Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
MOD OP EDIT: Please put general conversations about Trump here. Anything that is not exceptionally deserving of its own OP on this topic will be merged into this discussion. And let's keep things relatively polite. Thanks.
Comments (24161)
Yo Dumpertrumper,
I didn't see where you answered the question?
Using your bosses Trump-speak, be a man and grab those questions by the balls, or by the pussy if that works better for you!
LOL
Well, he spoke truth - but that doesn't preclude there being ulterior motives, some of which may be good (to save the sinking ship of the Justice Dept) and some might be selfish (his own reputation).
It will be interesting to see how Trump reacts.
Yep, Bloomberg is his nemesis; he's the only one who will be able to get under his thin skin. Wait a minute I stand corrected everybody gets under his thin skin!
Bloomberg is fighting fire with fire on the tweet circuit!!!
Okay I think you're right. Let's wait and see how Dumpertrumper reacts, he'll probably stick his foot in his mouth again...
In the big scheme of things I'm confident the truth will all come out about the fraudulent Dumpertrumper.
Yep. It's seems like NOS4A2 is loosing more credibility by the hour. Although that would imply that he even has some!
He's like a little ostrich who puts his head in the sand and then complains it's too dark!
LOL
He did not admit it. Quote him admitting anything close to openly admitting sending his attorney Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine to find damaging information about his political opponents.
Keep looking.
Yo Dumpertrumper,
Can you go through a lawyer to interpret your nonsense? You might be better served!!
I answered your questions many times. Still awaiting your analysis.
I'm not saying that he admitted to sending Giuliani to Ukraine to find damaging information about his political opponents. I'm saying that he admitted to sending Giuliani to Ukraine. It's right there in the audio. Previously both he and Giuliani denied that Giuliani was in Ukraine at Trump's behest, as per your previous comment:
Quoting NOS4A2
Your credibility is in the shitcan, you didn't answer my question would you like me to repost it?
So is CNN telling the truth?
Still awaiting your sober analysis.
Would you like me to repost it? If you're scared say you're scared!
LOL
You're not going to deflect that easy. I don't care what CNN says. I care about what Trump says to Geraldo in that interview. You can listen to the audio. Geraldo asks him about sending Giuliani to Ukraine and he admits that he did and that he isn't sorry for it. Whereas previously, as per your own comment:
"According to Giuliani it was the state dept. that requested he travel to Ukraine. I think if Trump personally requested him to do it, Trump might be in trouble."
You used a CNN article to make a point. The CNN article claimed Trump openly admitted to something he didn't. Is this true or false?
Rivera's question was a loaded question. Trump never admitted sending Giuliani to Ukraine and their past statements say otherwise.
Anytime now....
I used it as a reference. I followed it up by summarizing the key points:
1. Giuliani is a liar, as he claimed it was the State Department, not Trump, who sent him to Ukraine
2. Trump is a liar, as he claimed he didn't send Giuliani to Ukraine
Note that I'm not saying that Giuliani was there for nefarious reasons, only that he was there at Trump's request.
Yes he did. Listen to the audio.
Yes, which are the lies. That's the point I'm trying to drive across here. They lied. Which is a common theme with them, and why most of us don't believe what he or the White House say.
The question was loaded, it was poorly asked. There is no indication Trump heard it properly. There is no indication Trump was talking about sending Guiliani to Ukraine. Your unforgiving word-parsing and contextomy is the same kind of nonsense that leads us to the fake news such as the CNN article you posted.
"Was it strange to send Rudy Guliane to Ukraine? Your personal lawyer? Are you sorry you did that?"
"Not at all, not at all..."
Quoting NOS4A2
Unfounded and biased speculation in connection to the subject's mental state.
So silly.
You guys have no qualms in uncritically believing and promoting the flimsiest of cases to justify your conspiracy theorizing.
@NOS4A2's only function here is to highlight the depths to which Trump sycophants will go to defend him. Nobody believes even he believes the rubbish he posts.
That's just your fantasy getting the best of you again. I suppose it's a good thing your opinion means very little to me.
Opinion without a factual support.
I can't prove he's a troll. He might be insane.
I don't mind some constructive criticism on how I should conduct myself, Tim. Metaphors about pissing on your leg is fine and dandy, but anything realistic I can do to alleviate your stress would be more helpful.
That's what this is, which is why it says "All General Trump Conversations Here". ;)
His credibility is highly suspect. I have found that he can't be honest with himself or other's. After reading responses to mine and other poster's.., there is no consistency in his arguments except to say that he complains that it's too dark while stubbornly refusing to take his head out 'the sand.
LOL
To identify a liar, note inconsistencies in his narrative, especially when engaged in a not-so-defensive conversation with a political ally (Geraldo).
You promised me an analysis about my right-wing extreme views and how I am a danger to democracy. Is that ever going to arrive? or....
I bet you want to hear that.
Would reinforce your thoughts about those who are critical about Trump or what?
People are usually smarter than you think. If they listen to you and you listen to them.
.
Any advice on how I should further conduct myself in the future?
Justice Dept. won’t charge Andrew McCabe, the former FBI official who authorized the investigation of President Trump
I wonder if [s]Trump[/s] Barr will step in to interfere with this one too.
It appears to be so. That’s a shame given that he lied to the FBI with all these others being jailed for doing the same. So does that Waylay your fears about the Trump DOJ?
Too early to say. Give it a couple of days after the inevitable Trump tweet. Apparently he ain't happy.
I wouldn’t be happy either. To me this is more evidence of the two-tiered approach to justice.
As you might expect I will have to accept this with extreme suspicion. The defense, Michael Bromwich, was the inspector general of the Clinton DOJ and appointed federal prosecutor for Obama. That is of course conspiratorial on my part but, good god, it’s just too convenient.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/mrbromwich/status/1228137819098492928?s=21[/tweet]
Edit to add: I was wrong about Bromwich being prosecutor. He was defense. The prosecutor was Molly Gaston, who prosecuted Rick Gates for lying.
Now we know it was Trump.
1 + 1 =...?
And now you know where we are coming from.
So long as you admit it, yes I do.
That's a false equivalence. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying as a plea deal - they had other things on him. Had lyng been the only issue, he would have had no motivation to accept the deal.
Of special note is a statement made by the judge in Mccabe's case. The judge, a George W. Bush appointee, said "the fact that you got somebody at the top basically trying to dictate whether somebody should be prosecuted" was like a "banana republic." He told this to the prosecutors months ago, but it was only released today. Here's another example of Trump's inappropriarte nvolvement getting in the way of the impartial administration of justice.
https://www.msnbc.com/katy-tur/watch/ag-barr-reopens-probe-into-michael-flynn-guilty-plea-78779461988
Sure, they are not equivalent, but it is true they were charged for lying to the FBI (Papadopolous, Gates, van der Zwaan) whereas in this case no charges were recommended at all.
Do you think people should or should not be charged with lying to the FBI?
I’ve been following that case closely. If what Flynn’s attorney’s are claiming is true, it will be a disaster for the Mueller investigation and the DOJ
I couldn't care less if Mccabe were prosecuted for lying, if that is the typical course of action for lies of a similar magnitude. But I'm sure you're aware that prosecutorial discretion filters out some lying charges, and fairness dictates that discretion be applied consistently. This discretion also provides a tool for investigators to seek additional information - as was the case with those charged through the Mueller investigation. There's nothing wrong with that. On the other hand, there IS something wrong with Trump using such prosecution in a vendetta - and the judge perceived this may have been going on.
They are saying the DOJ broke the plea agreement. It's complicated but that's the essential point. more heavy-handed recommendations and all that.
Personally I think it's a fair decision in the McCabe case because he was already fired. But I do not think it is fair in the case of others.
And don't get banned.
This article seems a good summary.
Here's my takeaway:
there was a plea deal, which granted Flynn probation in return for his cooperating with other investigations and prosecutions.
Flynn chose to not testify in a particular trial because it would admit he knowingly lied on his filings under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA)
Prosecutors believe Flynn had already admitted to these false statements, so they regarded Flynn's refusal to testify as a breach of the deal.
Because of the alleged breach, prosecutors changed the sentencing recommendation to jail time. They rethought this, and 7 days later, they reverted back to the original recommendation of probation.
Flynn's attorneys are treating the temporary action as a breach of the plea deal. This opens the door for Flynn to withdraw hia guilty plea,if the judge approves.
As a separate matter, Flynns current attorneys allege the original ones had a conflict of interest. This is another potential basis for withdrawing the plea.
Indeed. It's surprising his supporters are still so deranged to actually defend Trump. A terrible affliction.
....and there we go. As if my observation needed support.
Really, Adam`s metaphor of the two movies on the same screen totally works. The Trump haters (aka mainstream media consumers) are simply seeing a totally different reality than the rest of us. But Scott predicted that by now, the separation would have been lessened. Instead, it has increased. If anything, CNN et al have been doing a phantastic job of creating mass hysteria.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/483188-roger-stone-asks-for-new-trial
Fox News is as mainstream as mainstream media gets.
"Fox News is as mainstream as mainstream media gets. "
LOL, these responses are so predictable, I can write an entire dialog myself. Someone mentions the corporate propaganda media, and someone from the echo chamber will say "Fox" (or "Faux") as they usually spell it. I do not get or watch Fox (except for youtube clips), but I understand that it is one of the few (or maybe the only) mainstream channel that has not totally succumbed to TDS. Good for them, but really.... 1 single exception among whole alphabet soup of propaganda channels which broadcast orangeman bad nonstop is really nothing to brag about.
What do you prefer? 4chan? 8chan?
I don´t know "4chan" and "8chan". Are they mainstream media? Do you watch them?
Fwiw, I look at a variety sources, starting the day with CNN on the tele for breakfast. I must say, the sheer level of TDS hysteria sometimes makes me choke on the toast.
What do you like about Trump?
What do you like about Trump?
Thanks for a reasonable question instead of a TDS rant. So rare these days!
What do I like about Trump? I agree with his basic policy platform. Fundamentally, return from globalism to healthy nationalism. Imho, he is very much the American Brexit. I do not particularly love the guy as a person, in fact I find his appearance quite grating. I am not American, so not part of the party political football game, but I am watching it. In fact, there is a Democrat candidate who I would vote for, but guess what..... she is getting the Trump treatment from the corporate media.
Hth to clarify from what angle I am looking at this.
'm not even American, you moron, so I'm not a "mainstream media consumer". Trump is corrupt. Clear as day from anywhere outside the US.
I am not American either, what you see is not clear at all for me from outside the US. And it possible to talk about this without name calling?
Do you like environmental deregulation?
Do you like massive military spending?
Do you like massive tax cuts to billionaires and corporations?
Do you deny climate change as Trump does?
Also, it might be a strange turn of phrase but I do not remember anyone on this board ever suggesting voting for a politicians that they cannot vote for. And there's been a lot of talk about Brexit and Trump here. So yeah, I'm not buying it you're not American, especially since the first thing you watch in the morning is CNN.
Also, no Democrat supports your idea of American nationalism so your entire political position is circumspect.
I don’t live in America either.
So now, after asking a reasonable question, you veering off into propaganda talking point. Disappointing, but alas no surprise. I don´t want to get bogged down in one forum, so just quickly.
So you prefer nationalism to globalism. Do you feel like countries like the US don’t need immigrants?
-->No, "countries like the US" do not to abolish border controls. Immigration should be controlled and regulated by every host nation. That is a fundamental part of the definition of a nation.
It’s funny because so many companies in the US that the population depends on rely on undocumented workers to do the work that Americans won’t do.
--> Importing illegal cheap labour to cut down on wages is not something that should be promoted.
Do you like environmental deregulation?
--> Yes, as long as it is sensible.
Do you like massive military spending?
--> No.
Do you like massive tax cuts to billionaires and corporations?
--> No.
Do you deny climate change as Trump does?
--> Did you stop beating your wife? Can we really not do without loaded questions?
I will stop the namecalling if you stop as well. Your first post was a swipe at most posters here for having TDS. That's insulting in itself so you get back what you threw.
TDS was not a personal swipe, it is simply an observation. When so many people are so obsessed with such fanaticism that is destroys reasonable communication, we are definitely talking about a derangement syndrome. I did not call you a moron or anything else.
So yeah, I'm not buying it you're not American, especially since the first thing you watch in the morning is CNN.
CNN comes with the cable subscription where I live. Not my choice. But I must say it is quite an impressive start for the day, LOL.
Asking if you deny climate change is a reasonable question.
Now you’re getting defensive.
Sorry, just been through this routine too many times, online and in real life.
I’m trying to figure out which policies of Trump’s you like. He has done all of the things I asked about.
No, he has not. At least not in the filtered way you present them. I am not saying I agree with everything he does. I simply said I agree with his basic policy platform: 1) Stop out-of-control globalism, put your nation ahead of global institutions, 2) Protect the borders, 3) Stop stupid foreign wars.
Afaic he has at least tried to stick to those. Most importantly, he has NOT started any new idiotic military adventures like his predecessors. Instead of bashing Trump, you should count your blessings you did not get the warmonger Hillary Clinton.
Asking if you deny climate change is a reasonable question.
I do not know that he (or in fact anybody) "denies climate change". The disagreement is about politics, in particular the merit of signing international agreements full of empty promises which in fact only amout to money and power transfer. Yes, your question was loaded and als is typical for the stuff emanating from the TDS bubble.
Trump literally calls climate change a hoax.
Trump literally calls climate change a hoax.
Do you have source for that? In that case, I would disagree with him. In the event, I strongly suspect he called the various climate models and predictions a hoax, which is clearly true, since they all prove wrong. Please show me the transcript where he says "climate change is a hoax". If you can not, I assume you are simply repeating another media talking point.
Lol. Fake news!
Go on his Twitter feed.
To be fair they had fake documents.
Go on his Twitter feed.
I am not interested in Twitter with its stream of conscience content.
Here is what I found with a little googling (from the Telegraph):
[u]The US president said during an interview with CBS’s 60 Minutes show that he does not think climate change is a “hoax”, reversing his previous position.
However Mr Trump claimed that some scientists have a “very big political agenda” and suggested there is no consensus about the cause of global warming.[/u]
Well, that is not denying climate change, and the very big political agenda is certainly there, as we all (should) know after seeing the Climategate mails and the exposee of the IPCC. Climate clearly exists, but questioning the politics is an entire different thing.
I agree he could have handled the interview better.
The managers told them where to go to get better fake documents as reported by some of the undocumented workers at his New Jersey resort.
I thought Trump hired them.
But there is a consensus. That’s tantamount to a denial of climate change if you’re going to question its cause.
4 out of 5 star reviews from employees. Sounds like a great company to work for.
https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Trump-Organization/reviews?fcountry=ALL
Consensus on what? This "97% of scientists agree" talking point is bandied about a lot, but we are never told what exactly they agree on. And by the way, the Cook report (in case you refer to that) has been discredited.
Bonus question: Do you think that Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, is not a scientist?
Greenpeace has no sway with anyone I know.
I thought it was possible to communicate with you, after you asked a reasonable question. But now we are descending into the heated exchange of CNN talking points... at which point communication becomes meaningless. Group mentaly takes over. Sad!
Facts aren’t talking points.
Also, I’m not heated right now.
Green peace has no sway with anyone I know.
Oh, now you are a climate change denier? Because Greenpeace bought heavily into the political "man made climate change" agenda, which is the reason Dr. Patrick Moore left them.
(Somehow I suspect that Greepeace does have sway with people in your echo chamber....)
I personally don’t listen to Greenpeace. Nor does anyone I know. I happen to understand how they figured out that climate change is human caused, and I’m convinced by the science. I prefer not to explain it all here again as I did in another thread months ago.
You are a climate scientist?
I am not a climate scientist, but like I said, I understand how they reached that conclusion.
I suggest you actually research it and try to understand it yourself. If you come to a different conclusion than 97% of climate scientists, then I would like to hear your reasoning.
I am not a climate scientist,
so what business do you have to "explain" climate scientists to others? It is clearly a massively complex subject.
but like I said, I understand how they reached that conclusion.
No, you don´t.
I suggest you actually research it and try to understand it yourself.
Reading opinion articles and repeating them is not "research". I am not qualified to do climate research myself, and neither are you.
If you come to a different conclusion than 97% of climate scientists, then I would like to hear your reasoning.
Yes, the famous 97%. Please explain who selected them, what they were asked, how many of them answered, and what they answered. If you are referring to the Cook study, you will be surprised.
I understand the scientific method. I know what steps they took to determine that the planet is heating up, and also how they reached the only conclusion that could be reached, viz. that burning fossil fuels is the cause. If you’re interested in my synopsis, then you can go read through my comments history. This isn’t the thread to do that in. We are getting off track of Trump.
Who are "they"? And what exactly do they "agree" on? That CO2 is a greenhouse gas? I strongly suspect that the number who agree is closer to 100%. That CO2 is the ONLY factor in climate change? That we have accurate models to predict climate change? That is a completely different topic.
It certainly looks like you have been been bashing a strawman while "explaining" science.
Also, methane. We don’t need proven models to predict climate change. It’s already a problem.
Also, methane.
LOL, yeah. Read the UN report on cow farts. When did that drop off the radar?
We don’t need proven models to predict climate change.
So you agree that we do NOT have accurate models. But all the political demands are based on models, are they not?
It’s already a problem.
There are plenty of problems in the world, and different ways to address them. Non sequitur.
Melting glaciers also release methane.
Quoting Nobeernolife
No. How am I to know if a model projecting out into the future is accurate until I get to the future? That’s silly.
You’re almost religious in your denial of common sense and fervor for Trump.
This assertion suggests you have no idea what you're talking about.
No. How am I to know if a model projecting out into the future is accurate until I get to the future? That’s silly.
