to think you should ignore people having a go at you if you are the President Elect of the USA

[amispartacus]

Rather than having a go at them on Twitter and describing them as second rate actresses.

Otherwise some people might just think you're a bit sensitive.

If that's how he's going to react when people call him out on things, he's going to have a very long 4 years in the White House

What is interesting now is that he may feel the need fact check what comes out in the press.

There is no enemy (Hillary), and he has to produce something, so all eyes will be on him. All sorts of stories and criticism WILL focus on him. And he can't even blame an antagonistic Congress.

It's not a good position to be in and I think he will struggle. Particularly given how sensitive he is.

He's just tweeted..
"Thank you to Linda Bean of L.L.Bean for your great support and courage. People will support you even more now. Buy L.L.Bean!"

She showed some support somehow and this is his response. Can he honestly do this legitimately? LL Bean is an american Store, should the incoming POTUS be running ads for companies on his twitter a/c? Does he still think he's on the Apprentice?

Twitter is bursting with tweets from people saying they are now going to boycott LL Bean and the Chairman of the Company has had to respond in an open letter asking them not to

Oh... and... the files piled up on the table next to his podium yesterday were all fake. Why am I not surprised.

It all makes no difference to his 'innocent' fans.

Linda Bean made "excessive" (ie over legal limit) donations to a PAC supporting Trump, and anti-Trump pressure group Grab Your Wallet has been advocating boycotting LL Bean. She is one of the 10 board members of LL Bean.

Oh my goodness! The president-elect is openly advertising a clothing store after receiving money from them. Jesus wept. How long before he is on TV demonstrating toothpaste.

And the people will lap it up. They love it.

There is no enemy (Hillary), and he has to produce something, so all eyes will be on him. All sorts of stories and criticism WILL focus on him. And he can't even blame an antagonistic Congress.

It's not a good position to be in and I think he will struggle. Particularly given how sensitive he is.

Er no. He will just find someone else to blame and use as a distraction tool from his failure to deliver what people think he has promised.

In this respect its exactly the same as Brexit.

He will get away with it by bullying and intimidation - especially if the press fail to find that spine they need.

He will not struggle. His sensitivity is an asset in this situation. It means he has no filter and is aggressive in the way he goes on the attack. Its very difficult to counter that. It tends to look sincere to people who support him. It feeds the idea that he is somehow the victim rather than the villain.

In creating confusion between what is real and untrue it becomes almost impossible to hold someone to account. Thus he has free reign to do what ever he likes.

Add to that there will be a growing fear created by how he ends up treating the media who do not tow the line. There still could be a Hillary Clinton show trial. Trump wants to reform liable laws so he can not be challenged but can sue the ass off anyone who so much as says something like he is 'taking the piss' as a joke. All in efforts to silence criticism.

Don't think this is as bad as it gets. Its not started yet.

red "In creating confusion between what is real and untrue it becomes almost impossible to hold someone to account. "

Or as the famous MN phrase goes: 'you can't argue with batshit crazy'

How do you go up against people who will say and believe whatever is most convenient for them at that moment, no matter whether it is even remotely true? Who will attack with spurious, generalised insults and claims, anyone who dares to speak against them?

I agree with that - he won't struggle.

All this talk: he won't run his policies on twitter, he won't be able to keep his businesses going, he'll get fed up...is just wishful thinking.

He is a maniac.

I wouldn't boycott the company, as they said, among all the board members, there's a broad spectrum of political opinions.
It was a personal donation and not a corporate one.

Meanwhile, statement by the head of the National Intelligence:

"This evening, I had the opportunity to speak with President-elect Donald Trump to discuss recent media reports about our briefing last Friday.
I expressed my profound dismay at the leaks that have been appearing in the press, and we both agreed that they are extremely corrosive and damaging to our national security.
We also discussed the private security company document, which was widely circulated in recent months among the media, members of Congress and Congressional staff even before the IC became aware of it.
I emphasized that this document is NOT a US Intelligence Community [IC] product and that I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC.
The IC has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions.
However, part of our obligation is to ensure that policymakers are provided with the fullest possible picture of any matters that might affect national security.
President-elect Trump again affirmed his appreciation for all the men and women serving in the Intelligence Community, and I assured him that the IC stands ready to serve his Administration and the American people."

vs

The President-Elect

"Donald J. Trump ‏*@realDonaldTrump* 3h3 hours ago
James Clapper called me yesterday to denounce the false and fictitious report that was illegally circulated. Made up, phony facts.Too bad!"

I don't know, RedToothBrush.

I suspect that at some point he will personally struggle if he keeps shooting in all directions.

