Author Topic: The US Presidency 2019  (Read 121319 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 328,631
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,624
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #500 on: July 05, 2019, 09:44:01 »
Lots of disappointed Americans today not having very much about Trump's speech yesterday to be outraged about.

At least his reveloutionary war airport mixup must have helped many get through the day  ;D
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 240,635
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,848
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #501 on: July 05, 2019, 12:18:11 »
Lots of disappointed Americans today not having very much about Trump's speech yesterday to be outraged about.

At least his reveloutionary war airport mixup must have helped many get through the day  ;D

The reference to the 1814 Battle at Fort McHenry as part of the Revolutionary War was also interesting. Who writes his speeches anyway?

That said, I wasn't disappointed at all; just pleasantly surprised that he was able to keep the speech about America rather than himself.

Changing the subject slightly, there's a good article in today's The Atlantic which delves into the development of Trump's foreign policy contradictions over the past year or two which is worth reading:

Quote
Trump Couldn’t Ignore the Contradictions of His Foreign Policy Any Longer
The president moves to straighten out his own foreign policy—and leaves his hawkish national security adviser on the sidelines.

6:00 AM ET
Thomas Wright
Senior fellow at the Brookings Institution

... President Trump’s foreign policy has been full of twists and turns, but it has also followed a clear narrative arc. The 10-day period from June 20—when Trump reversed himself on Iran strikes—to the DMZ visit was among the most significant of his presidency, as he was forced to come to terms with the consequences and contradictions of his own decisions. Over the course of three decades, Trump has carefully nurtured two images of himself—as a deal maker, and as a militarist. Bolton did all he could to encourage the latter. But even from faraway Ulaanbaatar this past weekend, it was clear that, when made to choose, Trump would opt for the former.

To understand where we are and where we are going, we must first understand where we have been. Trump became president with a set of deeply rooted visceral instincts about the world—hostility to alliances, skepticism of free trade, and support for authoritarian strongmen—but little idea about how to convert these beliefs into policy. He had few advisers qualified for high office who believed what he believed. He was insecure. And so he turned to a number of highly experienced businessmen and former military officers to fill key national security and foreign policy positions—John Kelly, James Mattis, H.R. McMaster, Gary Cohn, and Rex Tillerson. These men saw their role as constraining the president, not empowering him. The measured their success by what they prevented from happening, rather than by what they made happen. In the Trump epoch, this was the age of constraint. ...

See rest of article here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/trump-tries-to-fix-his-foreign-policy-without-bolton/593284/

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 535,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,197
    • The job.
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #502 on: July 05, 2019, 12:42:45 »
That said, I wasn't disappointed at all; just pleasantly surprised that he was able to keep the speech about America rather than himself.

I imagine the base was a bit disappointed he didn't turn it into a full-scale MAGA rally.

Quote
So far, he's sticking to this dry as melba toast speech and resisting the temptation to riff. We must have scared him straight. He doesn't want his campaign to have to repay the government the millions he'd owe if he got political.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-july-4th-speech-1.5200055




Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 80,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,097
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #503 on: July 05, 2019, 13:03:17 »
The "base" is undoubtedly perfectly happy with a full-scale pro-America rally.

A substantial slice of the "news" media spent the past couple of days hyping speculation about elements of campaigning, deploring and documenting the costs of military participation, going to the America-isn't-so-great well to recycle the usual complaints, and fretting about overt patriotism in general.  You watch; you'll see; you'll be sorry; etc; etc.

Then they find the speech is just basic rah-rah America, with no apparent partisan campaign messages or self-boosting Trumpism.  Another damp squib.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 137,820
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,842
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #504 on: July 05, 2019, 13:41:42 »

That said, I wasn't disappointed at all; just pleasantly surprised that he was able to keep the speech about America rather than himself.

 :cheers:

To be honest I agree with what you just said.   it was more or less subdued and his speech was a little too rah rah rah military but overall was not very political at all.  A few tank displays and some fly overs.  Not that different from some Canada day things I've seen.
Optio

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 240,635
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,848
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #505 on: July 05, 2019, 14:29:31 »
The "base" is undoubtedly perfectly happy with a full-scale pro-America rally.