All the previous models have been wrong. Currently, there are a number of different models.... clearly all of them minus one have to be wrong. What was that about common sense again?
You mentioned the scientific method. Testing a hypothesis against reality is not part of that?
You’re almost religious in your denial of common sense and fervor for Trump.
I clarified my position about Trump; where do you see "fervor" there?
Correction: they have been inaccurate, to varying degrees. The point is that this doesn't imply anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, it just means that we can't predict it accurately. Inaccuracy is not rational grounds to reject the general consensus view that the world is warming, that CO2 emissions is contributing to it, and that if currrent trends continue, there will be disastrous consequences. The inaccuracy only implies we can't know exactly when.
Thanks for writing without hysteria and name-calling!
Correction: they have been inaccurate, to varying degrees. The point is that this doesn't imply anthropogenic global warming is a hoax it just means that we can't predict it accurately.
Well, how inaccurate does a model have to be, before you call it simply wrong?
the general consensus view that the world is warming, that CO2 emissions is contributing to it,
Fair enough, from all I know that seems correct.
and that if currrent trends continue, there will be disastrous consequences.
Wow, hold the horses. Are you sure there is general consensus about THAT? I.e. Dr. Patrick Moore, an earth scientists himself, thinks that we are in a carbon starved period, and a little warmer and thus greener planet would be a good thing. Can quote a source about this "general agreement" about "disastrous consequences"?
The problem here is that 1) and 3) are incompatible. You must respect the fact that globalism has already occurred, so it is too late to prevent it. The only recourse is an attempt to reverse it. The attempt to reverse it will create strife, and "stupid foreign wars" where there were none before (starting with trade wars, the most stupid type of war of all). The natural tendency for rational human beings is to socialize and cooperate, respectfully allowing for flex in the frontiers of ownership, as this is beneficial to all parties. Rigid walls are detrimental in an evolving world.
In other words, the irrationality of proceeding with 1), which is nothing other than an attempt to reverse the rational development and evolution of human existence, is actually an act of starting stupid foreign wars, directly contradicting 3).
Thanks for writing without TDS hysteria.
The problem here is that 1) and 3) are incompatible.
I strongly disagree. In fact, globalist ideology is the cause for the many of the conflicts we are seeing.
You must respect the fact that globalism has already occurred, so it is too late to prevent it. The only recourse is an attempt to reverse it.
Not a "fact". Globalism is an ideology (i.e. read the books by Soros and Barnett), and the question is how far to pursue it.
The attempt to reverse it will create strife, and "stupid foreign wars" where there were none before (starting with trade wars, the most stupid type of war of all).
I strongly disagree on all points here. In fact, globalism is the root cause of many of the conflicts we see today. And "trade war" is a question of definition. I.e. you could argue that we have been in a trade war with China since its entry into the WTO.
The natural tendency for rational human beings is to socialize and cooperate, respectfully allowing for flex in the frontiers of ownership, as this is beneficial to all parties. Rigid walls are detrimental in an evolving world.
Not sure what you mean by "rigid walls". I am talking about the preservation of nation states, which are the foundation for democracy. As opposed to oblique globalist organizations accountable to no one.
In other words, the irrationality of proceeding with 1), which is nothing other than an attempt to reverse the rational development and evolution of human existence, is actually an act of starting stupid foreign wars, directly contradicting 3).
No, to the contrary. The endless proxy wars conducted by the globalists (e.g. Clintons destruction of Libya and Syria) are testimony to that.
Patrick Moore is not a CLIMATE scientist. This study provides the basis for my claim about the consensus of climate scientists. It also discusses a prior study (Tol) that concluded there was not much consensus
"Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science."
Perhaps you object to my use of the subjective term "disastrous", so let me just put it this way: if current trends continue, there will be very costly consequences.
I don't think this is correct, "globalization" is a descriptive term, describing what has already occurred, or what is ongoing. It is clearly not an "ideology", because there is demonstrably a number of different ideologies, capitalism, communism, etc., which lead to globalization. In fact most all ideologies which serve the interactions of human beings as rational social animals, lead to globalization. Globalization is the term used to refer to the effects of these ideologies. Anti-globalization may be an ideology, but it does not support rational social interactions between human beings, so it is rather an irrational ideology.
Quoting Nobeernolife
Based on what I said above, the fact that globalization is coincident with conflicts, does not indicate that it is the cause of the conflicts. There are many ideologies involved with globalization, any rational ideology will lead to globalization, and some of them clash in the process. But this does not mean that globalization is the cause of the clash. The cause of the conflicts are the clash of the different ideologies involved in globalization, but globalization is not an ideology.
Quoting Nobeernolife
Because "globalization" is not properly an ideology, this term "globalist organizations" is incoherent or at best ambiguous, and lacking in any real meaning. I suggest to you, that individuals such as yourself, who for some reason do not like the natural phenomenon of globalization, have created an ideology which we could call "anti-globalization", and have also created a phantom category "globalist organizations", implying that there is a globalist ideology which has set up globalist organizations, but there are really no such things. The organizations which are referred to as "globalist" are set up for a wide variety of different reasons, from differing ideologies, for a wide variety of purposes. To class them together as if they are supported by one ideology, with one purpose, and call them "globalist" as if they have one globalist ideology, is simply a mistake, or more likely a move of deception by those supporting an anti-globalist ideology.
Quoting Nobeernolife
See, this is very clear evidence that you have set up this category of ideology, you call "globalist", as a catch all category, and place people whose ideology you dislike within that category. In reality the people have no such "globalist" ideology, holding a variety of different ideologies instead, because there is really no such thing as an ideology called "globalism". The anti-globalists, such as yourself, have created this category, and place numerous different ideologies into the category, but there is no such ideology at all, just a vast array of ideologies which are resented by the anti-globalists.
Neither side gives the other any benefit of the doubt.
Thanks for writing without TDS hysteria and name-calling. That is refreshing.
Patrick Moore is not a CLIMATE scientist. This study provides the basis for my claim about the consensus of climate scientiests. It also discusses s a prior study (Tol) that concluded there was not much consensus
Well, as you say yourself, the Tol study came to a different conclusion. Anyway, how productive is it boil down tens of thousands of different papers into a simplistics yes/no vote? Clearly, there is a continuum. Clearly, there is a human factor, but exactly how large is it, and exactly what can and should be done to mitigate it?
Perhaps you object to my use of the subjective term "disastrous", so let me just put it this way: if current trends continue, there will be very costly consequences.
That is an entirely different thing. Costly consequences is an economic term. Certainly the activists policies promoted by the climate activists are extremely costly. Bjoern Lomborg addresses this aspect, if you have not heard of him, look him up.
Lets agree to disagree. When I talk about "globalism" I refer to the set of ideas that by and large the Western elites have bought into, and that are layed out in books such as "The Pentagons New Map" by Barnett or "George Soros on Globalization". Talking about the latter, look up all the activities that his "Open Society Foundation" is involved in, and you see everything that the Western elites love, and the people of their nations have to suffer from. You can also call it the populist vs elitist debate. Trump, like the European populist parties, takes the populist side, and neocons, neolibs, the coporate media like CNN et all take the elitist (globalist) side.
I can see on which side you are, and you can see on which side I am.
Anyway, if you oppose Trump on those grounds, I respect that. I think you are wrong, but at least you have a philosophical basis, and are not just repeating unhinged rants from the talking heads at CNN, which I see too much off....
Thanks for writing without name-calling.
Agree. As Scott Adams (check him out if you don´t know him) says: Two movies on the same screen.
One of the people who testified against Trump, Fiona Hill, a Soros stooge, writes for an online magazine called “The Globalist”. You can’t make this stuff up.
https://www.theglobalist.com/contributors/fiona-hill/
That tells me all I need to know about you, and I suspect @Nobeernolife is the same as you.
Exactly, you have demonstrated my point clearly. Those, such as yourself, who hold an anti-globalization ideology have lumped together a "set of ideas", as conducive to globalization, despite the fact that these ideas are vastly variant, and cannot be reconciled as one ideology, "globalization". Therefore there is really no such ideology as "globalization", because globalization is the result of many ideologies.
However, these are the rational ideologies of the world, promoting cooperation and social relations, and peaceful co-existence of human beings, which lead to globalization, despite the fact that the differences in the ideologies sometimes clash in conflict. The anti-globalization ideology is opposed to these rational ideologies of co-existence and global social relations, and is therefore irrational.
Elitism is irrelevant, and a notion you've just decided to toss in. Why?
Quoting Nobeernolife
I see you're not prepared to defend your principles. That is because what you hoist up is a deception. You recognize that anti-globalism is a deception, an irrational ideology which you propagate for no other reason than disrupt the status quo. Your post reveals that your true concern is "elitism", and you raise the anti-globalist deception as a means of attacking it. You are dissatisfied with the elitism within the status quo. Anti-globalism is not the solution to the problems of elitism.
What does it tell you?
You're ignoring the fact that the Tol study does not constitute the consensus of those with the relevant expertise, and it did some cherry picking of individuals with contrary opinions.
How productive is it? As productive as any argument from authority. Anyone is free to hold a contrary opinion, but they shouldn't expect it to be respected if it's based on non-authority opinions, cherry picking of authorities whose conclusions appeal to them, or on naive falsification (e.g. the models make these errors, so the general view must be false).
Baudrillard's notion of simulacra (in Simulacra and Simulation) is a bit clearer.
We've passed far beyond the classical notion of disparate interpretations of reality. The two camps inhabit two exclusive divergent realities.
When your hero and mascot is a pathological liar - you don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
It would be foolish to give Trumpsters the benefit of the doubt. They're in cahoots with a potentate who steals from children's charities.
Fox News says so.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/potus-to-pay-2-million-admits-misuse-of-trump-foundation-funds-in-settlement-with-ny-ag
Geez - Genetic fallacy upon genetic fallacy. A "Soros stooge" (whatever that refers to) is wrong because she's a "Soros stooge", not because something she says is irrational or false. And since she writes for a magazine called "The Globalist", she obviously has some false beliefs about the world, and therefore she's wrong.
Thanks for providing another example of how to think irrationally.
That is par for the course in current American political discourse. Unfortunately, it's not just Trump supporters.
Am I being irrational to do so?
Not at all.
So, since you're unqualified to do the research, and unwilling to listen to the experts, what do you do?
Quoting Nobeernolife
What exactly is your position? That Climate change isn't a problem or that it is a problem, but any solution would be worse?Quoting Nobeernolife
I always find it bad manners to expect people to read entire books or do time consuming research just to be able to engage with you in an internet forum. If you have a position, you should be able to summarize that position for us. Give us the basics on "Globalism" an "Elitism".
"Elitism" on Fox News is equivalent to anyone on the left, particularly those people who are financially well off, live on the coasts, enjoy Starbucks or some other kind of 'higher quality' coffee, and think that their ethics are better than the Fox viewers'(those put on display at Fox).
TDS is an amazing condition.
I do listen to experts. The experts have varying and nuanced opinions, as is to be expected. What I do NOT do is take opinion articles from the propaganda media and then go lecture other people about "science". Surprising concept?
So, the IPCC reports, are those expert reports or "propaganda media"?
Oh dear. No genetic fallacy. Just pointing out she’s a globalist.
But when you do it wrong, you’re being irrational, so naturally you go seek validation.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1225174713992990721?lang=en[/tweet]
Fair enough, although labeling someone a "globalist", or any other kind of "-ist" suggests possibly making some unwarranted assumptions. Nevertheless, I gather you're just making some observations, and stating an ad hominem (stooge). Well and good, so I presume you'd still value her opinion, given her education and experience - right?
Globalization:
[quote=Wikipedia on globalization] Globalization or globalisation is the process of interaction and integration among people, companies, and governments worldwide. As a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, globalization is considered by some as a form of capitalist expansion which entails the integration of local and national economies into a global, unregulated market economy.[1] Globalization has grown due to advances in transportation and communication technology. With the increased global interactions comes the growth of international trade, ideas, and culture. Globalization is primarily an economic process of interaction and integration that's associated with social and cultural aspects. However, conflicts and diplomacy are also large parts of the history of globalization, and modern globalization. [/quote]
Globalism:
[quote=Wikipedia on Globalism]
Not to be confused with Globalization.
Globalism refers to various systems with scope beyond the merely international. It is used by political scientists, such as Joseph Nye, to describe "attempts to understand all the interconnections of the modern world — and to highlight patterns that underlie (and explain) them."[1] While primarily associated with world-systems, it can be used to describe other global trends. The term is also used by detractors of globalization such as populist movements.[/quote]
IPCC is a political orginization with a political purpose. You might want to read one of the exposees about it.
Wikipedia has a well-known bias, shown here.You might want to look Wikipedia to form an opinion.
Thats funny. But as Scott Adams points out, there is a large part of the population that is simply unable to understand a joke.
I suppose you think it a great idea for the President of the United States to make a joke about shredding the Constitution and occupying the White House indefinitely.
You, like Trump, have no respect for power and no sense of responsibility. Let's call it a pathological puerility.
NOS4A2 has a similar outlook. It runs in the family.
Provide a link to an expose on the IPCC, please. From a source you trust.
You're not answering the question. Does the IPCC employ experts that write their reports?
Let's get back to reality,
Where do you live? I don't mean the country be more specific. I'm interested in your local climactic conditions.
I bet you will find just about everyone posting here, from around the globe, are beginning to experience the changes in the climate in their location. Some far worse than others. You don't need to have blind faith is some some scientists to see what's happening, you just need to look out the window.
Read the book by Donna Laframboise who actually worked there and saw how these "reports" are compiled. It is an eye-opener.
The IPCC is funded by politicians with the goal to promote a political agenda. If it does not produce the desired results, it loses its reason to exist. Basing climate policy on the IPCC reports is like basing a critical examination of communism on the writings of Lenin.
What is there to bet about? The climate has always been changing and will always change. In fact, I have not yet met any real-life person who claims that the climate does not or should not change. These fictional characters seem to exist only in the imagination of the climate policy peddlers. Talk about a strawman.
Politely of course.
Okay. One woman's book. What else?
Can you provide a source or two to support this assertion?
Question: if Donna Laframboise wrote a book about how everything was fine with the IPCC and we should all listen to them, do you think that would sell as well as her criticism?
Meanwhile raspberrylady is a nobody peddling lies.
Climate skeptics aren't skeptic but just stupid.
That would depend on the book. In the event, she writes about her experience inside the IPCC, which speak for themselves. And she is not the only one. Anyone who takes a closer look at the workings of the IPCC knows we should not take the IPCC reports as bible.
Even if he suddenly believes that that all the corrupt swamp creatures who are out to get him are Gods children, I don´t see how that changes the situation he is in, so I am not sure what youre getting at. He still has to live and act in the real world, even if he prays to Yahwee 7 times a day...
Again evading the question. A pity. Why so scared though?
Quoting Nobeernolife
No-one has suggested we should. Unfortunately, this kind of straw-manning is all anyone ever seems to do in these discussions.
Atheist or theist - Christian charity is the baddest penny. We can only hope Trump's (deranged-deranging) hubris presages a fall.
Sheep in wolves' clothing howling dumbly.
I only meant the post-hubris fall can bring us to our knees.
A god can never be a Christian.
I actually have a fear of an upcoming race war if Trump falls, instigated by the Neo-Nazis and other fervent Trump supporters. I am sincere about this, and I think Trump would probably welcome it.
I had the same fear in 2016. But the 1st anniversary of Charlottesville closed the chapter. I think the most we'll see is an uptick in Antifa-Whitey skirmishes. So many doxxed Nazis scared the undoxxed.
In the end, Americans are too addicted to screens and fat and sugar to go urban guerilla.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally
After Charlottesville refused to approve another march, Unite the Right held an anniversary rally on August 11–12, 2018, in Washington D.C.[32] The rally was expected to draw large protests from opposing religious organizations, civil rights groups, and anti-fascist organizers.[33][34] The rally drew only 20–30 protesters amidst thousands of counter-protestors.
I am glad you agree the IPCC should not be taken too seriously. So why do we argue?
Oh boy, and I thought TDS can not get more rampant.... do you even realize how bizarre rants like this sound to people who are not in your CNN echo chamber? (Rethorical question... of course you dont)
KKK and Neo-nazis have been marching for decades and decades, as is their fundamental right. It was the media, not Trump, who gave them the free press and your fears.
What exactly is a "climate sceptic"? Your rant about something you don´t define.
*yawn*
Is that all you have to offer? Sorry, not interested.
They have been marching and rallying for decades, as is their right. They were used as a bogeyman to smear Trump.
"Claims such as '2500 of the worlds leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenious. Giving the impression that the IPCC consensus means everyone agrees with everyone else (...) is unhelpful. It does not reflect the uncertain, exploratory and sometimes contested nature of scientific knowledge."
Mike Hulme, IPCC lead author
.... its all very simple and clear, isn´t it.
Yeah, I doubt it.
No, you have smears and propaganda.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/mar/28/facebook-posts/heres-whats-known-about-fred-trumps-arrest-after-k/
Is this true or false? What news taught you this?
There is nothing wrong with speculating. But the notion that Trump is racist is an alternative fact, an anti-Trump smear that has been bandied around for quite some time, so much so that people have feared coming race wars and a Hitlerian future. These lies are going to get people killed.
Well, where do you get your facts from? CNN? MSNBC? Bloomberg? Huffpost? NYT? BBC? Young Turks? WashPost? Daily Beast? I must guessing here... can you append the list? Hoest question, I would be curious to learn.
It certainly seems you are firmly stuck in the TDS echo chamber. Would love to be surprised.
You don't know what you're talking about.
