrogant young woman who questioned me in such a nasty fashion at No Labels yesterday was a Jeb staffer! HOW CAN HE BEAT RUSSIA & CHINA?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 13, 2015
How can Jeb Bush expect to deal with China, Russia + Iran if he gets caught doing a “plant” during my speech yesterday in NH?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 13, 2015
Not long after that, Batchelder said, she began receiving threatening phone calls, emails and Facebook messages, many of which, according to the Post, were “sexual in nature.” Her photo was soon being shared on social media, along with her contact information.
“I didn’t really know what anyone was going to do,” Batchelder told the Post this week in her first interview since the ordeal. “He was only going to tweet about it and that was it, but I didn’t really know what his supporters were going to do, and that to me was the scariest part.”
More than a year after Batchelder’s exchange with Trump in New Hampshire, her experience echoes that of Chuck Jones, who said that he began to get menacing phone calls approximately 30 minutes after Trump lambasted him on Twitter Wednesday.
“Nothing that says they’re gonna ******* me, but, you know, ‘You better keep your eye on your *******,’” Jones told MSNBC. “‘We know what car you drive.’ Things along those lines.”
According to the Washington Post, one caller warned Jones, “we’re coming for you.”
After three decades as a union boss, Jones has said he isn’t fazed by the president-elect’s cyberbullying. But with less than two months left until he becomes president of the United States, Trump’s reactionary verbal assault on a self-described “regular working guy” like Jones has raised serious concerns from White House veterans and Washington historians.
“When you attack a man for living an ordinary life in an ordinary job, it is bullying,” Nicolle Wallace, a veteran GOP strategist who served as President George W. Bush’s communications director, told the New York Times Friday. “It is cyberbullying. This is a strategy to bully somebody who dissents. That’s what is dark and disturbing.”
Frank Sesno, director of George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs, agreed, suggesting that Trump’s use of Twitter to publicly vilify his critics, especially private citizens, could pose a real threat to Americans’ constitutional right to criticize the government.
“Anybody who goes on air or goes public and calls out the president has to then live in fear that he is going to seek retribution in the public sphere,” said Sesno, who is also an ex-CNN Washington bureau chief. “That could discourage people from speaking out.”
It’s not just Trump’s tweets that have the potential to silence critics, but also the lingering ripple effect his words appear to have on some of his supporters, even long after he’s moved on to his next victim.
Since the early days of his presidential campaign, Trump has demonstrated an ability to stoke such a fervor among his more ardent admirers that they are inspired to go after Trump’s critics themselves. Targets have included a protester at one of his rallies, a journalist who Trump believes covered him unfairly, and one of the many women who’ve accused him of sexual misconduct.
MoreIt’s been more than a year since Trump first tweeted about Batchelder, and yet, she told the Post this week, the hateful messages keep coming.
“Wishing I could f***ing punch you in the face,” read one message Batchelder said she received on Facebook just five days before the election. “id [sic] then proceed to stomp your head on the curb and urinate in your bloodied mouth and i know where you live, so watch your f***ing back punk.”
The Post points out that Trump’s Twitter following has grown from less than 5 million to more than 17 million in the time since he first lashed out at Batchelder last October. And with the acquisition of the official @POTUS account — and its 12.5 million followers — his audience will soon become even bigger.
Despite previously stating that he’d kick his Twitter habit if elected president, Trump’s continued postelection tweets suggest otherwise. In a column at the New York Daily News Friday, Trump biographer Michael D’Antonio argued that the president-elect couldn’t stop tweeting “even if he wanted to.”
“Long an advocate of responding ’10 times harder’ when his feelings are hurt — and they are very easily hurt — Trump has a tendency to strike with massive ******* without much concern for the size or vulnerability of the person in his sights,” wrote D’Antonio, suggesting that Trump will likely continue to lash out at private citizens like Jones and Batchelder “because the pain he feels when criticized doesn’t depend on the source. No matter who speaks out, he cannot bear disapproval.”
In an interview with the “Today” show this week, the president-elect defended his tweets as “a modern-day form of communication.”
“I think I am very restrained,” Trump said. “And I talk about important things.”
Now you know why he likes Russia pres so much and wants to be just like him!
and you really think this guy cares about the worker... look at his tweets to a labor leader... this guy is all about the wealthy!... and dictatorship!and has all these mindless followers believing in him
and can you see the tirade he will go into once the impeachment proceedings start?... and they will he is far to corrupt for them not to
like his refusal to attend security briefings?... and refusing to believe intelligence reports that show Russia played into the election... of course he is not going to admit that.... and once Pres he will have that investigation shut right down!
this guy is as corrupt as they come!.... and literally sold his soul... and our country to get the job!
Last edited:
What is that supposed to mean? I guess that just shows your ignorance about Canada's many contributions in American society. If there was no Canada, politically there would be no Ted Cruz who was born in Calgary, Alberta to try to challenge Trump, Max Baucus (US Senator from Montana (1978-2014) whose ******* was born in British Columbia, Canada), Mike Gravel (US Senator from Alaska (1969-1981) whose parents came from Quebec Canada), Stan Stephens (former governor of Montana from 1989-1993), Jennifer Granholm (former governor of Michigan who was born in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada), and Walter Mondale who not only was the 42nd Democratic VPOTUS, but a 1984 presidential nominee, was born in Minnesota but his mom was born in the province of Ontario in Canada!
If that is not enough for you there are many other celebrities and entertainers that you might have heard from whose heritage either comes from Canada or they were directly from Canada themself:
John Candy (Deceased comedian and movie star from "Cool Runnings"),
Justin Bieber,
Matt Groening of "The Simpsons",
Mark Wahlberg through his mom's French-Canadian ancestry,
Gene Hackman retired actor who starred in Superman 1,
Joe Shuster who co-created the very comic book character of Superman was born in Toronto, Canada (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Shuster),
Jimi Hendrix,
Robin Thicke,
Pamela Anderson,
Alex Trebek of Jeopardy,
Paul Anka,
Anne Murray,
Jim Carrey,
Hayden Christensen of Star Wars,
Leonard Cohen,
Michael J. Fox,
Wayne Gretzky,
Bret "The Hitman" Hart and Owen Hart,
Peter Jennings,
Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson,
Both Stana Katic and Nathan Fillion of the Castle TV Series,
Mario Lemieux who is a retired hockey player and co-owner of the Pittsburgh Penguins,
Guy Lombardo former band leader,
Alanis Morissette singer and songwriter,
Elon Musk of Tesla Motors,
Kevin O'Leary of Shark Tank,
Mike Myers of Austin Powers,
James Naismith who invented basketball,
Jason Priestley,
Joe Sakic (retired hockey player and general manager of the Colorado Avalanche),
Charles Revson who founded Revlon,
George Beverly Shea gospel music singer-songwriter with Billy Graham Crusades,
William Shatner and James Doohan of Star Trek,
and Martin Short.
(Mostly listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Americans, but feel free to research anyone else who I included not on this list through wikipedia as well).
I am just scratching at this list as Canada's contributions to America is much broader and more extensive than this list. So don't disrespect Canada!
Last edited:
At some point before becoming president, in Obama's resumé, he was a community organizer in Chicago.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama)
I am stunned there was something positive you said about Trump?! I guess I better plan on Judgment Day to occur soon!