A substantial slice of the "news" media spent the past couple of days hyping speculation about elements of campaigning, deploring and documenting the costs of military participation, going to the America-isn't-so-great well to recycle the usual complaints, and fretting about overt patriotism in general.  You watch; you'll see; you'll be sorry; etc; etc.

Then they find the speech is just basic rah-rah America, with no apparent partisan campaign messages or self-boosting Trumpism.  Another damp squib.

Damp squib is exactly the right term for this whole event and the news coverage of it. I've just watched the New York Macey's 4th of July celebration as well as the Washington affair (skipped the fireworks for the later)

Macey's was actually quite nice interspersing a variety of musical acts with video clips of Americans (including the military). It was nice that it covered the country from coast to coast and while hyping up patriotism and America as a whole made it's point by looking at Americans as individuals who are part of the whole.

The Washington event seemed to be a big bust (and not just because of the rain). While Trump's speech talked up the military, the event was not really military. Two M1s and two M2s and a few planes flying past do not a military show of force make. The National Guard probably makes as much of a display at some professional football games. The Marine drill team, band and choir and the Old Guard fife and drum corps had little impact performing on a lacklustre stage. There really was no military parade to speak of just Trump's lengthy and quite dull speech.

In a lot of ways Trump's vision of an event to rival Bastille Day was a complete bust. Here I blame a grandiose vision frustrated by a combination of a Democratic Washington municipal government and a military hierarchy neither of whom wanted any part in the affair. While the press for the most part had a pre-event negative view of it, that's understandable from the point of view of Trump's penchant from making these type of things all about himself, and the departure from the traditional way the 4th has been celebrated over the last half dozen decades.

I'm really not sure who to blame more for this "squib" but in the end, does it really matter? I expect the left will consider it a national embarrassment while the right will laud it as a great presidential moment while much of the centre is probably just happy that it didn't turn into the ****show that they were all expecting that it would.

Quote
Trump Commandeers the Fourth of July
Wandering the National Mall on Independence Day brought you face-to-face with a divided country.

... A Mall celebration that is normally “come one, come all” was split into haves and have-nots, as the choicest spots to watch Trump’s speech were off-limits to anyone without a VIP ticket. Scoring one depended on who you were and whom you knew: Distribution was controlled by the White House, the Trump reelection campaign, and the Republican National Committee. ...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/07/trump-fourth-of-july/593359/

 :2c:
« Last Edit: July 05, 2019, 14:34:04 by FJAG »
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 120,190
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,310
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #506 on: July 05, 2019, 18:03:11 »
The meaning of the 4th of July was the start of the Revolution which was a success thanks to our people and leaders at the time. So last night was a tribute to our armed forces and I liked it. The fly over was nice similar to the one's I have seen in France and the UK.

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 137,820
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,842
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #507 on: July 05, 2019, 18:18:24 »
The fly over was nice similar to the one's I have seen in France and the UK.

Well the revolutionary war did inspire the French Revolution when they stormed the Bastille and the Paris airport and the Brits under Alfred the Great pushed the Danes out of Heathrow.  So I can see why a fly by makes sense.  ;D

All kidding aside it seemed fairly appropriate and tastefully done.  I’m actually surprised Americans don’t normally have military displays or military parades for July 4th.
Optio

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 535,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,197
    • The job.
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #508 on: July 05, 2019, 20:46:23 »
In a lot of ways Trump's vision of an event to rival Bastille Day was a complete bust.

At least this time it didn't get cancelled,

Quote
2018 Washington Veterans Day Parade
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-military-parade-estimated-cost-92-million/story?id=57218363
Trump cancels military parade, blames local politicians as estimated cost balloons to $92 million



Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 120,190
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,310
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #509 on: July 06, 2019, 01:55:13 »
Well the revolutionary war did inspire the French Revolution when they stormed the Bastille and the Paris airport and the Brits under Alfred the Great pushed the Danes out of Heathrow.  So I can see why a fly by makes sense.  ;D

All kidding aside it seemed fairly appropriate and tastefully done.  I’m actually surprised Americans don’t normally have military displays or military parades for July 4th.


We do but they seen at football games or at an air force base when they have an air show.

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 535,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,197
    • The job.
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #510 on: July 06, 2019, 12:06:19 »
We do but they seen at football games or at an air force base when they have an air show.