(Do I even need to say that?)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/02/20/hate-groups-white-power-supremacists-southern-poverty-law-center/2918416002/
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-supremacy-white-nationalism-entered-political-conversation/story?id=64998396
The El Paso shooter is not a fluke or an anomaly. He is part of a resurgence of white nationalist violence in the United States, a wave of killings that are themselves part of a very long history of political violence by American racists and white nationalists.
In the years after the Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan and other terrorist groups launched a wave of killings aimed at intimidating newly freed black people and restoring the antebellum racial order. Around the same time, an increase in immigration from East Asia and Mexico in the late 19th and early 20th centuries led to a wave of lynchings and mob violence targeting migrants, including large-scale race riots in Los Angeles in 1871 and in El Paso in 1916.
At various points in the 20th century, white supremacists reacted viciously against continued immigration from ethnic and religious minorities and tried to suppress movements for black civil rights by force. In 1963 alone, they assassinated NAACP field secretary Medgar Evers and killed four black girls in a bombing attack on the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama.
The 2015 attack on a black church in Charleston, South Carolina; the 2017 fatal car attack in Charlottesville, Virginia; the 2018 shooting at a synagogue in Pittsburgh; this weekend’s shooting in El Paso — these are not isolated incidents, but evidence that we are once again in the midst of a wave of white racial violence.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/8/6/20754828/el-paso-shooting-white-supremacy-rise
When Barack Obama took office in January 2009, white supremacists were fragmented and without charismatic leaders. That quickly changed with the arrival of Richard Spencer, Matt Heimbach and Milo Yiannopoulos, a generation of new leaders who created and captured a following that capitalized on white unease over a black president.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ten-years-later-the-gathering-storm-of-white-supremacist-terror-is-here
You don't know what you're talking about.
Trump's history of racism is well-documented and you know nothing about it.
All the Evidence We Could Find About Fred Trump's Alleged Involvement with the KKK
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mvke38/all-the-evidence-we-could-find-about-fred-trumps-alleged-involvement-with-the-kkk
MSNBC is extremely biased.
I’ve read the same well-documented nonsense you have. But then I went further. You’re stacking the deck without telling the other side of the story.
What's the source?
Quoting NOS4A2
"...went further" because the facts you found failed to confirm your bias.
Impressions are deceiving.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/msnbc/
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/msnbc/?v=402f03a963ba
Something like this is probably the best we can do to out our biases.
Because I’m not as credulous as you. Would a racist endorse Jessie Jackson’s presidential campaign twice? Would a racist date a half-black woman? The man has done business with more races, more nationalities and more people of different backgrounds than you or I could ever imagine. You guys have promoted a fiction and elevated that fiction to truth.
These lies and the subsequent free press given to people like David Duke, the KKK and other white nationalists have directly contributed to any rise in the far-Right.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Your view is void of psychological depth. Trump will do whatever benefits Trump. He is a master PR-man (his only gift) and you are his dupe.
"Trump never endorsed Jackson, at least according to Jackson.
“There is no evidence at all,” the longtime civil rights activist told The Daily Beast. “I think he promised to endorse David Dinkins [for mayor in 1988] and did not. He never promised to endorse me.”
Jackson ran twice for president, first in 1984 and then in 1988. The first time he did it as a matter of political activism. Jackson felt that black Americans could further their policy objectives if they were viewed as viable presidential candidates. The second time, he won nearly 7 million votes and 11 states in the Democratic primary, and spooked the party establishment. Virtually no white Democratic official backed his campaigns outside a youngish ex-mayor of Burlington, Vermont, named Bernie Sanders.
Though Jackson praised Trump in the late ’90s, he said he was wary of the man, owing to his demonization of the Central Park Five—the group of young black kids Trump wanted executed after they were wrongfully jailed for the near death of a Central Park jogger."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jesse-jackson-donald-trump-endorsing-me-is-fake-news
The Rev. Jesse Jackson has condemned recent outbursts by President Donald Trump against lawmakers of color as "dangerous, divisive and diversionary" and says he believes they fuel white nationalist extremism.
In an interview, the longtime civil rights leader called Trump's vilification of African Americans an attempt to divert the nation's attention from its real problems, including Russian election interference, border detentions and a tax cut benefiting the richest Americans at the expense of the poor.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/ap-interview-jesse-jackson-slams-dangerous-trump-rhetoric-64753325
https://apnews.com/afs:Content:2601590439
You are so credulous you're blinkered to how credulous you are.
Yes, if he wanted to grab her pussy.
Irrelevant. Trump's avarice may overrule his racist inclinations at times. Trump will do what benefits Trump.
I suppose the Atlantic is fake news too.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-atlantic/
Now I get to watch as you scurry off to find anything that confirms your biases.
In other words:
Trump good: Real news.
Trump bad: Fake news.
Suppose you were able to support the view that Trump isn't a racist.
It's incontestable that Trump is happy to deploy racism if it accords with his PR strategy.
Fake news?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/us/politics/trump-blacks-african-americans-girlfriend-charlottesville.html
Trump once dated a black woman who said Trump wasn't racist.
That's what you call evidence.
Just sad.
Your evidence is...what exactly?
Yep, that figures.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
LOL! You are not serious, are you???
Whoever compiled that media bias chart is simply demonstrating his/her bias. CNN "neutral/skews left"? That is just ridiculous.
Eh. Like I said, it's about the best we can do. Laypersons have no way to access the facts directly.
Reading from a vast array of biased and unbiased sources can ease the dizzies.
The IPCC collects research over various fields. Climate researchers are specialised in sub-fields. What Mike actually said can be found in this paper, which you should read in its entirety. All in all, Mike is quite positive about the work the IPCC has done. He's certainly not a climate skeptic so bringing him up is rather a laughable example of confirmation bias on your part. See: http://www.mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/the-five-lessons-of-climate-change.pdf
As I said. Stupid.
"I have published over 100 peer-reviewed journal articles on climate change topics, served as a Lead Author on the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change in 1996 and 2001..."
https://www.mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/the-five-lessons-of-climate-change.pdf
He was. And I am not interested in getting bogged down in another climate debate. I am simply pointing out that the IPCC is a political body, set up by governments, with a political agenda. Look at it this way: If the IPCC declared that there is no point for governments to enact "climate policy", it would lose its reason to exist. Ever heard of a bureacracy that committed suicide?
I agree. Here are some quotes for you:
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."
(Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment)
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
(Timothy Wirth, President, UN Foundation)
“The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”
( David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club, founder of Friends of the Earth)
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.” (and) “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
(Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change)
“…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”
(IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer)
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
(Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme)
“A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”
( U.S. Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, Rio Climate Summit)
“The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”
(former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev, 1996)
“There is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate ‘narrative.’ Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.”
(Dr. Patrick Moore, Founder of Greenpeace)
"We've got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
(Timothy Wirth, Clinton Administration Undersecretary of State)
This is a weak (and not uncynical) argument for bias at the IPCC.
The argument seems to go this way:
1. The methodology of every bureaucracy is dominated by a will to survive.
2. Therefore, a bureaucracy dependent on influencing policy debate will do whatever it takes - lie, mislead, fudge or falsify data - to influence policy debate. Whatever it takes to survive.
3. Any bureaucracy whose survival is dependent on influencing policy debate is not to be trusted.
Yes. When you evaluate the statements of a bureaucracy, you should always keep that aspect in mind. E.g. why do you think the military is constantly asking for more money to counter existing or non-existing threats?
Of course: Let's keep it in mind.
But good-faith research, clarifying the minutia of the bureaucracy in question, is crucial to avoid a broadbrush cynical view of bureaucracy. Not to mention a broadbrush erroneous view of a specific bureaucracy.
There are a zillion bureaucracies and your argument is a very broad brush.
In this case, we have people from inside the bureaucracy confirming that we should not mistake the IPCC as a scientific body. Did you the quotes I posted above? There are plenty more moments of truth like that.
All of the quotes need to be set in the context of each speaker's personal history and reputation and each speaker's overarching view of climate change.
Where did you find the quotes?
Ah here we go. No argument, so we go straight to attacking the messenger.
The relevant paragraph that doesn't say what nolife wants it to say :
So we would should treat the findings of the IPCC with caution, fair enough. Meanwhile California and Australia burn, the UK and Bangladesh and numerous islands flood regularly, southern Europeans die in extreme heat waves. The Greenland ice cap is shown to be irreversibly compromised. I could go on but why bother, we can't trust committees the're nothing more than gravy trains for the so called experts who sit on them.
You know, I have a problem with moss in my lawn. But I wouldn't ask a moss removal expert to deal with it, the're crooked. My neighbour has had a moss man coming twice a year for as long as I can remember and there's still just as much moss as there was five years ago. I think he is secretly spreading the moss, so that there's more work for him next time. If he solved the moss problem, he would be out of a job. I wouldn't let him get his hands on my lawn.
Sure. I was just pointing out that in the source you provided Mike Hulme says he was a lead author.
First: You ignored my question: "Where did you find the quotes?"
Why did you ignore it?
Second: No one said anything about attacking anyone. That's something you assumed without a lick of evidence. You assumed the intention was to attack. (It would be wise to ask yourself what other assumptions you might be making without a lick of evidence.)
Every quote has a context. A freestanding quote is useless without some knowledge of the person who said it: Their personal history and reputation - what is the specific context of the quote? a speech (to whom; who is the intended audience)? a peer-reviewed scholarly essay? what are the person's credentials? have they said these sorts of things before? have they said things that contradict the quote in question? when was the quote made? what is this person's political affiliation and source of financial wherewithal? etc.
Jesus said: "Give to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar." He must have been a pretty staunch conservative.
The credentials of the people are given under the quote, and the quotes speak for themselves. I do not have the time to get bogged down here for hours, which would not change your made-up mind anyway.
Those aren't credentials. Those are titles.
Quoting Nobeernolife
Exactly. To truly comprehend a subject as sprawling as the climate change debate, hours and hours of research are necessary. So trust comes into play. Do the 97% of scientists who form the scientific consensus on climate research seem more or less trustworthy than Fox News and Donald Trump and friends - the only folks I ever see who question the climate science, and who, as conservative operatives, also happen to have a vested interest in the survival of the fossil-fuel economy?
Quoting Nobeernolife
It would be silly to try to change my mind. For whatever reason, I trust the scientific consensus. Try to change the scientists' minds.
For the third time: Where did you find the quotes?
For the second time: Why did you ignore this question the first time and the second time?
The longer you ignore the question of sources, the faster your credibility ebbs.
We've noticed.
Dershowitz claims to have proof Obama asked FBI to investigate 'somebody on behalf of George Soros'
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/dershowitz-claims-to-have-proof-obama-asked-fbi-to-investigate-somebody-on-behalf-of-george-soros
Dershowitz has gone full Trumpian.
I just thought it was an interesting story.
Smart or not, all Obama could do was talk and write speeches. Not very impressive if you ask me.
Trump has been accused of abusing his office and Barr has been asked to resign because opponents allege Trump is influencing Barr. I’m not sure of the veracity of Dershowitz’s claims, but imagine if a foreign billionaire was asking Trump to use the DOJ to investigate someone. It would be explosive and impeachments would immediately commence.
Your source isn't reliable. The Washington Examiner.
"Overall, we rate the Washington Examiner Right Biased based on editorial positions that almost exclusively favor the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks."
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
Cute.
You attack sources constantly (mainstream media) so be sure to remember every time you do it that you're committing the genetic fallacy as you understand it. I'll point it out for you if you forget.
In other words: According to your understanding of the genetic fallacy there can never be such a thing as a disreputable source. Any claim of disrepute would be a case of genetic fallacy.
Again, just shallow silliness.
Have I ever attacked your source? No. Meanwhile you spend energy policing the bias of the source without being able to refute what was written.
Just wanted to let you know not to trust what the Washington Examiner puts out.
That’s fair. But then again I don’t trust any news.
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-02-18/ap-source-barr-tells-people-he-might-quit-over-trump-tweets
Fake news or leaker trap.
Barr is doing everything he can to give the impression he's not a Trump stooge while Trump continues to make it obvious he is. He knows he has zero credibility and the only way to create any is to create the illusion of a rift between himself and Trump. I don't believe for a second he'll resign if he can succeed in getting the media to swallow the idea he and Trump are not joined at the hip.
Giving false information to a potential leaker, so if it gets out, you can confirm that person leaked it.
I wonder if those moves increase or lessen his support on the part of the capitalist elite.
Same thing, no?
[tweet]https://twitter.com/kerrikupecdoj/status/1229971002031034373?s=21[/tweet]
Imagine an attorney general quitting over tweets? Honestly it sounds like projection from an anti-Trump journalist.
Hey, blame the Russian dude, I'm just tryin' to help.
Trump's pardon spree deepens crisis gripping American justice
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/19/politics/trump-pardons-commutations/index.html
2 of the 11 were black women, Tim, one of whom was arrested for drug offences. Another person arrested for drugs was Crystal Munoz, a Latino. These are not his rich friends, but friends of Alice Johnson, a black drug offender. Trump commuted her life sentence back in 2018.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/theangiestanton/status/1229960784228298752?s=21[/tweet]
Identitarians are the worst and are deserving of ridicule.
Read with caution (note the ellipses:
Trump Offered Assange Pardon if He Covered Up Russian Hack, WikiLeaks Founder’s Lawyer Claims
To be fair to you, Tim, I don’t think Trump is walking through prisons in search of injustices. As far as I can tell people petition for their loved one’s release. To get to Trump’s ear would be a difficult task for anyone without the voice and perhaps even the recognition to do so. So I fear you a right in a sense, though his First Step Act is a step in the right direction, much to the chagrin of many of his republican allies.
Ah, if only we had a corrupt orange king to rule over us, we could be the greatest nation on earth. MIGA!
That also gives you a nice 30% reduction in taxes for five years.
Enjoy: naturalisation
@SittinWSocratesTiff that's also for you! :kiss:
EDIT: aren't you British Punshhh? I think you can still move here before the end of the year. If you're employed I doubt the Dutchies will kick you out on the 1st of January 2021.
What's going on at the DOJ?
Rohrabacher confirms he offered Trump pardon to Assange for proof Russia didn't hack DNC email
So is Rohrabacher lying now when he says that he didn't speak to Trump or was he lying to Assange when he said that he did?
I have no clue what’s going on with Rohrabacher. But it’s an interesting development. Assange has repeatedly said that the Russian government did not give him the emails, and then he was silenced and thrown into solitary. It’s a tragedy what has happened to him and we should all be ashamed.
What's even more confusing is that the new prosecutor is the one who signed the revised recommendation, and when asked about this refused to answer:
He chose to escape prosecution and hide out in an embassy for years.
3 years 4 months for Stone. What a travesty. Trump should pardon immediately.
That’s a long time for impeding an unjust fishing expedition for which there was no underlying crime, especially for a first-time offender. It’s just difficult for me to watch people like Stone get rail-roaded while people like McCabe, Brennan and Comey get MSNBC contracts and book deals. Then again the swamp protects its own.
And the proper recourse for other guilty people getting away with it is to push for more prosecutions, not to pardon those who have been prosecuted and found guilty.
If you pardon everyone then everyone will just keep doing it.
Found guilty by a jury with a foreman who displayed bias, and sentenced by a judge with a personal vendetta against Stone. He shared a picture of her on Instagram saying she was an Obama-appointed judge, and she accused him of threatening her and the court. It’s obscene. An appeal will be forthcoming but I hope a pardon comes first.
And 11(?) others who didn’t. The evidence was clearly sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Quoting NOS4A2
Was that the picture with the crosshairs on her head? That is threatening. And what was she supposed to do? Declare him innocent? Recuse? Then every criminal ever will just threaten all of their judges and avoid ever being sentenced.
Besides, she gave him less than the recommended sentence, so your implicit accusation of bias falls flat.
Yeah the crosshairs were a part of a logo.
Sorry, only an idiot would claim this is a threat. But the judge was swayed by the beltway intelligentsia to believe otherwise.
She states it here in her ruling on Stone's gag order.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5746249/Transcript-Instagram-Post-Leads-ABJ-to-Broaden.pdf
It's hard for me to believe that the criticism of her in the post had zero bearing on her decision to silence Stone.
EDIT: Even if it was accidental, he should've known better that it could be interpreted as or give rise to threats as people's reactions to the post proved. "Who will rid me of this meddle some priest?"
There is no transcript yet, but:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/roger-stone-sentence-due-thursday-in-federal-court/2020/02/19/2e01bfc8-4c38-11ea-9b5c-eac5b16dafaa_story.html
She’s an idiot.
Russia Backs Trump’s Re-election, and He Fears Democrats [Schiff] Will Exploit Its Support
Or are you know pretending only people on the left could've interpreted it this way because that would be patently ridiculous.
I never said anything about “the left”. I said only an idiot would interpret it as a threat.
Not a single person took Stone’s post as an incitement to violence but those who thought he put a crosshairs above her head, including the judge. They are idiots, and they prove they have “worse judgement” than anyone else.
Sigh. Are you having problems with logic here? Why the hell should we wait until someone actually would use violence? That would be too late wouldn't it?
If a lot of people interpret his post as having crosshairs and they express that publicly then it is an observable fact that the post may incite violence as people have expressed that they think it could communicate a violent message. The "idiots" in your view were the people saying they were crosshairs. This is not an interpretation by the judge but by people in the public. The judge observes the reaction of the public to the post and can tell a significant number of them think it was a violent message.
Let's move all the players into a bar and pretend you're the judge. Stone calls you corrupt, an Obama stooge and Hillary shill. In the bar there's people who really like Stone and agree with that assessment. They don't like you. There are also people that are impartial and some that really don't like Stone. The people who like Stone have been looking angrily at you all night. He posts that picture with your face on it. Someone remarks "hey, that really looks like a crosshair!" Some of the threatening looking people say "Yeah, it kind of does!"