But I expect things will settle soon after Inauguration.

I would boycott-

(But then I don't really know what llbean is)

Let them kick her off the board...

I wouldn't boycott necessarily but I do think it's very very wrong for him to push their business on twitter. Will he carry on with this sort of thing after inaugaration? i.e. support me and I'll scratch your back. I just imagined that this wouldn't be allowed in any shape or form.

So he's finally appointed Guiliani to something... Head of Cybersecurity. Gotta find a position for all those friends and allies... whatever it is...

I am not surprised.

Actually, nothing that Trump does could surprise me much anymore. I heard that there are allegiations the Russians might be able to blackmail him. I really have no idea with what - by now, I would only be mildly surprised if he ate live kittens, or babies.
Pretty much any other crime or perversion, I would only yawn and roll my eyes.

People voted for him knowing exactly how he is. He is in no danger of losing their support.

Its horrifying, how can American women have voted for this sexist creature, I have family in America all very sensible strong women who voted for him. Its mystifying.

I find the "sensible" part of that sentence rather implausible, sorry.

Lweji, he is incredible.

For comparison, Obama at about this time 8 years ago had an overall approval-disapproval rate of more than +40, and 4 years ago +10.

Trump has an overall approval-disapproval rate of -6. And that's an improvement since the election, which was at -21, presumably as people thought he'd more or less settled.

I don't think he's convincing people that much. The disapproval rate is going up again in the last few days.

Under Obama, unemployment peaked in 2010 (crisis peak) and has reduced to almost half by 2016.
Imagine if Obama had tweeted every time more jobs became available during that period.

I know vestal but these are strong women, bread winners. In good jobs, originally from the UK and they VOTED for him. How bad must Hillary have been?

I think I'd have rather voted for the hamster that is running the Trumper.

If you are going to claim that the CNN is in total meltdown, don't include @CNN on your tweet, where people can go and see that, not only they are not melting down, they are transmitting good old Sanders, under:

"Because if you have no health insurance… you die": Sen. @BernieSanders objects as efforts begin to repeal Obamacare cnn.it/2iL1axA

And:
Fox News' Chris Wallace: Donald Trump should not denigrate the intelligence community cnn.it/2iKm5kc

Just read an interesting article in the guardian about the guy who wrote the now infamous dossier. He certainly doesn't seem like someone who would be taken in easily by fake news. I am inclined to believe he at least had very good reason to think it was worth putting this secret tape business in his report.

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/12/intelligence-sources-vouch-credibility-donald-trump-russia-dossier-author

Oooh I walk past his office. I'm going to send a bottke of bubbly.

Yes, and probably why the CNN and Buzzfeed decided to publish.

I understand why the US Intelligence are being cautious, but the statement is more about the leaks than the actual report.

Quite honestly, if I was part of the US Intelligence and faced with something like this, that affects the incoming President, I'd make sure it was out in the open. Publicly confronting him with this is the best (perhaps the only) way of ensuring any actual dealings with Russia are cut short(er).

I would like to know who was the Republican candidate who originally asked for this investigation, BTW.

originalmavis

Maybe some vodka instead?

All this talk: he won't run his policies on twitter, he won't be able to keep his businesses going, he'll get fed up...is just wishful thinking.

That's what worries me. Even Nixon, crooked as he was, was capable of recognising that there was a point where he had crossed a boundary, hence his initial attempts to cover up Watergate; and he was equally capable of recognising when the game was up and all he could do was put his hands up and go. If Trump had been guilty of Watergate, he would simply have tried to bluster his way through - he would deny it had happened, deny it had anything to do with him, deny there was anything wrong with it, say the whole thing was a wicked plot against him, and so on: ultimately he would never have resigned, and I guess they would have had to go through the whole impeachment process with him fighting all the way, which would do the US immeasurable damage. And the thing is that it very likely that he has already done much worse than Watergate, and will continue to do so, so it is virtually inevitable that we are going to go through a number of similar upheavals more than once till he finally departs.

Yes Mega. I do think Trumper's prediction of 8 years is completely off the mark, I think he will have imploded by 4 minimum.

Ladbrokes are offering evens odds that the Trumper will leave the White House by impeachment or resignation before the end of the first term.

4/1 for impeachment in first 6 months.

50/1 to speak some Russian in his inaugaration speech
20/1 to say 'fake news' in his speech
250/1 to say 'golden showers'
Bigly 66/1
Mexican wall 16/1
(there's loads more!)

I'm seriously thinking of having a punt

20/1 to say 'fake news' in his speech

I think that's too high. They'll lose a lot of money.
I'd put it at 100/1 to NOT mention fake news.