There was an increase in the military and emergency services being honoured at sporting events after 9/11.



Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 157,595
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,032
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #511 on: July 08, 2019, 10:20:59 »
It wasn't that long ago that the US was opposed to a large standing professional army. So not surprised that large military parades were not a thing.

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 535,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,197
    • The job.
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #512 on: July 08, 2019, 10:30:47 »
It wasn't that long ago that the US was opposed to a large standing professional army. So not surprised that large military parades were not a thing.

Regarding recruitment,

Quote
Trump predicts July 4 rally will cause a 'big spike' in military recruitment
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/05/donald-trump-military-july-fourth-1399147



« Last Edit: July 08, 2019, 11:50:42 by mariomike »

Offline RomeoJuliet

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 11,845
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 516
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #513 on: July 15, 2019, 19:25:22 »
Just coming out of backcountry to this: ‘Trump told the women (three were born in the U.S.) they should "go back" to the "crime infested places from which they came." ‘

What the actual hell? Who finds this acceptable behaviour for anyone let anyone the president of USA?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 137,820
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,842
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #514 on: July 15, 2019, 19:28:49 »
Just coming out of backcountry to this: ‘Trump told the women (three were born in the U.S.) they should "go back" to the "crime infested places from which they came." ‘

What the actual hell? Who finds this acceptable behaviour for anyone let anyone the president of USA?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

His base.  They probably want to hear it.  White nationalists are also part of his base.  I’m sure they are elated.
Optio

Offline RomeoJuliet

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 11,845
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 516
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #515 on: July 15, 2019, 19:30:00 »
His base.  They probably want to hear it.  White nationalists are also part of his base.  I’m sure they are elated.
Bloody racists. Unsat!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 279,955
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,311
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #516 on: July 15, 2019, 19:57:26 »
Just coming out of backcountry to this: ‘Trump told the women (three were born in the U.S.) they should "go back" to the "crime infested places from which they came." ‘

What the actual hell? Who finds this acceptable behaviour for anyone let anyone the president of USA?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is a definite portion of his base for whom “Make America White Again” is a perfectly laudable objective. He has been pandering to them for the entire time he has been in office. All the more ironic that this is coming at the same time one of his ‘good people on both sides’ from Charlottesville is eating life + 419 years for ramming his car into a crowd of liberals.

His words to the members of Congress is disgusting. Of course as usual he will have plenty of apologists, sadly including on our side of the border.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 535,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,197
    • The job.
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #517 on: July 15, 2019, 20:03:21 »
What the actual hell? Who finds this acceptable behaviour for anyone let anyone the president of USA?

He's not an employee. So, he can't be fired. Politicians can say and do what they want. Can't even indict a sitting president.

His base.  They probably want to hear it.  White nationalists are also part of his base.  I’m sure they are elated.

Charles de Gaulle had this to say about nationalism,

"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first."

Of course as usual he will have plenty of apologists, sadly including on our side of the border.

True.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2019, 20:10:30 by mariomike »

Offline cavalryman

    Done with the demented bureaucracy.

  • You can't put a pricetag on patriotism
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 36,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 430
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #518 on: July 15, 2019, 20:15:20 »
Charles de Gaulle had this to say about nationalism,

"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first."


DeGaulle also (in)famously said "Vive le Quebec libre" on a state visit to Canada.  That pretty much invalidates anything the **** hypocrite had to say about nationalism, no?

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 535,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,197
    • The job.
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #519 on: July 15, 2019, 20:21:14 »
That pretty much invalidates anything the **** hypocrite had to say about nationalism, no?

How do you  define nationalism?

White nationalists are also part of his base. 

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 80,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,097
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #520 on: July 15, 2019, 23:53:54 »
>What the actual hell? Who finds this acceptable behaviour for anyone let anyone the president of USA?

Apparently not many people who matter.  But it sure did twist a lot of panties.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 535,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,197
    • The job.
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #521 on: July 16, 2019, 09:14:26 »
It would explain why the polls were so wrong down south in 2016.

Saw the above posted today in Canadian Politics.

He got in last time. My uneducated guess, he will probably get back in next time too.