Did the risk of someone punching you in the face increase or decrease compared to before the post?
Does Trump ever actually appoint someone suitable, or is it just useless yes-men, donors, and family?
With what? Russian interference has never gone away.
Sorry, but she’s an idiot. She saw it as a threat, or worse, pretended she did and used that to justify silencing Stone's criticism.
In the US the test for incitement to violence (and the limits of free speech) is that it must produce, or is likely to produce, "immanent lawless action".
Your little scenario is ridiculous. Name one person in the history of the world who was incited to hurt someone after seeing a crosshair on their picture, let alone a crosshair in a logo. You, like the judge, are dealing in fantasy.
With the selective leaking. Schiff receives a classified intelligence brief and immediately leaks it to the NYT — a federal crime. I suspect the Russian hoax true believers will be quick to point their fingers.
Yes, I did nearly move to France in the summer of 2018, but didn't in the end due to the uncertainty of Brexit. Now I have bought a nice new house with land in the UK, so am not going to be able to move to Europe anytime soon. I will keep an eye on what happens in Scotland as I would qualify for Scottish citizenship.
Makes no sense. Bernie will crush Trump in national debates. Trump will lose the most reasonable of his supporters that hold putting American workers first.
This news today about Russian meddling in favor of Bernie just makes no sense whatsoever if Russia wants Trump to win. Unless the move is being made to offer plausible deniability. That's a stretch though... I mean... quite the stretch.
It makes completely sense if they prefer Bernie. And why wouldn´t they?
In the event, everybody is meddling in everybody elses affairs, so the this fake meddling hysteria is complete nonsense.
The way he will do it will be to hint at the rumours in a joking, poking fun kind of way, such that on the media, it will come across as a serious statement, while winking at his audience, his base, hoodwinking them into going along with his roose on the suggestion that it is poking fun, or sarcasm.
You know, like those emails. Lock her up, send her back.
Snake oil salesman, sleight of hand stuff. A conjuring trick, rather than politics, to divide and deceive the American people. For nothing more than to give Trump what he wants, to stroke his ego, to make him a memorable president and secure his place in history. What happens to his country, his people in the meantime is irrelevant to him.
I don't think Trump will agree to debate. He has said as much. Why would he risk it?
Yeah. Someone mentioned plausible deniability.
:roll:
Afaik, I keep the popcorn ready for the show of furious Bernie supporters raising hell when he is sidelined.
Risk what? His best chance to lose on purpose?
:lol:
Do you think he writes them himself, or does have a paid campaign staff do it?
Himself. Staff would produce something more slick and less effective.
You might want to check out Scott Adams on that topic, he has an interesting perspective.
It’s not analogous, though. But no a crosshairs in a logo did not increase the risk.
Can you name one case of anyone being incited to violence by an image of a crosshairs?
Trump has flipped the 9th Circuit — and some new judges are causing a ‘shock wave’
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1231868340093825024?s=21[/tweet]
The law doesn't change based on the judge sitting the case and the principles of interpretation and construction have been so often discussed that this is relatively well documented (in fact, the UK Supreme Court is fed up with them and is not likely to accept a case about construction and interpretation any time soon). The fact people nowadays find it so important means there's an issue with US courts that goes beyond the correct application of law, e.g. judges beholden to political interests because they have to "thank" their position to politicians.
In the beginning of Trump’s administration a number of activist judges blocked Trump’s policies with nation-wide injunctions. In other words some Obama-appointed judge in California could override the policies of the elected president of the country, at least until the issue was taken to the Supreme Court. So hopefully with the new appointments that kind of judicial activism and political interest is excised from the system altogether.
They played Macho Man by the Village People when Trump entered the stadium. That doesn’t ring “Billy Graham” to me.
I believe your judgement of character is lacking in exactly the places you lack character. Personally I don’t look to politicians for moral guidance. I don’t want a pope, I just want an elected official to do his job.
Someone who whines about bone spurs, being treated unfairly by the fake news media, etc etc, doesn’t ring macho to me.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/23/politics/intelligence-briefer-russian-interference-trump-sanders/index.html
I doubt true believers such as John Brennan and the DNC will walk back their statements.
I don’t even want to know what you think is macho.
Your unrelenting defense of Trump proves this to be false.
Not a strand of chewing gum can connect that premise to your conclusion.
For starters, someone who’s willing to fight for their country rather than whine about bone spurs. Someone who is actually self-made and didn’t inherit almost half a billion.
You defend him as though he’s your cult leader.
Bone spurs. That’s all you got, eh? We used to call this grasping at straws, but given the element of hatred impelling it, it’s little more than the bluster of a hater.
Or perhaps the Obama-appointed judges were judging the law correctly and any Trump-appointees who judge differently are being activists.
No, I said just for starters. Here's Trump curtseying like a bitch...
Or how about his 'fire and fury' moment. Look at the body language, the folded arms are a form of 'self-comforting', literally hugging himself. To Trump culties it may look like a tough posture, but to those who can read body language, the anxiety is evident and not at all macho.
Trumps financial ties to Deutsche Bank are currently being investigated. Some of them look like he is a participant in money laundering....
These changes are welcome because the recent fibs regarding Russian meddling has become de rigueur in the intelligence community. Maybe those who are not spellbound by russiaphobia can course-correct.
:rofl:
Your toddler-in-Chief.
Although the headline doesn't quite match what Jackson said.
B...B...But he can build things!
Court rules in favor of Trump in ‘sanctuary cities’ grant fight
The nation-wide injunction has become a tool of the judiciary in order to stifle Trump’s agenda, so it’s nice to see them overturned in higher courts.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/senators-grapple-with-nationwide-injunctions
It’s hard to believe that even with all this obstruction—constant investigations, impeachment’s, injunctions—President Trump is delivering. It’s no wonder Euros want a Sanders presidency: their own hapless, progressive leaders cannot compete in the same world as the Trump administration.
Or am I misunderstanding how it works?
What do you mean by this? In what way are Johnson, Merkel, Macron, etc. failing to “compete” with Trump?
No way she actually said that part out loud?
I mean that others could not do what Trump is doing under this pressure, and I accused those who write in British English of wanting Sanders to become US president because Trump makes their own leaders look bad.
Trust me, Boris Johnson makes himself look bad. :lol:
U.S.-Taliban sign landmark agreement in bid to end America's longest war
This is what happens when you give Trump the nuclear codes.
Junior goes much further.
They seem to have a low opinion of their supporters intelligence.
Trump never said the Coronavirus is a hoax. But I guess the Times has a low opinion of its readers.
Where exactly did they say that?
Or perhaps... just maybe... nearly everyone else in the world would like for Sanders to become president because he is much less likely to fuck everyone else in the process of putting Americans first? Maybe he is not going to run the country as if it is his own cut-throat business in a dog eat dog world?
Maybe he realizes that everyone else does not have to lose in order for America to win. Maybe he takes the responsibility of effecting/affecting others seriously? Maybe he does not have the most outright openly questionable ethics in American history for a president of his own time?
Maybe he knows what he's talking about...
Just maybe...
Or it could all be some big conspiracy of the deep state to make Trump look bad and do whatever it takes to get rid of that leech? Maybe the aliens are in on it too...
Right in the title of the New York Times video.
Maybe their countries are just used to getting a free ride, bleeding America dry, and like any addict is getting frustrated that their supply is dwindling.
The title reads:
“Donald Trump: Coronavirus is Democrats' 'new hoax'”
I image that most Trump supporters have poor reading comprehension, or just tend to see what they want to see.
Maybe they - like everyone else in the world - realize that when someone enters into an agreement that they voluntarily obligate themselves to make the world match their words... to make the changes they gave their word to make... to do the things they've agreed to do...
Maybe, just maybe... the rest of the world is not nearly as creative as Donald John Trump at looking for an escape clause in order to not be held liable for not keeping his word - after he has received the benefits of said agreement.
Maybe, just maybe... everyone else realizes the imperative nature of working together to make the world a much beter place for everyone, which requires being a man of your word.
Trump is not.
Did trump say that? No. But anti-Trumpers like to believe what they’re told. Trump has taken drastic measures a while ago, long before Democrats started bleating about their Coronavirus fears.
Maybe the rest of the world should get used to paying their fair share. Working together requires partnerships, not dependants.
That's a gross oversimplification of a complex set of circumstances resulting from a complex set of agreements.
Everyone ought keep their word. Not everyone has broken theirs. There are also better ways to go about ensuring that people do.
Working together is being interdependent. Humans are, by our very nature, interdependent social creatures.
19 NATO members that have not met the 2% GDP spending goal set at the 2014 NATO summit, which was before Trump arrived. So were they lying?
In the posted video, Trump says “and this is their new hoax.” If you’re too brainwashed to believe that he wasn’t referring to Democrats and the coronavirus, well, then there’s little chance of me opening you eyes.
Did he or did he not say Coronavirus is the Democrat’s new hoax?
What's the point here? Is the argument something like... some people do not keep their word, therefore Trump can pull out of any and all agreements that he chooses to?
The point is it isn’t wrong to expect other countries to hold up their end of the bargain.
Lol
Calling it a hoax is to deny that it is a problem, and it doesn't matter who "their new hoax" refers to. The denial itself is the problem.
I would agree generally speaking about the obligation to keep one's word. I disagree that the fix for some not doing so is for everyone to not do so.
Just to be clear, I believe Trump is claiming that criticisms to his administration’s actions surrounding the issue (cuts to CDC funding etc.) is a hoax, or something like that, and not that the virus itself is a hoax.
That's more palatable. Everything contrary to Trump's beliefs is a hoax to him. I would go even further and say that there have been many things he knows to be true and still calls it a hoax, or fake news, or a witch-hunt. The man is a liar of the worst variety... a practical one. A means to an end. The end is an increase in his own wealth and power.
A spoiled rich kid who has never once had to pay for his own mistakes.
It's known as Munchausen's syndrome by proxy. All the populists are doing it, it's a well known snake oil salesmans trick.
To illustrate, I have experienced it myself, as I have a relative who suffers from the condition. She would walk up to me and knee me in the leg, then immediately fain a limp claiming that I had kneed her in the leg. The people witnessing the deceit, don't know who kneed who in the leg. But will believe the deceiver because they are skilled at reacting as the victim and the person they actually kneed is shocked and confused, so appears less plausible.
The populist Home Secretary in the UK government is doing it at the moment against the top civil servant in the country, leading him to resign and state that he is going to sue the government today.
Sounded this way to me also. Trump even went on to say that even if we haven't lost anyone to the virus, it doesn't mean the US couldn't lose people to it. (Which I think has now happened)
And lets put things into perspective: normal seasonal flew epidemics kill 1 000 people or so every season around the World. Coronavirus has killed about 3 000 people. The Ebola outbreak 2014-2016 killed about 11 000.
The Hong Kong Flu 1968-69 killed 34 000 just in the US and 1 million World wide. Malaria kills roughly about 400 000+ around the World annually.
That’s right. He did not say Coronavirus is Democrats' 'new hoax'. So why would the NYT say that?
But yes, the Democrats have politicized the issue. They repeatedly accused Pompeo of not doing enough about it during a testimony on the Iran strike. Trump is right.
I get tired of you parroting whatever the DNC wants you to. I tire of you lamenting a dystopian future that never arrives. How can you look at yourself in a mirror?
I've pointed out that in the posted video there's a clip of Trump saying “and this is their new hoax.” Granted that it's not always easy to decipher his rambling nonsense, but are you claiming that he wasn't referring to Democrats and the coronavirus? If he wasn't then who and what was he referring to?
I was claiming the headline was false, fake news. I would also claim that what Trump said was true.
Democrats have distorted and politicized coronavirus in terms of lying about the response and giving us a pitiful panic among the fearful (see Tim Wood's response here).
AP FACT CHECK: Democrats distort coronavirus readiness
It was fake but it's true? Lol.
So Bloomberg and Biden engaged in a little harmless hyperbole. Isn't that what you say when Trump lies? Pretty dumb to lie about it though when the truth would have been nearly as damming, that the Trump admin tried to cut CDC funding but was prevented by congress.
Trump said "this" is their new hoax, using a demonstrative pronoun the referent for which was (demonstratively) unclear, coming, as it did, sixty seconds earlier in the speech.
It's not clear, to the less-than-savvy, what Trump's "this" was alluding to. It could easily be taken (again, by a person who doesn't spend a lot of time analyzing language) to be the virus itself: A - not atypical; one might even say Trumpian - lack of clarity the talking heads in the media - experts at the use and abuse of language - set ethics aside to take advantage of. Clearly a deception by leftists in the press. They know how to parse a sentence - or, in Trump's case, a string of sentence fragments.
Trump is guilty of a sophomoric, haphazard use of language in connection to a global crisis. That's about it. He can't help it. He never read a book. I doubt he even read the books he "wrote."
I love TDS. It is amazing watching the sheer delusion it creates. Who needs drugs when you have mass hallucinations.
Funny, I felt like my response was "fair and balanced."
You do know that Trump's books were written by ghostwriters, I hope.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all
How about DDS (Democrat Derangement Syndrome)?
[quote=Lil Trump Jr.]The playbook is old at this point. But for them to try to use a pandemic [coronavirus], and seemingly hope that it comes here and kills millions of people so that they can end Donald Trump's streak of winning, is a new level of sickness.[/quote]
How does one seemingly hope for millions to die, btw? I suppose that delusions may seem real. Maybe that’s what he means.
You repeated the same lie. Perhaps a little skepticism moving forward?
And whatever the spin is his base will drink it up like the elixir of life. Drunk on the power without reason, or justification, just neat raw power.
Now you're suggesting that Trump did not claim that criticisms to his administration’s actions surrounding the coronavirus issue (cuts to CDC funding etc.) are a hoax? You previously indicated that he did make that claim when you wrote: "That's right."
Two Democrats lying about something doesn't constitute a plot by the Democrats to oust the sitting president. I think we can agree on that.
Looks like we’re finally getting some action on the Biden front.
Senate Homeland Security Panel Chairman Wants to Issue Subpoena in Hunter Biden Probe
https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-homeland-security-panel-chairman-says-he-will-issue-subpoena-in-hunter-biden-probe-11583183194
Also, some of the same action is occurring on the Ukraine side.
Ukraine court forces probe into Biden role in firing of prosecutor Viktor Shokin
It’s about to get exciting, what with an election right around the corner.
Hoax investigation, political theatre, etc. etc. All that stuff you were saying about the House investigation into Trump's impropriety, except this time it's true.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/c-span-video-joe-biden-ukraine/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/may/07/viral-image/fact-checking-joe-biden-hunter-biden-and-ukraine/
I’m not sure running to conclusions before the investigation is a bright idea.
You supported the Russia hoax and the Ukraine hoax, but when a little investigation is thrown Biden’s way we get all touchy.
I supported the investigation into Russia's connections with the Trump campaign because the FBI believed there to be sufficient justification to open an investigation – a view supported by the Inspector General when he investigated the investigation – and I supported the investigation into Trump's withholding of aid to Ukraine because there was a formal whistleblower complaint on the matter that the Inspector General believed to be urgent and credible.
There's nothing like any of that for the Biden-Burisma hoax. Just Giuliani spouting rubbish and now Republican politicians latching onto it to help them in the next election.
You might want to read from the person who first reported on Biden's activity in Ukraine and Hunter's involvement with Burisma (in 2015):
I Wrote About the Bidens and Ukraine Years Ago. Then the Right-Wing Spin Machine Turned the Story Upside Down.
And of course the previous links to Snopes and PolitiFact.
The problem is Giuliani has documents and testimony, which I doubt you’ve seen or heard or even bothered to look at. Instead all you can do is post articles and fact-checks wherein they simply assert the opposite, without documentation or investigation. Luckily these documents are now with the DOJ, so we’ll find out one way or the other whether you’ll go zero for 3.
Trump’s election may have messed up the sex balance of babies
Good god.
If true, it's ironic that Trump - the womanizer - is the cause of more women.
It won't be zero for three.
The GAO concluded that withholding aid was illegal and even Republicans like Romney and Rubio accepted that it was impeachable, with others like Alexander and Collins accepting that it was wrong. The fact that the Republicans (bar Romney) didn't vote to remove him from office just shows that they put party loyalty before their duty to conduct proper oversight of the executive, and doesn't affect the validity of my position. So I was right on that account.
The Inspector General concluded that the investigation into the Trump campaign was warranted, and Mueller laid out the many occasions that Trump obstructed justice as well as concluded that the Trump Tower meeting was a violation of campaign finance laws (although chose not to prosecute as apparently ignorance is an excuse). If you look back at some of my earlier comments in this discussion you'll see that I only ever said that the investigation was warranted, that Trump obstructed justice, and that the Trump Tower meeting was a violation of campaign finance laws. So I was right on that account.
So far I'm two for two, and I suspect that I'll be three for three once this investigation into Biden concludes.
You're zero for two. The GAO is an investigative arm of Congress with no power. It offers an opinion, or for democrats and their parrots, a piece of paper they can wave in the air to justify an unjust impeachment. The administration has offered the opposite opinion, that everything is done legally. You've merely accepted the song and dance of congress. Also, no criminal penalties are associated with violating the impound control act. Every administration has done it. So you're wrong on that account.
The Attorney General disagreed with that finding of the Horowitz report, that "The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions". US Attorney John Durham, who is conducting a Justice Department criminal review of the investigation into Russia, said "Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened". So according to those now investigating the utter failure of Crossfire Hurricane and the Mueller investigation, you're wrong on that account.
Oh, so he did do it. Thanks for admitting to it finally.
Tu quoque isn't an argument but the way. Only kids think it is.
And here you are cherry picking from the sidelines like a little cheerleader. U mad?
Here’s my argument.
Here’s what you cherry picked:
Great argument.
You’re zero for two, Benkei. (Or is it three?) and this from someone who claims to exist outside of propaganda.
Unfortunately that didn't last long. I don't think there's anything that the Trump administration can say or do that other administrations haven't already tried. Short of finding a way to wipe out the Taliban entirely, I don't know what will get them to stop fighting.
Unless the U.S. just withdraws and leaves the Talban for the Afghanistan government to deal with. But then that's not really peace, just abandoning an ongoing war.
He just needs to stick to his guns, especially when the Taliban aren't willing to do so. As Trump has always said on the matter, "We'll see what happens".
This is the 4th time you’ve asked your loaded question and expected an answer, even though I responded the first time you asked it.
It’s a question loaded with presumptions. Either way I answer would make me seem complicit. That’s the point: you don’t want a discussion, you want to malign your opponents, because I suspect that’s all you have left.
I’ve already responded to your loaded question while acknowledging how fallacious and bad faith it is. You can either accept that or follow your own double standards and stop responding.
There's absolutely no reason to respond to him except to point out a lie or mis- or dis-informative post.
Out of one side of the mouth:
Out of the other side of the mouth:
Does this stuff ever get old, @NOS4A2?
No, it doesn't.
I say this because everyone makes mistakes, exaggerates, misspeaks, forgets, and *gasp* lies. So I wager it gets tiring holding people to inhuman standards. Trump talks a lot, so any list of falsities is only a part of the story. What I'd love to see, for once, is a list of truths.
Start typing.
There you have it, Tim.
Quoting NOS4A2
It's exhausting in Trump's case.
Just a little graphical comparison for you:
What a bootlicking thing to say.
It’s a shame Obama was so effete and ineffective and boring. All that truth-telling got us nowhere.
If only your opinion mattered.
That the above is a bootlicking thing to say is nearer to a fact than what we find in the bulk of your posts.
My eyes glaze over as soon as I see your reply. I’m surprised you didn’t go copy and paste some article to pad your lack of original thought.
A histrionic cynicism in regard to thousands upon thousands of lies. A telling attitude toward the truth.
I like to know what my president is thinking, whether he spits truth or not. You would prefer a gaggle of social media consultants, PR specialists and speech writers to tell you stories,
Well, besides rescuing the economy from the great recession, passing health care reform where over 20 million Americans gained coverage, and so on. One notable achievement that's related to not being a childlike liar, Obama was the first president since Dwight Eisenhower to serve two terms with no serious personal or political scandal.
The The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was under Bush. The website for Obamacare cost over a billion dollars. Then there is the IRS targeting scandal, Fast and Furious gun-running, Benghazi, Bowe Bergdahl, spying on a presidential campaign, on American citizens, on news agencies and reporters. Thanks Obama!
Right. Trump doesn't have "a gaggle of social media consultants, PR specialists and speech writers to tell [the American people] stories."
Again: Trump is the king of PR and you are his dupe.
And that alone resulted in the economy that Obama left office with. Is that what they teach you to say in troll school?
Quoting NOS4A2
Trump will probably spend half that much just golfing.
Oh right, it was Obama who rescued the economy. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act had absolutely nothing to do with.
So we already have a number of mistruths in only a couple of your posts. That’s Trump numbers, pal. Better watch it.
You wrote that EESA had nothing to do with it so if there's a lie it's your lie.
What are the other lies? You appear to read about as well as Trump.
I recommend the ignore option.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1235633381595066373?s=21[/tweet]
I would never censor you, friend.
Lol. The phrase “OK Boomer” does apply here. These men are well into their 70’s.
Both would apply in this case. I guess we’ll see when it gets to the Supreme Court, yet again.
How so? Do you just believe that anyone who says or does anything that goes against Trump's interests is doing so in bad faith? Are you incapable of accepting that Trump and the Trump administration are sometimes in the wrong?
I was joking. Nonetheless, he exhibits the same anti-Trumpism that has rendered relatively bright people into vectors of propaganda. He speculates, without evidence, that Barr made calculated efforts to “obfuscate” Mueller’s findings.
He read Barr’s summary and read the redacted report and ”concurred with Special Counsel Mueller’s assessment that Attorney General Barr distorted the findings in the Mueller Report.”[sup]1[/sup] Given the known distortions it’s reasonable to infer unjustified redactions. He didn’t make his judgement apropos of nothing.
[sup]1[/sup]https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/george-w-bush-appointed-judge-isnt-taking-barrs-word-for-it-will-review-mueller-report-redactions-himself/
What exactly did he distort?
The Mueller report was released to the public.
You’ll have to ask the judge.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes, and apparently Barr’s summary before its release was misleading.
Here’s the judge’s “concerns”.
He Says that he agrees with Mueller’s letter:
http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/03/05/uenrosj.pdf
According to Barr’s testimony, however, Barr stated that Mueller and him talked by phone, and Mueller “was very clear with me that he was not suggesting that we had misrepresented his report”, which Mueller never disputed and which the judge fails to cite.
Rumor has it Boomberg is investing the rest of his billions into developing a microscope sufficiently powerful to detect one molecule of charisma in his body. Scientists are sceptical...
The irony.
Have you seen this?
Do you have to mount a coordinated campaign to do that?`Isn´t it enough to watch some Biden clips?
These others will be corrupt. They're young minded still. I am not curropt, I am a man who senses other non corrupt politicians. As a business man Trump is perfect right now, little corruption.
Not much painting necessary tbh, the dude's mental decline is there for all to see.
Anyway, here's to another 4 years of Trump. Fuck Americans.
Probably, but if Biden is winning in the primaries then I guess he has a better chance to beat Trump than any other candidate?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/14/politics/trump-press-conference-coronavirus/index.html
Maybe it's fake news.
[Url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/trump-playbook-coronavirus/607342/]
Trump’s Playbook Is Terribly Ill-Suited to a Pandemic[/url]
[I]"Americans should all hope [Trump] succeeds in mitigating the danger posed by the virus, though there are reasons to fear he is not up to the task. The new pandemic is a challenge for which his playbook seems uniquely unsuited.
"The Trump crisis playbook to date has involved bullying both political allies, to keep them in line, and potential opponents, to prevent them from talking. It has involved lying. It has involved the deflection of attention onto other matters. It has involved attacking the attackers, spinning conspiracy theories about and spawning investigations of the investigators. It has involved bombastic dismissals of serious issues as the latest “hoax” or “witch hunt” or instance of “presidential harassment.” And it has involved endlessly reminding people that the economy is humming along and their 401(k) plans are doing well.
"But a virus, unlike a Republican member of Congress, cannot be bullied. It doesn’t care about the president’s poll numbers. Nor does it pay any mind to whether the president describes his own handling of its presence as perfect."[/i]
https://www.axios.com/justice-department-russian-trolls-internet-research-agency-9bf95c0d-2f6a-4377-84a5-c5f3eb8c4abb.html
The government drops the charges against the only Russians to show up for trial.
So the secret is to break the law in such a way that the government can't prosecute you without hurting itself. Good to know.
Congrats to you benefactors. :party:
Same playbook Trump has been using... to expose him will expose so many others throughout history who've basically done the same things...
I explicated upon this... pages and pages back... maybe a year ago... it's the only explanation for why they haven't done anything despite clearly illegal behaviour, mainly regarding the emoluments clause.
Corruption is rampant.
Yeah, it’s brilliant. Show up and they drop the charges. Another failure for Mueller and the DOJ.
Did you read the article you referred? They dropped the charges against the company, or group of companies, "Concord", for various reasons, mostly due to the fact that the company had the capacity to, and practised non-compliance, and it would be capable of taking advantage of the court case through access to information. Pursuing the case was clearly detrimental to the interests of the United States. However, charges against the 13 individuals have not been dropped.
"The United States will continue its efforts to apprehend the individual defendants and bring them before this Court to face the pending charges..."
I did read the article. The government dropped the charges against the only Russians to show up for trial. It’s a deep failure.
Yes, not be able to bring the responsible individuals into court to face trial, and having only representatives from a company who have the sole intention of abusing the judicial process show up, is a failure.
You really believe that, don’t you? The US government cannot charge Russians for national security reasons?
That's what the court papers say. Do you have an alternative explanation?
Do you believe the defence has a right to see the evidence of what they are charged with?
Yes, which is why the prosecution chose to drop charges. They would have to hand over classified evidence, and as the court papers say, the defendants have already misused evidence that was given to them and so cannot be trusted to not do so again. So for matters of national security it is safer for the U.S. government to not continue with prosecution.
Then why charge someone you could never take to trial, and for an arguably fake crime? The Mueller team fucked up, big league.
It wasn't a fake crime. And as the quote above says, the classification change happened post-indictment.
It was this very real crime I believe:
18 U.S. Code §?371.Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
Isn’t that convenient?
For the defence, yes.
What exactly are you alleging? Perhaps that they don't have any evidence and are trying to hide that fact? If that is what you're alleging, where's your evidence?
It’s not illegal to create fake social media accounts.
This statement, as well as the headline of your referred article, is false and deceptive.
No charges against Russians have been dropped. Charges against Russian companies have been dropped.
The reasons given for dropping charges against the companies, was that the companies display no inclination to comply with rulings of the court, the court has no jurisdiction to enforce compliance, and the companies have the capacity to abuse information given as disclosures of evidence.
Quoting NOS4A2
Get with it Nos4A2! It's not "Russians" who are the defendants here, it's Russian companies.
Then you should be arguing that they are innocent of committing the alleged crime. Because it's false to say that they were charged with a fake crime. They were charged with a real crime. Whether or not they're guilty hasn't been determined (and now won't be).
Why are they Russian? Because Russians own them and run them.
I’m hot and cold on the response. I think he’s been quick to respond, but I also think he’s taking it too serious. Now he’s talking about sending cash to working American’s, and bailing out entire industries. These measures make me cringe each time I hear them.
So you think he's taking it too seriously. Does that mean you'd prefer to let nature take its course? I guess that would reduce social security outlays.
I’m well aware of that. On the other hand he is leaving much of the response to the states, which suits me just fine. I think that’s the best way to go about tackling the issue. But I fear his opponents and the press are trying to goad him into taking some drastic measures.
He’s a god damn socialist. :razz:
An authoritarian socialist: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/watch-live-trump-invokes-defense-production-act-to-increase-masks-supplies-to-fight-coronavirus
About time he crossed over and gave "liberty" and the free market the finger.
The Fake news has been working overtime to malign the administration’s efforts during the pandemic. Trump took decisive coronavirus-related actions back when impeachment was all the rage, saving countless lives while the media was garnering countless clicks, but none of that will stop the usual suspects from dancing on the graves of Americans to further their political futures. Their ghoulish efforts during this pandemic has only increased confusion, anger and division in a time when we need to pull together.
1. Google Website
This article by CNN once painted a much different picture: Google will partner with US government to develop a nationwide coronavirus website, company says. It once read: Google says it's not publishing a national-scale coronavirus site anytime soon after Trump announcement.
CNN and others ran with this “gotcha” until Google later confirmed that they were wrong.
2. The president is putting his own political interests over the well-being of the American people, according to Vanity Fair.
A Vanity Fair author said that “Trump Reportedly Afraid Coronavirus Testing Could Hurt Reelection Chances”. This dangerous accusation, sowing discord and division in a time of crisis, was extrapolated not from any evidence or statement of Trump’s, but from a politico reporter’s “understanding”.
https://www.npr.org/2020/03/12/814881355/white-house-knew-coronavirus-would-be-a-major-threat-but-response-fell-short
3. Trump dissolved the pandemic response team, cut funding for the CDC, and reduced the CDC presence around the globe.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/31/coronavirus-china-trump-united-states-public-health-emergency-response/
Much of these falsities are woven with little bits of truth, but is ultimately misleading,according to factcheck.org. As usual the nonsense is already widely spread among media parrots.
4. Trump called the Coronavirus a hoax.
CNN continues to push this lie to their servile followers.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/AnaCabrera/status/1239305489655218177?s=20[/tweet]
But Trump never called the coronavirus a hoax. He was clearly speaking about the Democrat’s politicization of the pandemic, and only through deceptive editing of video could this lie possibly work.
5. Trump Declined WHO Coronavirus Test Kits
The trump-bashing reached new heights when politico claimed the administration declined WHO test kits.
This was parroted by the Biden campaign during the debates and found a comfortable home in the minds of millions. Of course, it was false. No testing kits were offered. No testing kits were declined. And there was no deviation from standard protocols.
6. Trump offered large sums of cash for exclusive rights to vaccine from Germany
This unsubstantiated misinformation made Germans angry in a time of pandemic, and offered soothing balm to any Trump-hater’s cognitive dissonance. Citing some German newspaper, the claim made its way through the Twitterati and their obsequious followers, who readily believe anything that makes Trump look bad. But those actually involved in the discussions—on both sides—disputed the claims entirely, not that they made any sense to begin with.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/03/17/trump-poach-coronavirus-vaccine/
Thanks for the propaganda update, KellyAnne, :yawn:
He lied and:
Quoting NOS4A2
“No I don’t take responsibility at all” is another good one. He was speaking in regards to the lag in testing, which Fauci himself said was a “technical glitch”, and which others testified was because of previous regulations. And here it is used as fake news. Thanks for sharing.
That you readily gobble misinformation so long as it serves your bias concerns me very little. Even now, after showing that the “I am not responsible” epitaph on Trump’s efforts is fake, you hold it up as a shield against your nascent dissonance.
That is where the poison lies: in your fantasies, in your world view, in the undying hope that you are on the right side of history and that your efforts weren’t simply that of a useful idiot. But the dustbin of history awaits your arrival.
1) January 22nd: Trump is asked about the coronavirus at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Days earlier the first case of the coronavirus was detected in the U.S., in a man who had returned to Seattle from a trip to China earlier in January.
“No, not at all. We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control,” Trump told CNBC. “It’s going to be just fine.”
3)
January 30th: Trump addresses the coronavirus during a speech on trade in Michigan. The same day, the World Health Organization classified COVID-19 as an international health emergency.
“We think we have it very well under control,” Trump said. “We have very little problem in this country at this moment — five — and those people are all recuperating successfully. But we’re working very closely with China and other countries, and we think it’s going to have a very good ending for us.”
4)
February 10th: Trump says the coronavirus will be gone by the end of the spring while speaking with reporters in the White House.
“Now, the virus that we’re talking about having to do — you know, a lot of people think that goes away in April with the heat, as the heat comes in. Typically, that will go away in April. We’re in great shape, though. We have 12 cases, 11 cases, and many of them are in good shape now.”
Days later, Centers for Disease Control Director Robert Redfield estimates the “virus is probably with us beyond this season and beyond this year.”
5)
February 14th: Despite Redfield saying the coronavirus will be in the U.S. beyond 2020, Trump continues to push the idea that it will be gone in a matter of weeks.
“There’s a theory that, in April, when it gets warm, historically, that has been able to kill the virus,”[/b] he said while speaking to the National Border Patrol Council.
6)
February 23rd: Speaking to reporters on the White House lawn: “We have it very much under control in this country.”
7)
February 24th:
"The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. We are in contact with everyone and all relevant countries. CDC & World Health have been working hard and very smart. Stock Market starting to look very good to me!"
8)
February 26th: During a press briefing at the White House, Trump claims that positive cases will soon begin to decrease.
“We’re going to be pretty soon at only five people,” he said. “And we could be at just one or two people over the next short period of time. So we’ve had very good luck.”
9)
February 27th: “It’s going to disappear,” Trump said at the White House. “One day — it’s like a miracle — it will disappear.”
11)
February 28th: During a rally in South Carolina, Trump alleges Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus, calling it “their new hoax.”
12)
February 29th: While speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Trump again claims his administration has the coronavirus under control.
“I’ve gotten to know these professionals. They’re incredible,” Trump said. “And everything is under control. I mean, they’re very, very cool. They’ve done it, and they’ve done it well. Everything is really under control.”
It would be revealed later that a CPAC attendee tested positive for COVID-19, leading multiple Republican lawmakers who came into contact with him to self-quarantine.
13)
March 4th: [b]In an interview with Sean Hannity, Trump calls the WHO’s estimate of the global death rate “false,” describes the coronavirus as “very mild,” and suggests that those infected can get better by “sitting around” and “going to work.”
Trump to Hannity on WHO saying coronavirus death rate is 3.4%: "I think the 3.4% number is really a false number ... personally, I'd say the number is way under 1%."[/b]
14)
March 7th: “No, I’m not concerned at all,” Trump said from Mar-a-Lago. “No, I’m not. No, we’ve done a great job.”
15)
March 9th: Trump bashes Democrats for sounding the alarm “far beyond what the facts would warrant” before implying that the common flu is far worse, an argument he’s made on several occasions and which has been parroted by Fox News.
Trump: "The Fake News Media and their partner, the Democrat Party, is doing everything within its semi-considerable power (it used to be greater!) to inflame the CoronaVirus situation, far beyond what the facts would warrant."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/15/opinion/trump-coronavirus.html
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-coronavirus-timeline-dismissed-969381/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/12/trump-coronavirus-timeline/
https://www.npr.org/2020/03/09/813763871/president-trump-has-consistently-downplayed-threat-of-coronavirus
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/trump-truth-and-the-mishandling-of-the-coronavirus-crisis
Quoting NOS4A2
Correct.
Quoting NOS4A2
You're wrong, actually. The utter inability of Trump to get anything done is the reason why, thanks to the Congress, the budget wasn't slashed as dramatically as Trump wanted. Yet fighting possible pandemics was slashed: The global presence was indeed reduced because of cuts.