“The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion,” Mueller wrote. This help “favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/05/mueller-can-do-no-more-now-its-congress/157333/

In spite of that, the Democrats got 3 million more votes in 2016. 10 million more in 2018. Maybe even more in 2020.

The Wall Street Journal

‘Putin Has Won’: Mueller Report Details the Ways Russia Interfered in the 2016 Election
https://www.wsj.com/articles/putin-has-won-mueller-report-details-the-ways-russia-interfered-in-the-2016-election-11555666201








« Last Edit: July 16, 2019, 10:30:06 by mariomike »

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 80,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,097
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #522 on: July 16, 2019, 12:01:42 »
I doubt Putin cares much who wins.

Many people assume that because interference favoured Trump, it was meant to favour Trump.  Another explanation is that the Russians did what Russians often do and reinforced success.  Their attempts to hack the DNC were more successful than their attempts to hack the RNC.  And prompting the incumbent administration to poke its nose into the challenging party's campaign should always be expected to yield a much higher payload if the intent is to sow discord.

If foreigners want to provoke the US into self-immolation, the task is now much easier (the precedents are established).  All that is needed is to plant credible evidence that the challenging campaign is working with foreigners.  The barriers against intrusive investigations have been ground down to almost nothing in pursuit of short-term political advantage.  So: create the evidence; massage the evidence into the open (media exposure); stoke the calls for investigation.  Then sit back and see whether the challengers are as well-disposed towards investigations when they are the targets.  (Not likely.)  Tap a keg while the US tears itself apart (again).

Democrats should support Barr and push for well-established limits on what is sufficient to start an investigation and what investigative means are acceptable.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 240,635
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,848
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #523 on: July 16, 2019, 14:49:07 »
I doubt Putin cares much who wins.

Many people assume that because interference favoured Trump, it was meant to favour Trump.  Another explanation is that the Russians did what Russians often do and reinforced success.  Their attempts to hack the DNC were more successful than their attempts to hack the RNC.  And prompting the incumbent administration to poke its nose into the challenging party's campaign should always be expected to yield a much higher payload if the intent is to sow discord.

If foreigners want to provoke the US into self-immolation, the task is now much easier (the precedents are established).  All that is needed is to plant credible evidence that the challenging campaign is working with foreigners.  The barriers against intrusive investigations have been ground down to almost nothing in pursuit of short-term political advantage.  So: create the evidence; massage the evidence into the open (media exposure); stoke the calls for investigation.  Then sit back and see whether the challengers are as well-disposed towards investigations when they are the targets.  (Not likely.)  Tap a keg while the US tears itself apart (again).

Democrats should support Barr and push for well-established limits on what is sufficient to start an investigation and what investigative means are acceptable.

I agree with everything but the first para. One needs to look at the context that much of the sanction regime that has been put into place against Russia (and which is particularly hurting Putin's oligarch cabal) was put there by the Obama regime and Clinton. I think Putin very much cared about who won although I also think that he probably didn't in his wildest dreams think that Trump would actually win. He might have hoped that in a close race his efforts might put Trump over the top and it certainly seems that this was the case considering how narrow the vote difference in the key electoral college states were.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 219,852
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,504
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #524 on: July 17, 2019, 21:49:45 »
The claim that Vladimir Putin favoured Donald Trump never made sense to me. Millions had been funnelled to the Clinton Foundation https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/clinton-russia-collusion-evidence/, Obama was caught on an open mike promising Dimitri Medvedev that he could be "more flexible" to Russia after the 2012 election https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-more-flexibility-russia/, and Obama had ridiculed Mitt Romney's concerns regarding Russia during the 2012 campaign with his "the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because, the Cold War's been over for 20 years" retort. If Vladimir Putin preferred either candidate in 2016, I continue believe that he would have preferred Clinton. I'm pretty certain that he's not come out and said who he preferred, so nobody merely speculating knows for sure, but: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/10/12/russian-hacking-no-credible-evidence-editorials-debates/106566026/.

I watched the internet ads mention in that last article and they were laughable and cringeworthy. Any claim that they influenced anybody is also laughable.

That article also states:

"What the purveyors of this conspiracy theory don’t want to admit is that Donald Trump’s victory, as well as that of other Republicans, aligns with political trends during the Obama presidency.