And Trump did really want cut the CDC budget. I remember that years ago. It was one of those irresponsible bullshit moves that Trump was doing that I remember well. Luckily for us, he FAILED just like he usually does in his policy decisions. Just as he does in many things starting from the Mexican paid wall and the deal with North Korea.
See Former Obama administration officials blast Trump's proposed health budget cuts from May 23rd 2017
See President’s 2018 budget devastating to public health: Cuts to prevention, research, programs from May 2017
Yet let's look what happened:
And what is true is this:
See https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/did-donald-trump-cut-the-cdc-budget
And more clearly from 2018:
CDC Rolls Back Disease Prevention Programs Due to Budget Shortage
Republican Presidents have this obsession not to be prepared for the next crisis. I remember Bush at first didn't care a shit about terrorism or the prevention of terrorism. For Trump it was preparations for countering pandemics.
Summary: He's an illiterate fool who knows nothing about anything and asks stupid questions... But it was fun.
Please don't insult my Dad.
March 15: Coronavirus: Pubs asked to close by Irish government
March 16: Irish-developed kit confirms infection in 15 minutes
You lot are really keen to get back on the Guinness.
:yum:
If Trump’s optimism is all you need to blame Trump for the death of Americans, then I’m afraid I cannot do much to convince you otherwise. But I can do my best for the sake of others.
Trump’s right, he has done a great job, and recent approval ratings reflect this. And this isn’t some rinky-dink country of a few million. It’s a massive country with a massive population spanning a massive geographic area.
But it doesn’t take too much effort to remember that while Trump was taking decisive measures to meet coronavirus head on, the press and Democrats we’re trying to impeach him, and spectacularly failing in the process.
So while one can string together disparate, out of context quotes to make a case against Trump’s efforts, all I need to do is look at what one suspiciously left out to make a case for the opposite.
Jan. 14th
[tweet]https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152?s=20[/tweet]
*crickets*
But, as we’ve come to learn, we now know that they they were warned in December by Taiwanese health officials.
https://www.ft.com/content/2a70a02a-644a-11ea-a6cd-df28cc3c6a68
The WHO also advises against travel restrictions, contradicting most governments. An Italian virologist says the Italian government took the same approach, but that they would rather lay the lives of its citizens at the alter of political correctness.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/18/europe/italy-coronavirus-lockdown-intl/
Trump, on the other hand, took decisive action almost immediately.
Jan. 25th
U.S. Working to Evacuate American Citizens From Epidemic-Stricken Chinese City
Jan, 29th
Trump Forms Coronavirus Task Force
Jan. 31st
Trump administration declares coronavirus emergency, orders first quarantine in 50 years
Feb. 3rd.
Since we’re using one’s optimism as a point of criticism, Andrea Ammon, the director of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, had this to say about the coming pandemic.
“An outbreak of novel viruses is always an issue of public concern, [but] the situation right now is really under control [in Europe]," Ammon added.
https://euobserver.com/coronavirus/147350
A little more than a month later, Europe would be declared the epicenter of the coronavirus.
Feb. 4th (eve of impeachment trial), the night the press and Dems were praising Pelosi tearing up his speech, his state of the Union address:
“Protecting Americans health also means fighting infectious diseases. We are coordinating with the Chinese government and working closely together on the coronavirus outbreak in China. My administration will take all necessary steps to safeguard our citizens from this threat”.
Feb. 29th
(22 known infections of coronavirus and one death in the US)
Bans Travel from Iran
March Onward
At the first death, Trump’s actions immediately escalate, resulting in a flurry of proclamations, meetings with industry leaders, near daily press conferences, coordinating with governors, mayors, and consecutive legislative actions that are just too numerous to get into, but that all concerned citizens should take a look at from a sufficient distance from the antitrumpism.
The virus continues to spread and continues to infect many, but Trump’s leadership, his nimble instincts, decisive actions, and the 24/7 work of the administration has and is saving lives, not ending them.
As for my own criticisms, the massive spending is worrying me. But worse, on a personal note, the general public response and American refusal to take the issue seriously might seriously affect my family.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-cut-cdcs-budget-democrats-claim-analysis/story?id=69233170
Art of the deal, baby.
You’re wrong, actually.
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/false-claim-about-cdcs-global-anti-pandemic-work/
Optimism isn’t disinformation. Speaking confidently about ones actions and decisions is optimism by definition.
Art of Bullshit, baby. Bullshit.
Just like the Wall paid by Mexico, the deal with North Korea AND NEARLY EVERYTHING ELSE...
Of course, nothing of those happened as promised, but who cares? It's art of the deal. Just like "Art of the Deal" was written by a ghostwriter. As we know, Trump is incapable of writing himself something as long as a book. But who cares? It's all quite fake and that's Trump.
Just think about it: how whimsical it is for a President who's party is at first in control of BOTH houses of Congress and then to get what through? One tax break! Yeah, great work.
Quoting NOS4A2
So let's me get this straight. Trumps wants to make cuts. Finally the CDC does make the cuts, but AFTERWARDS understanding that this is their core area to operate, the CDC wiggles with base appropriations (thanks to Congress) and transfers then them to sustain things. And knowing Trump, the CDC has an reason to paint everything with roses as not to make this President angry. Just like after the "taboo words" debacle. Oh no, Trump administration surely didn't do it!
Woo hoo :party: Excellent approach Benkei!
No, that's just arrogance.
Yeah, if it comes from OrangeOtan, I know. If it came from someone you like, you would gloat about it.
Anyway,,,,,
I see an interesting situation coming up very soon. Some industries are especially hard hit by the whole Corona thing, so politicians will be starting about bailouts. Some of the hardest hit are the travel and hotel industries. Of course they will be asking for help. Now.... OrangeHitler is in the hotel business. Can you see where this is going?
Just warning you.... lots of triggered people in the TDS community very soon. Better find a safe space.
I don't see why companies ought to be bailed out. If taxpayers save companies that would otherwise go bankrupt, they should own it. It's the typical corruption that allows the vested interests to have cake and eat it too.
Glad Orange-oetan is sticking with you. Also, I'm a reflexive kind of guy and quite allergic to arrogance. I don't like arrogant people, so there's no world where I would think differently.
In any case, in light of the tons of lies Trump had already uttered, the idea his disinformation is "really just" optimism is rather disingenuous.
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
Yawn... ok ok
Quoting Benkei
Well, no matter what you think about it, companies will still asking for it. And in some cases, they have a good argument. I don´t want to get bogged down into arguing which should and which should not (for some reason, banks always seem to have priority). I was just warning you of the oncoming big trigger event, because hotels WILL ask for bailouts. So watch your blood pressure.
The orange monster getting bailed out by tax money? Oh my. I am glad that your blood pressure is OK, but you can see the screaming headlines and your triggered fellow CNN./NYT bubble dwellers, can you not? It will be glorious.
I know, it's so selfish.
It is. Points for failed attempt at sarcams>=: Nill
The European "mainstrteam" media is every bit on the Trump hating, globalist wagon as the American. This is not about geographic location.
I wonder what things such as corporate diversity, airline emissions, cancelling the debt of the Postal Service, and election auditing have to do with the current crisis. Government bailout and megalomania.
I thought the Democrats' problem with it is that it wasn't worker relief but a corporate bailout.
Quoting NOS4A2
Aren't Republicans also playing with people's livelihood to include provisions that are a Republican policy wishlist?
I have never understood this automatic presupposition, that the default position, the null hypothesis, on anything Trump does has to be without regarding any of his history whatsoever. The world has had 4 years to watch what he has done and said and it is well documented; but according to the right he awakes each morning with a clean slate, to be judged only on the allowable spin that the public will bear on that day.
Workers often work for corporations.
For instance?
Well what I have seen in the 4 years is that Trump did pretty well, while being non stop attacked by the polical opponents and their propaganda arm in the so called mainstream media.. Clearly, we are watching 2 different movies.
Now look at this bumbling fool and tell me THAT is the guy you prefer to have in charge during a national crisis
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/03/slow-joes-slow-pitch.php
[tweet]https://twitter.com/axios/status/1242425467438858241?s=21[/tweet]
I don't think you know what fake news is.
I don’t think you know what real news is.
I do. Real news can make mistakes. Fake news on the other hand "is a form of news consisting of deliberate disinformation or hoaxes ... written and published usually with the intent to mislead in order to damage an agency, entity, or person, and/or gain financially or politically, often using sensationalist, dishonest, or outright fabricated headlines to increase readership."
The fact that Axios publicly corrected themselves suggests that it was an honest mistake.
It was sensationalist and false, with the intent to mislead in order to damage a person. Didn’t you post a similar story?
Where's the evidence that there was an intent to mislead in order to damage a person? As I said, the fact that they corrected themselves suggest that it was an honest mistake.
Do you think they put Trump in there for any other reason? They posted that for the same reason you posted it, and that almost certainly wasn’t to inform others.
Thoughts?
And the first person to protect the fat cats sitting at the banks we bailed out before? You are my first: :zip:
I posted it in response to Shawn saying that he bought some, asking him to be careful. Neither the comment I was replying to nor my comment mentioned Trump at all.
So is your accusation here fake news or an honest mistake on your part?
Shawn didn’t buy fishbowl cleaner.
Not my neighbor but
I don't know what he bought. And this seems like deflection. My posting the article had nothing to do with Trump.
I doubt that.
Specifically this tweet, and this article.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/axios/status/1242425467438858241?s=21[/tweet]
Gotcha. I just wanted to make sure it was clear it was tried and one person passed away as a result of doing it.
Along the same lines, isn't one of the drugs the active ingredient in Tonic water? Much diluted I get but I am just curious.
I can’t imagine the reasoning that went into eating/drinking fishbowl cleaner.
Yeah, I’ve heard that too about tonic water. Time to head out and buy a palette of it.
Nah, unless you get Vodka or Gin with it :wink:
Reduce globalism, protect the borders, scale down stupid foreign wars... pretty much what he promised. Gee, a politician who actually tries to meet his campain promises. Of course he is not perfect, but given that he is under round-the-clock attack from the media and power establishment, quite impressive. Others would have cracked. But of course, if you have consumed 4 years of CNN/NYT etc indoctrination for 4 years, you probably see a different reality.
You do realize that the tweet you mentioned and the subsequent "mainstream" media press coverage is a prime example of fake news? Trump of course NEVER recommended that anyone self-medicates with fish tank desinfectant.... but for the "mainstream" media there is level they are not willing to sink to. Truly the enemy of the people.
I apologize for impugning your motives.
Reduce globalism? And his wall isn’t built yet so the hordes of bad hombres are still invading our country!
https://www.alibaba.com/trade/search?fsb=y&IndexArea=product_en&CatId=&SearchText=hydroxychloroquin
https://my.indiamart.com/
You doubt that the ACA resulted in millions more Americans with health insurance?
Maybe, but at what cost? I was just pointing out that the concept of a giant bureaucracy mandating anything "affordable" by passing a 20,000 page package of new laws is laughable. Even the designers of that law admitted that it was designed to fail.... just meant as a stepping stone to socialed medicine. (Which you can defend, if you want.... just do not pretend that it is particularly affordable or efficient.)
Yeah, I know they all say that. And then I turn on CNN in the morrning and see the same talking points that I just read from the TDS crowd on social media. Been around long enough to know the pattern.
What criteria do you use to distinguish between TDS and legitimate criticism of Trump? How do you know when a person who has a negative even anti-trump perspective is motivated/caused by TDS?
If we are all sick, and ignorant of it, then why engage with us? It can't be the challenge because we are all so stupid, it's too easy. Neither side is getting anywhere with the other. There has got to be a personal motivation. Are you like NOS and just enjoy stirring the pot? You continually end with the same sweeping generalization that discounts any response. Do you just like feeling self-satisfied?
Dont know who "we" is but, confirmation bias and virtue signalling are human conditions.You are right, I should not waste time on social media, but by the same token, why do you continue to parrot the crap you hear on CNN on this site? It is not like you are going to convince a dissident, all you do is get browny points from your fellow echo chamber residents. So, same question.
I ask if the criticism makes sense or not. BS like blaming Trump when some morons drink fish tank desinfectant does not. Continue at will.
What kinda of criticisms make sense about Trump? Any examples?
It makes buying health insurance within reach for more Americans. In regard to efficiency, the US spends much more per capita than other developed countries, including those with socialized healthcare, and without better health outcomes, so I'm not sure what the point is in bringing that up.
I have been on this forum for four years and have only 135 posts. That means I read. Nobody knows me, I don't parrot, I don't watch CNN. And the only thing I continue to do is read. And this is a philosophy forum not Twitter. The goal is not to be smugly indefeasible. I won't bother you with it again.
Does this criticism make sense to you?
No. Didn´t read it in detail, but right off the bat I see so many loaded assumptions, it is clear this is another hit piece. And what else to expect from the Brookings Institute. Your next source is maybe the NYT?
Not getting bogged into details, but if you do not see the contradiction in a government claiming to be able to make things "affordable" by massive regulation and taxation. And as I reminded you, even the designer of this thing said that it was designed to fail.
I have criticised his initial Corona rethoric right here, remember? (The PR, not the actions.)
A little detail like the claim of "massive" taxation and regulation? I can see how that would get in the way. Affordable as in meaning that around 30 million Americans could afford to purchase health insurance, whereas before they could not afford it. Taxes increased for many, but not "massively."
I do not know the details of that thing, and I doubt that you do, seeing almost none of the people passed actually read it. (Remember Pelosi "we have to pass it to see what is in it"). I also remember that it only became legal after a Supreme Court judge decided to re-define the punishment for non-participants a "tax" (which proponents of the thing had denied it was), so right off the bat it was based on massive taxation by definition. And I remember that the designer of the thing admitted publicly that it was designed to fail and only meant as a stepping stone to ultimate state-run nationalized medicine, along the the lines of the NHS. I pointed that out to you several times, maybe the reading problem is on your side?
Anyway, my main point was only that any law claiming to make someting "affordable" is a contradiction in terms. You can not legislate affordability.
I pointed that out to you several times too, you seem to have missed that.
No, I do not remember that. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else. I don’t think we have interacted before.
About six years ago my wife and I were in a transition, moved to another state, and considered Obamacare between employers. It was affordable.
We ended up paying a minor penalty for being without insurance for a few months. Nothing anyone but a deranged lunatic would call “massive.”
Good for you. I do not see what your anecdotal evidence has to do with the basic points I made.
Well, it’s just an anecdote so let’s dismiss it.
I concede all of your fine points.
I do not know or care. Do you want to fact-check every frigging piece of trivia that some politician says? Or only DJT?
I do not know what your name-calling is about. I know the "mainstream" media slogan about Trump being a "liar", but everytime I partially checked some of those lists of lies, I only found distortions, misinterpretations or outright false claims.
The lies by the "mainstream" however have been non-stop, vicious, and dangerous, the last one being the claim that Trump asked people to drink fish tank desinfectant as a Corona cure. That was just beyond the pale. Completely disgusting. But while most media outlets have since retracted the claim, some just let it stand and changed the topic.
What is the worst lie that you are blaming Trump for?
Really?...what about this one:
Quoting tim wood
Lol you have a way with words, Tim, I’ll give you that. Trumpian, even.
I answered that. I do not know had the friggin "greatest" inauguration, and I do not care. Maybe his Majesty Barrack Obama had a greater inaugoration in your mind. Why is that relevant?
So is that the greatest, most profound "lie" that you can think of?
He may have learned it from our president.
So then, when you said, Quoting Nobeernolife
You just don't check most of them? Why would it be difficult to admit he lied in this case? You don't even need to do research. Sounds like a type of derangement syndrome. I wonder if anyone has talked about that as an actual thing?
Just a few of my favs:
Can't help thinking about this. You say it as though it's some sort of economic principle. I think it's a statement of values, like saying that a society cannot afford to feed its citizens when in fact it has the resources available to do so.
Name a few of the assumptions you find questionable.
[Quote]And what else to expect from the Brookings Institute. [/quote]
I expect thoughtful analysis by experts. I expect the same thing from the Cato Institute and American Enterprise institute. I don't always agree with them, but its worthwhile to hear alternative, educated perspectives. You seem dismissive of any perspective you disagree with. No wonder you're so devoted to a cartoonist.
Political hyperbole is not "lying". By that standard, all politicians lie, any time, all the time. So again, is that the greatest "lie" you can think of?
Many of the people in DACA, no longer very young, are far from ‘angels.’ Some are very tough, hardened criminals.
--> not a lie
I was the person who saved Pre-Existing Conditions in your healthcare.
--> needs context, looks like hyperbole
'Years of economic decay are over' because Trump 'reversed the failed economic policies of the previous administration.'
--> not a lie
Some of the Democrats have been talking about ending (coverage for) pre-existing conditions.
--> needs context, looks like hyperbole
In many places, like California, the same person votes many times. You probably heard about that. They always like to say 'oh that's a conspiracy theory.' Not a conspiracy theory, folks. Millions and millions of people.
--> not a lie
Over the last two years, the number of murders in America and America’s major cities has dropped, unlike here (Chicago), by more than 10%.
--> don´t know, sounds probably
Originally "almost all models predicted" Dorian would hit Alabama.
--> don´t know, needs context
California "admitted" there were "a million" illegal votes in the 2016 presidential election.
--> don´t know, sounds very plausible
There has never been, ever before, an administration that’s been so open and transparent.
--> not a lie
"The noise (from windmills) causes cancer.
--> probably nonsense, sounds like hyperbole.
Democrats let him (cop killer Luis Bracamontes) into our country," and "Democrats let him stay."--> not a lie
Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad," including Somalia and Ukraine.
--> not a lie
Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and the rest of the corrupt Democrats made a promise to their crazy left-wing base that they would impeach me even BEFORE I took office.
--> not a lie
Today I opened a major Apple Manufacturing plant in Texas that will bring high paying jobs back to America.
--> not a lie
So that is a list of the worst "lies" that you can think of? Thanks for making my point about the credibility of these lists.
Now do you have a comment about the vicious lies that the "mainstream" media tells us every day, from the claim that only CNN is allowed to read Wikileaks to staged muslim peace demonstrations, to "good people" Charleston lie to the "fish tank cleaner as miracle cure" lie? I only need to turn on CNN to see the lastes lies, day after day.
Why is it not lying? Is it ok for politicians to lie, some of the time or all the time? Do some politicians lie more than others?
Quoting Nobeernolife
Where and when did CNN use those exact words?
Quoting Nobeernolife
That just seems like political hyperbole, if it happened, which I doubt.
Quoting Nobeernolife
Trump's words are a matter of public record. Not a lie.
Quoting Nobeernolife
The thing they reported on happened, so based on your standard, not a lie.
Pretty good description of what people are regularly fed by CNN, the NYT and the rest of the so-called mainstream media.
How many have apologized for this fake Trump bashing news that was splattered all over recenty?
Simply saying “not a lie” is, quite frankly, beyond idiotic. Those lies were cut and pasted from politifact.org and I could cut and paste the facts they list to support them, but why bother, facts are irrelevant to a Trump supporter. That’s the point you make.
Regarding hyperbole, disinformation is intentionally false or misleading information that is spread in a calculated way to deceive target audiences. An exaggeration occurs when the most fundamental aspects of a statement are true, but only to a certain degree. Trump’s lies target people like yourself and are strategic in nature. Only a fool can’t see that.
I can almost guarantee that most antitrumpist news has been curated for them by the gatekeepers of their respective bubbles, whether on twitter or reddit or on whatever social media they find themselves entirely among their fellow travellers. Any news that may reflect favorably on the president is wholly excluded, or worse, suppressed, so it is no strange wonder much of their thinking reflects the same.
To be fair, this is also true of Trumpist bubbles, but the frequency of those are almost negligible as far as I can tell.
Seriously, when you make such a statement, it just sounds like you're parrotting Trump. Michael was referring to the original definition of "fake news" - falsehoods that get widely circulated. Trump uses the term to refer to unfavorable coverage. Avoid conflating the two, and you could then have productive conversations. If CNN is spreading actual falsehoods, that's something I want to know about. I'm also fine hearing about positive things Trump's done that CNN omitted. But be willing to discuss both the good and the bad.
In my experience its about the same, the fringe on both sides unless you include the media and even then the anti-trump or pro trump media both equally remain mostly on the same message. (Though it seems to me the anti-trump/left media has a wider reach. Im just not sure too many people really care what mainstream media says anymore, they just act like people do. Also, I consider right news programs to be mainstream, mainstream on the right.).
One problem is that to many anti-trump people think anyone who voted for Trump (or the vast majority) are the same people as the fringe who voted for Trump. They do not realise that a lot of people who voted for Trump are not all that much different than they are. Just ordinary people who voted for who they think is better, or stuck to voting for party over candidate. (And various other, normal reasons for voting for Trump). Thats why they will lose again, and Trump will be elected again. The deciding votes are these ghost people that anti-Trump people dont really believe exist so completely ignore them (or worse, specifically mischaracterise or alienate them as racist, bigoted etc etc).
Anyway, bubbles. I think that at least a certain kind of bubble (a sub-bubble) is mirrored by both sides.
Most Trumpists, other than yourself of course, keep to themselves because they know that to publicly support Trump requires blatant lying and a display of dishonesty. You seem to have no conscience.
I keep to myself because your fellow travellers are violent and have a tendency to sucker punch and spit on others.
If you have to say you are you usually ain't. That's something you have to prove. Unfortunately I have yet to be sold on anything you've ever tried to put into words on this subject. It reeks to me of fanaticism and veiled persecution, but luckily for us pigs, I know they come from a place so effete and weak and empty that I can hardly be bothered to take them seriously. In fact they've become a mild source for humor, like the funny pages.
You hate the lie and the liar while you generalize about millions of people you've never met: your peers, your neighbors, your countrymen. You emphasize the bad while suppressing the good. You can do little more than levy false accusations—lies. It becomes pitifully clear you've become what you hate.
It seems you don't live in your own world.
All politicians spout political hyperbole. If you count that as "lying", they all lie all the time. Now lies I that I am concerned about are lies that have catastrophic results, such as the lie that the Bengazi jihadis were a popular, democratic uprising against Gaddafi. For examople.
Quoting Echarmion
Surprisingly, it is still on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQllunHssEk
You might want to check before rushing to the keyboard
Quoting Echarmion
The original complete clip has been removed by Youtube and Twitter (what a surprise), but you can still find parts of it. Watch it tell us how truthful CNN is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g62_UMiv6wY
Quoting Echarmion
He said "good people on both sides" about the pro/anti statue protesters, and NOT about the neonazis. Very clearly. Which you would know if you actually read the transcript, instead of listening to the fake media lies. The fake media narrative is a total lie, and one of the most shameful ones.
Quoting Echarmion
No, it did NOT. Trump NEVER recommended drinking fish tank cleaner, like these two idiots did.
The misrepresentation by the Guardian et al is patently fake news.
That is exactly what I was referring to also.
Quoting Relativist
You can find that very esily all the time, if you compare CNN coverage with the original footage of what they cover. Of course, if you stay inside the CNN/BBC/Guardian/NYT echo chamber, you always hear the same opinion narrative.
Give me some notable examples of CNN spreading falsehoods. I want to understand what you'rw talking about.
Oh, so if they just report the weather today, that's also "hyperbole"?
Quoting Nobeernolife
Or lying about having a dangerous epidemic under control while it is in fact spreading uninhibited across the country?
Quoting Nobeernolife
Nowhere in that video does it say that only CNN is allowed to read WikiLeaks. Is what the person is saying a lie? How about you go ahead and prove it? Or are you the liar here?
Quoting Nobeernolife
That video actually proves the protest wasn't staged. Only a specific view on the protest was created. We could call it an "alternate protest". This really just is media showmanship. Everyone does it all the time. I just care about actual, damaging lies. Like lying about climate change. If that's the best you can offer, I think I was right all along.
Quoting Nobeernolife
Sorry, dude, but that's just like, your opinion. Opinions aren't facts, and having one isn't lying. You got nothing here.
Quoting Nobeernolife
Show me the report that said that Trump recommended drinking fish tank cleaner. Or the report saying the guy did exactly what Trump recommended. It's all just a narrative in your head.
A good example is “pussygate”. I felt like the incident was pretty thoroughly misreported on CNN and most other media. First, they left out what proceeded his actual pussy grabbing comment which was “...when youre a celebrity, they LET you do whatever you want” or something close to that. That part is always left out and clipped so it can be misrepresented as sexual predation. Within a week it went from suggesting it meant he thought it was fun to sexually assault women to calling him an admitted rapist.
It seemed pretty dishonest to me, and was spreading a falsehood.
Another common thing I see is the conflation of jokes or hyperbole as factual claims. They do it all the time, going with the worst possible interpretation of something Trump said. I mean, I get it, Trump will hide behind hyperbole or jokes or actually lie but thats exactly why its so important not to tell lies or misrepresent what he said. Once you do that, people can say the media is misrepresenting or lying and be totally correct. Then Trump can call it fake news, and be 100% right. This provides cover for the actual problematic things he says and does.
I mean, you can pretty much say anything about Trump and no one questions it. Calling him a Nazi, a racist, a narcissistic sociopath...and no one questions it. If just one of those terms is inaccurate or has no evidential basis then I would call it a falsehood.
Im not saying its only with Trump, news is such a click baiting wasteland its full of this kinda thing and an place like Fox will spread falsehoods in the opposite direction but to say that Trump isnt misrepresented or lied about by the media seems clearly untrue to me.
I heard the entire audio on CNN, and it included everything you said. No one has ever suggested that this isolated clip shows he's a sexual predator, but it does add context to the looooong list of sexual misconduct : he's cheated on every wife he's ever had numerous times (including Melania shortly after giving birth); there are numerous allegations of unwelcome sexual advances; he felt entitled to visit the Miss Universe contestants while they were dressing....the list goes on. His behavior toward women is indefensible. If you don't accept that, then you're burying your head in the sand.
Quoting DingoJones
Trump utters an enormous number of falsehoods.
Some are downright lies (intentional untruths), some are repeating nonsense he's heard from idiots like Alex Jones, some is just pure stupidity, and yes- some is hyperbole, and much of that is inappropriate (e.g. telling police officers it's ok to rough up the people they arrest). Is it CNN's job to analyze each false utterance and discern which category they belong to? Discerning fact from fiction seems sufficient, and Trump could avoid the negative interpretations if he'd strive to make factual statements.
Nevertheless, I see the difference between opinion and facts. My steady diet of CNN has not impaired that. Contrast that with die-hard Trump supporters who are in denial of any negative reporting about Trump. I can respect a Trump supporter who likes his policies, if they are realistic about what sort if man he is. I have zero respect for someone who make excuses for everything he does.
So there was a group of protesters supporting the removal and a group against, and the neo-nazis just happened to be in the neighborhood attending a home decor tiki torch convention or something?
You asked for an example of him being misrepresented in the news, which I provided. Whether it fits an overall narrative about Trump is another matter. Just because someone does something wrong doesn't mean that you can freely make up more instances of that something and claim they are true.
Quoting Relativist
Lol, yes! That is their job, not going “we hate this guy, lets just go with close enough”. Its actually very important to get it as accurate as possible, to recognise distinctions between lies, errors, ignorance etc.
Those are important distinctions and again, not being accurate or open about those distinctions is costly for any kind of anti-trump agenda. It plays into his hands, it lets him accurately claim “fake news”, which obscures the truth and any lies Trump actually does tell. It allows Trump To muddy the waters.
Quoting Relativist
Well I didnt say you couldnt tell the difference between opinion and facts, nor suggested CNN impairs your judgement. It might, I dont really know.
I said they lie about Trump, and mischaracterise Trump. To use your term, they spread falsehoods. Thats what I interjected to discuss.
Your stance on Trump supporters is noted, but I am not a Trump supporter. I dont even live in the US.
Quoting DingoJones
Distinguishing truths from untruths is generally objective. Trying decipher what kind of untruth it was is subjective. Personally, I think it's a mistake to label all untruths "lies", but that's what's done on all sides. Obama was charged with making the "lie of the year" when he said we could keep our current health insurance. It was not a statement he made to intentionally mislead; it was an inaccurate prediction and therefore in hindsight, it was an untruth. In politics, all untruths get labeled "lies" - that's just the way it is. That's not different with Trump; the only thing that's different with him is the sheer quantity. And because the quantity is so enormous, Trump supporters delude themselves by cherry picking some statements that were not intentional lies, and then complain Trump is picked on.
Who called him an "admitted rapist"? Some opinion piece somewhere? Have a source for that?
Quoting DingoJones
Isn't it entirely possible it's mostly lies, and claiming it's anything else is "muddying the waters"? How could anyone possibly know with certainty which statements are intentional and which are accidental lies?
Quoting DingoJones
Wait. You just said how very important it is to distinguish between lies, repeating nonsense, hyperbole etc. And here you are, claiming all they do is lie. Why don't you apply your own standard to them and try to analyse each statement in detail?
If at any time they didn't play that important part of the recording for context it was a falsehood. It gives the condemnable words context, and without them it sounds worse. Leaving it out so it sounds worse is spreading a falsehood.
Anyway, I watch CNN too. I dont hate CNN. I realise now that I should have been more clear about how general I was being, its not CNN constantly spreading misinformation, its the media in general. (Of which CNN is part of and guilty on occasion.
As far as general judgement of his character, that a lie reflects someones true character doesnt mean its not a lie. If a guy is a thief, its still not ok to lie about him stealing something. If someones a dirtbag, you still shouldn't lie to make them look like more of a dirtbag.
Not offhand no, it was a story about how that audio was an admission of guilt for sexual assault and I saw it referenced elsewhere (re-reported). Sorry, cant recall exactly.
Quoting Echarmion
I dont know, and I didnt say anything about certainty did I? Im not someone who things many things can be certain.
Quoting Echarmion
I didnt say all they do is lie. Is that what you read in the part you quoted? I said “they lie”. If I say “they sleep” does that mean thats all they do? Lol
I love how you started with”Wait”. Lol. Was that a big gotchya moment?
And I do apply the same standard to them. I try to apply the same standards to everyone, where context permits of course.
Regardless, you failed to specify. You went straight from "it's not 100% accurate" to "it's a lie". Yet you complained that all of Trumps inaccurate statements are treated as lies. That seems like a double standard to me.
Quoting DingoJones
It seems a very odd hill to choose to die on. Most media outlets have some political bias. Almost all of them have a significant economic bias. There are plenty stories that go unheard or are badly mangled by the media. When it comes to inaccuracies in major news outlets, Trump is the last thing I'd worry about. The misrepresentations about Trump are just incredibly minor compared to some of the other shit that goes on.
It only seems like a double standard because of your low reading comprehension. Ive already explained this failure on your part but evidently you didnt understand that either.
Quoting Echarmion
Its not a hill im dying on, not all opinions, comments or disagreements are hills to die upon. Get a grip.
Anyway, last word is yours, we are done here.
I think the exact terminology was that trump was “bragging about sexual assault”. This isn’t true, but it no less was the dogma at the time and likely still is.
Right, and it was repeated and exaggerated. Thats an example of spreading falsehoods in my books.
Right. So when there is smoke there is not necessarily fire. It could be something else. Or perhaps there is no smoke that you can see. Or maybe there is not enough smoke . Any consideration of there being a fire should be rejected as rash speculation because other possibilities exist.
Non-sequitor, i was providing an example of news spreading falsehoods about Trump not a reference to Trumps character. Im not rejecting anything as rash speculation, nor suggesting anyone else do so. This was actually addressed above anyway, if you're following along.
Right...the words taken out of context sound worse than warranted by in the context of his total conversation. And that conversation just sounds like an anomaly if you ignore the context of his general behavior toward women.
No one got a false impression about Trump's character. Trumpists like you nitpick to avoid confronting that reality. Trump is a rude, arrogant, mysogynist asshole. Embrace the policies you like, but stop fooling yourself about his character.
See it really seems like a blind spot for you, and Im not trying to be a prick. Im a Trumpist?! I imagine we mostly agree on what kind of character the man shows, had you bothered to ask. How could you know im fooling myself about his character when Ive expressed so very little about it? Sorry, but I think you are assuming alot about me just because I noticed that media, including CNN, have spread falsehoods about Trump.
Honestly, Im not trying to be antagonistic but thats fairly well out of line to call me a Trumpist. You have no real basis for that claim, except that we apparently disagree the news has spread falsehoods about Trump. So ask yourself why you made these baseless assumptions, and how it might be a problem when discussing this topic.
Anyway, I think my original point still stands.
Just curious because if you take a brief look across the Atlantic ‘lockdowns’ are not exactly being touted as a terrible idea.
Remember ‘a broken clock is correct twice a day’.
Animal Farm:
A Fairy Story.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/03/trump-blames-hospitals-for-coronavirus-mask-shortages.html
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
-Unknown, sometimes attributed to Swift
"The darkness knows neither the light nor itself; only the light knows itself and the darkness also."
George Macdonald
[I]"President Trump is a ratings hit. Since reviving the daily White House briefing Mr. Trump and his coronavirus updates have attracted an average audience of 8.5 million on cable news, roughly the viewership of the season finale of ‘The Bachelor.’ Numbers are continuing to rise..."[/i]
-- March 29, Trump's twitter
No need to obsess on infection rates and the potential for overwhelming our healthcare system. Instead let's cheer his ratings success! Way to go, Donald!
He says it is illegal for unwashed to read Wikileaks. But he at CNN can.
If you had seen the original raw footage (removed by Youtube) you would see the Hollywood production that CNN staged, complete with directions and pre-printed placards. Still the link I posted show some of it.
Nope, not an opinion. If you read the transcript, you clearly see that Trump was talking about good people on both sides of the monumet debate, not on both sides of the neonazi / antineonazi fights. This is a blatant lie by CNN, and one of the most despiccable ones.
An honest title would have been "2 idiots die from drinking fish tank cleaner". Instead of that, the fake media turned that into something like "people die from following Trumps Corona medicine recommendation" (not verbatim, but different variations of that). Trump had said that Hydroxychloroquinine could be a "game changer", which it is. He NEVER said people should drink fish tank desinfectant contining Chloroquininesulpate, with "NOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION" printed on the package.
I do not either, by the way, but the Trump hatred is pretty much the same among the Western globalist media. On a related note, a Rasmussen poll just showed that only democratic voters believe that most reporters are simply trying to report the news in a non-biased fashion. This is so not surprising!
Stop wasting our time and read the transcript.
NY health care executive fired over posts on coronavirus and Trump supporters
It was a neo-nazi and white supremacist rally organized by Richard Spencer and Jason Kessler. To say that there are good people on both sides is to say that these are good people.
Trump is unable to condemn part of his base. It’s just that simple, I’m afraid.
No. He says it's illegal to own classified documents. Which may well be true. Unless you can prove its false - not a lie.
Quoting Nobeernolife
Isn't it convenient that your supposed evidence is removed? Anyways the guy in the interview you linked confirms there was actually a protest ongoing. I am just applying your own standards here - not a lie.
Quoting Nobeernolife
I did read the transcript. Just before he makes the comment, he talks about "the left" attacking "the other group". It's a matter of interpretation what he was talking about, but it certainly makes sense to assume that "both sides" here means "the left" and "the other side" fighting on that particular day. Your interpretation isn't fact. It's not a lie just because you disagree.