"Under Obama, the Democratic Party lost more congressional, state legislative and governor’s seats than under any other president. The party is the weakest it has been since the 1920s in the number of political seats it holds nationwide."

https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/election-day-russia-hacking-explained/, a couple of weeks before the election, began with the headline "No, the presidential election can't be hacked".

Democrat claims that Russia hacked the DNC server remain unsubstantiated. The DNC refused to turn it over to federal investigators for a proper analysis. Why not? They would almost certainly not have anything to hide, would they? And, if I remember accurately, it was assessed that at least five entities hacked Clinton's illegal private e-mail server.

While I will likely never trust Russia, having actively participated in the Cold War for many years, I am much more worried about China and militant Islam.

The Russian boogeyman was a Democrat diversion then and remains so now. They were certain of a win, and still can't believe that they lost or accept why they lost. They picked a lousy candidate and ran a lousy campaign, in which they took a large group of voters for granted and then insulted them, and failed to generate much interest anywhere outside of their safe areas (compare the sizes, frequency, and energy/enthusiasm levels between Clinton and Donald Trump rallies).

I was caught in an unexpected and lengthy gap between contracts during the 2016 US election and had a lot of free time to watch it closely, and found it highly entertaining on many levels.

I quickly came to the opinion that Donald Trump was likely to win (but not assured) based upon some largely unconventional amateur analysts alongside some more-established and conventional ones. The best, and most accurate, poll was an LA Times one that used larger and more diversified samples and had been accurate in previous elections. It did not favour Clinton as the others did. One amateur specialist tracked the relative sales of anti-Clinton and anti-Trump merchandise; anti-Clinton sales beat anti-Trump sales by eight to one.

I've trimmed down my unconventional amateur analyst list considerably, as I have much less time of late, so only monitor those who performed the best and have the least fluff. Backgrounds vary.

One (HA Goodman), who billed himself as "progressive" in 2016, was a Jill Stein supporter at the start, then switched to Bernie Sanders when she dropped out, got pissed off when the DNC betrayed him, became more critical of Clinton specifically and the Democrats in general over time, and began to predict that Donald Trump would win and gave clear reasons why. It was interesting to watch him repudiate his "progressive" identity, denounce the Democrats, and eventually become an enthusiastic Donald Trump supporter over time.

Another (Bill Still/Still Report) is a much older, retired professional journalist and author with a good network of trusted sources, very Christian and a long-time Republican supporter.

Another (Styxhexenhammer666) is a millenial, libertarian, Christian-cum-satanist-cum-pagan, modern-day hippy who has voted Democrat in the past and is now a fairly solid Donald Trump supporter but will freely switch to whoever most aligns with his own beliefs and opinions.

Another (Tim Pool/Timcast) bills himself as centre-left, would never vote Republican under any circumstances, likes neither Donald Trump nor the socialist-loony side of the Democratic Party (or any of those vying for the Democrat candidacy) but will give both praise and criticism where he sees it due.

Another (Anthony Brian Logan/ABL) is a black former-Democrat who is now also solidly Republican and a Donald Trump supporter.

Another (Bill Whittle, usually with sidekicks Steve Green and Scott Ott) is a mature conservative who was originally not a Donald Trump fan and can still be critical. Scott Ott generally plays the devil's advocate role, and quite well.

Another (Liz Wheeler) is a very conservative and Catholic millennial, who reports for One American News Network which seems to be growing.

And then there's Steven Crowder, a conservative comedian with a strong Canadian connection, including a French Canadian mother.

I still watch Scott Adams (Dilbert author) occasionally; he has some interesting insights.

I also favour National Review Online. Although it's conservative-leaning, there is a wide variety of viewpoints in one source.

I will also, occasionally, check other left-leaning sources that I find credible and interesting even if I disagree with them (Jimmy Dore, for one).

I put less and less faith in mainstream media, but do occasionally find some worthwhile articles or videos therein and will (still) not discount them entirely. In general, I find Canadian MSM to be more credible than their US counterparts, but less so than I'd like.

Overall, though, I find better, deeper analyses and more accurate predictions in the amateur/semi-professional/independent/small operations that I've been watching/reading for almost three years. They also report about many things that the traditional media ignore.