Quoting Nobeernolife
So? The media uses headlines that get attention. All the media does it. The headlines weren't lies, they just used [I] hyperbole [/I]. According to you, that makes it alright.
Quoting Nobeernolife
I guess if you had an article from, say, CNN stating "Trump literally encouraging people to drink fish tank disinfectant", you'd have a point. But you don't, do you?
Isn't it frustrating when your own bullshit comes back to bite you?
He said:
"And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly."
So clearly you did not not read the transcript. Well, maybe making fake claims if par for the course for believers of the fake media. Anyway, I am not your babysitter. Do your own homework. Just stop lying.
Yes, he did. As an answer to a different question, talking about a different group. After making the "both sides" statement. Which of course I would not know, had I not read the transcript. You're flailing around now. Your initial claim was CNN was lying. Now it's "well but Trump also said". Makes you look pretty weak.
The "both sides" refers to pro and anti statue. And I don´t know how much clearer you can get than "and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists".
I would have made a snarky remark about your reading comprehension, but after watching a few of Dr. Karlyn Borysenko video, I am starting to understand the TDS sufferers better. With your distorted filter, you really do see a different world than those of us who are not afflicted. Hope you get better sometime.
No it doesn't. But we both know we can play this game forever, since you cannot prove that is what he meant, and neither can I. Unfortunately for you, you made the initial claim that CNN was lying, a claim you have failed to defend.
Quoting Nobeernolife
You know, the funny thing is that I knew perfectly well you'd pick up that one line about what Trump meant and try to debate me on it. I wondered if I should delete it, because it'd just give you an opportunity to change the topic to something where you can at least make some semblance of a plausible argument. But I figured you'd focus on it regardles, because clearly the injustice burns brightly in your heart. Talk about derangement syndrome.
Anyways, just as a reminder: You didn't manage to defend any of your other supposed "lies" either. Perhaps you'd need to be more strict about truth and falsehood, but then of course a lot of the stuff Trump does would suddenly no longer be defensible...
Your sophistry does not turn lies into true statements.
On a related note, I am just reading that opinion research shows that only democratic voters believe that most reporters are simply trying to report the news in a non-biased fashion.
I am NOT surprised....
https://t.co/NDMKltU8Su
Nowhere in the link you provided does it say a word about Democrat v. Republican voters. Can you provide a Rasmussen quote for non-subscribers?
And your continued lack of a substantive response speaks for itself.
But yes, I was doing sophistry. I think it did a fine job of illustrating the absurdity of your standards for truth and lies. Also I won, which [I]is[/I] nice.
Quoting Nobeernolife
And I am not surprised you repeatedly post the same thing because you apparently are so happy about it.
You can see a snapshot of the relevant question on the Rasmussen Twatter page, unless the censors have removed it already:
https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1244240182930550784
Specifically only in relation to Trump and specifically in relation to helping to block or pass his agenda. Hardly a surprise that more Republicans think the media is trying to block Trump's agenda, is it? So this:
Quoting Nobeernolife
is a lie. You presented no evidence for the above. But this is typical of the right-wing Reddit brigade, lie, lie, lie and then blame CNN and the MSM for spreading fake news.
What's even worse about this lie is that according to the very same research you now linked to, a plurality of Dems don't trust the political news they are getting, which strongly implies that in general, they don't believe that most reporters are simply trying to report the news in a non-biased fashion. Exactly the opposite of your claim.
The wording in the survey was problematic. These 2 questions were asked:
[i]1* Do you trust the political news you are getting?
2* When they write or talk about President Trump, are most reporters trying to help the president pass his agenda, block the president from passing his agenda, or are they simply interested in reporting the news in an unbiased manner?[/i]
Consider a Democrat who believes political news reporting is not fully trustworthy. (answers "no" to the first question), but does not believe "most reporters" are either helping to pass, nor helping to block, Trump's agenda AND they believe there is some bias in the media.
There's plenty of bias in the media, in both political directions but also in terms of sensationalism. That bias toward sensationalism helped Trump get elected: every bombastic thing he said as a candidated received air-time.
It's a stupidly worded survey. But it's not too difficult to disentangle the two questions.
A. The first is a general question and the second is specifically about Trump.
B. The first asks about whether the news is trustworthy in a general sense. The second asks about pro and anti-Trump bias for the specific purposes of passing or blocking Trump's agenda.
There is zero issue with not trusting political news in general but not believing that most reporters are actively trying to block or pass Trump's agenda.
For example:
1) It's possible to mistrust the majority of political news but still trust the majority of news about Trump.
2) It's possible to mistrust the majority of news and mistrust the majority of news about Trump but still not believe that the majority of journalists are actively biased one way or the other against Trump.
3) It's possible to mistrust the majority of news and mistrust the majority of news about Trump and even believe that the majority of journalists are actively biased one way or the other against Trump, but still not believe that they are trying to help block or pass his agenda.
Etc.
Stop filibustering, tell us what you really think of Trump
Me too buddy, me too.
Time for a song from the auld country, then.
:rofl:
“For the purpose of creating conflict and confusion, some in the Fake News Media are saying that it is the Governors decision to open up the states, not that of the President of the United States & the Federal Government. Let it be fully understood that this is incorrect....” Mr Trump wrote on Twitter. “...It is the decision of the President, and for many good reasons.”
Never mind about the dead people, Trump's dick is bigger than the governors' dicks. Everything got that? Ok, carry on.
Let him sign each one of them! That might keep him out of trouble for a while.
Steele Dossier Disinformation Update
New evidence that the FBI was duped by Russian intelligence.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/steele-dossier-disinformation-update-11586897258
Footnotes in watchdog report indicate FBI knew of risk of Russian disinformation in Steele dossier
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/footnotes-in-watchdog-report-indicate-fbi-knew-of-risk-of-russian-disinformation-in-the-steele-dossier/
Not looking good for the FBI and Russian collusion conspiracy theorists.
It’s the art of the deal. “Never take anything off the table”. Trump likes to tout his power and authority for leverage and ambiguity in deal making. His actions prove otherwise in this instance. He has operated according to federalist principles: supporting the states in their efforts, providing funds and assets where needed.
He said he has total authority, though. He is very deluded.
Just a couple of days ago he was saying the exact opposite, that he doesn't, because of the constitution. It's all just bullshit. He doesn't know what he's saying or what he means. He's just a child.
That’s certainly debatable.
It’s the Art of The Con, and you appear to have bought it hook, line, and sinker.
It is chilling to know that the president has powers not even congress knows about. Trump could be referring to those. Let’s hope we do not see them during this crisis.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/opinion/trump-coronavirus-emergency-powers.html
I’m pretty sure you’ve used that one before.
That's naive. The Republicans in the Senate would turn a blind eye just as they've already done.
This doesn't make any sense. The President has whatever powers the Constitution and the laws allow, and there are no secret laws or secret parts of the Constitution. The Eisenhower administration can't have just made up new powers.
I was just relaying the article. Are there such powers? I don’t know.
More from the article:
When a reporter pointedly asked who made the ad, Trump replied that it was made by a few people in his administration, apparently oblivious to the fact that it’s illegal to use public resources for campaign purposes.
Yeah, it was awesome. It’s a lazy stretch to say it was a campaign ad. Government propaganda? Perhaps.
The government can plan any executive orders it likes but they'd be invalid unless "authorized by the Constitution or laws of the United States"[sup]1[/sup]
And having proposals for legislation that Congress doesn't know about doesn't mean anything. They'd have to be put forward to Congress and voted on for them to apply and at that point they'd be powers that Congress knows about and have granted.
[sup]1[/sup] Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)
Campaign ad, propaganda... potato, potato.
I don’t know if that’s the case or not without seeing the classified documents.
Again, a lazy stretch.
Good bye.
It was just declassified. And it shows the FBI knew Steele was perhaps dealing in Russian disinformation, which I suspect you believed. So yes it is news, and yes it is important.
So yeah, as usual you fail to see the forest for the trees.
Horowitz has no power of subpoena, so based on what they told him, sure that is the case. Durham, who does have the power and who is by now deep into the investigation, disagreed. So once again you’re setting yourself up for failure.
Trump has always been oblivious to a lot of things. Like that the FBI has as one of it's core missions to keep a watch on the actions of hostile foreign intelligence services in US. Who could have known?
Several weeks later:
I never thought that leopards would eat MY face!!!!
For some laughs
Trump claims that he has absolute authority over Governors. How is that consistent with federalist principles?
Federalism does not serve us well in this pandemic. Consider the ventilator problem: if each state is on its own, this creates two problems: 1) the states compete with each other for a scarce resource, ensuring winners and losers, and driving up the price.2) each state has to manage for its own peak needs. Add together 50 peak requirements is bound to be considerably higher than the national peak, because the peaks will not be concurrent.
It’s the art of the deal. “Never take anything off the table”. Trump likes to tout his power and authority for leverage and ambiguity in deal making. His actions prove otherwise in this instance. He has operated according to federalist principles: supporting the states in their efforts, providing funds and assets where needed.
I think you’re probably right on that. A federalist government does not serve us well in this pandemic. All the more reason why we should not depend on the federal government and expect more from our state governments.
Apparently most people havent noticed, that unless people are asking for money, virtually all people do online is insult others these days, except one minor exception: publicity media fan groups and party political groups, in which, unless one totally agrees with everything presented, one gets banned. Either one is not allowed to argue at all or no one is interested unless you're rude.
It used not to be like this. People used to be able to talk kindly to each other even when they disagreed. It just seems not to be possible any more. Just about anywhere about anything, including here. The most annoying thing is, even people who dont like Trump are behaving just like him too, so its difficult for a rational person to do anything.
Well that was my final thought. I have respiratory health problems, quite alot of pain, and probably will not be around much longer. My family are delighted. They call to find out if I am dead yet so they can get my estate, so now I have to hire an attorney to protect myself from my family too. I was thinking of shortening the process by suicide but thankfully it appears covid19 will do that for me. Apparenlly alot of people have real probllems accepting death is a natural part of life. I thought forums like this were meant to help with that kind of thing, but they've just become about bashing other people. t. Hope you all have a very nice day.
Sit around digesting this stuff all day and you're going to become stressed. If it is calm interaction you're after, find or create an intentionally quiet corner, and ask for reciprocity when and where necessary.(the tone of your own posts can easily determine the nature of responses).
This is one of the most stressful periods in human history in terms of absolute numbers. Never before have so many molecules of cortisol flowed through the veins of this many great apes. Obviously this is going to go to our heads; before deciding one's self rational, it's perhaps relevant to consider how experimental and fragile our rationality is in the first place.
I'm sorry to hear about your present state of depression though. I wish you a nice day as well...
When I got a Commodore 64 at 21,. I saw enormlus potential, and it was true, clock speeds went from 5mhz to multiple ghz while I was working, creating enormous changes in society. But now it feels like everything is exactly the same as two recessions ago, like a vinyl record stuck on a groove, except theres more people who dont know what to do with themselves and the world has to keep inventing new things for them to do. Security and the war against terrorism worked for a while, but now we pretty much ran out of terrorists too. and people, pressed against the walls of life by their own vacuity, are reverting to infighting and increasingly hostile tribal behavior. And the problem I see is, there is nothing, nothing at all, to reverse the trend for the si gnificant majoroity. Thats what I observe. I have taken my blog offline, no one did anything except make rude jokes about headlines, and canceled my other social media accounts/.
I would suggest a reading group here, but Im sad to say someone else would have to run it. Im not really good at moderating all this tribal behavior. I always found I could rely on other people to do that before, but now it seems there isnt anyone left who can do that, everyone's got sucked into this 'they are wrong, what fools they are, and how right I am jajajaja' thing.
Hypocrisy again.
He was not supporting the states when he said it was entirely their responsibility to obtain ventilators they felt they needed. He later complained that some governors were asking for too many. It's not because anyone's stupid, it's because everyone's on their own in trying to figure out how to estimate their needs. The smart thing would have been to take on a coordination role as early as possible. The only thing he's done consistently from the beginning is to cast blame) and claim credit. At a time when strong, effective leadership is needed, he makes it about him.
Quoting NOS4A2
That sounds contradictory. I suggest that the lesson is that a dogmatic view of federalism is problematic. It may be best in some cases to leave things to the state, but this demonstrates there are other cases when it is not.
There's a reading group already that you can join. And online discourse just isn't discourse 99% of the time. Especially in politics. I stick around for that 1%though.
https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/banana-republic-trump-threatens-to-unilaterally-suspend-congress-20200416-p54kaq.html
This 'mention' of course coming from the piece of shit leader who left government positions vacant for months if not years and now wants to blame it on congress. Not unlike his move to blame the WHO for his own shitty job. Not that anyone should be surprised by his total avoidance of any responsibility at all. His equally piece of shit supporters will likely find excuses of too course, as they have been this whole time.
Seems like rubbish anyway.
They've already agreed on Jan 3rd being the adjournment date.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/DatesofSessionsofCongress.htm
https://history.house.gov/Institution/Session-Dates/110-Current/
I saw this in the related news the other day, "First ever iceberg wearing a bad wig found on large landmass situated between Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic oceans".
But it's precisely that faith which ought to be broken: the entire system is broken, and it's not simply because of this one man. Personalization is de-politicization and entrenches existing politics rather than arguing for a change.
Yet I think the worst is this: the disturbing classist overtones that saturate writing like that: "no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace" - i.e. Trump does not display the correct markers of class: well educated, articulate, polished, etc. Ultimately: 'Trump is not one of 'us' (who, by contrast, are articulate, witty, charming, etc)". Like, do people know what kind of privilege it takes to fit this image properly? And again - as if this were the issue. No one gave a shit when Obama blew up hospitals in the Middle-East because he was so charming.
Trump of course is a joke. But taking that joke seriously misses precisely the seriousness of the situation. Writing like that is self-affirming, feel-good cathartic fodder for middling liberals. The smell of self-satisfaction reeks off of it. It's a deeply shameful, embarrassing piece of writing that illuminates more about the writer than it does of Trump. As if anything written there is news to anyone - of course it's not. It's just libidinal, orgiastic discharge, nothing more.
Quoting StreetlightX
Some of us did. Indeed a certain person of colour in my own household was extremely critical before that, on reading his rather weak autobiography. And it was based firmly on a judgement of character. The problem with any hierarchical system from monarchy to democracy is two-fold that kings, presidents advisors and functionaries can be incompetent and/or malicious. So the character of the person at the top is always significant, and in a democracy is more so intimately bound up with the character of the people.
And that is where I am critical.
[quote=an articulate and witty writer]Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.[/quote]
No they are not. They are a vicious, ignorant, and sentimental folk. Just like us. And we fall for the same kind of bloated bluff con man. Which is a deep fault of the culture, deeper than 'the system'.
Culture is an object of social reproduction and does not spring ex nihilo out of nowhere. Culture is shallow, fragile and anemic, not deep, and it is all the more visciously defended and contested because of its shallowness. The person at the top is significant, but significant as a barometer, nothing more.
To be fair the WHO fucked up in a huge way:
https://www.bangkokpost.com/world/1848369/china-travel-bans-spread-despite-who-advice
None of that is to say each government shouldn’t do their own investigations into the matter. That was the WHO’s position late Jan, early Feb - luckily many countries ignored them. I seem to remember China saying to Italy something along the lines of ‘Lockdown now. What you’re doing isn’t enough’.
That said, mistakes happen. When mistakes lead to tens of thousands of deaths then it seems tame to call it a ‘mistake’ given that the WHO should’ve been on top of this.
Actually there is a significant number of things which Obama did, that many Americans disagreed with, consequently tarnishing his image in their eyes. An important one was his sustained attack on whistleblowers through the use of the espionage act; culminating in the Snowden affair.
Right, it was an explanation of why some Brits dislike the man, so of course it says a lot about the writer. It actually doesn’t illuminate anything about Trump. What the writer mentions has always been painfully obvious.
It seems to me that the bigger problem is in how such a person could be elected. That problem won’t go away anytime soon, but meanwhile, it may serve a less than shameful purpose to express solidarity in our shared dislike of dogshit.
Some times I really wonder about your capacity to read, tim wood. Why did you ask me this question? I gave you an example right there in the post which you replied to, and it wasn't a long post, like you might have skipped that part. The example was Obama's attack on whistle blowers, through the use of the espionage act. Google it if you are interested, and maybe in your research you'll uncover other things which Obama did that people were unhappy with. There's a problem with having high expectations for someone, and that is that you're bound to be let down, because no one's perfect.
Quoting Benkei
The final straw came when an US air attack targeted and killed Pakistani border guards at Gora Prai. Pakistan refused after that (if I remember correctly) any supply routes going through their country or using their aerospace (and afterwards US forces in Afghanistan were supplied by air from Romania). Yet as this happened in 2008, I guess that it still was Dubya's administration. But these attacks (or incidents) where the US has killed Pakistani troops have continued during the Obama years with the deadliest incident happening in 2011. Between 2008-2012 as many as 42 Pakistani soldiers were killed by the US.
Hence White's piece, while superficial about Trump, is also a list of the failings of a culture.
There is much to praise in a culture with an unprecedented genius for innovation, and I watch the unfolding cataclysm with fascinated horror. If one would understand what went wrong, one might start by looking at the failings of the person chosen to embody that culture.
Not that it would have mattered that much insofar as Trump repeatedly ignored the WHO even after the latter got their act together. Whatever the case, Trump's attack on the WHO has nothing to do with merit - as if anything he does is - and everything to do with looking for a scapegoat in order to better shift blame from Mr. I'm-Not-Reponsible-For-Anything-At-All.
The legality of the acts is not the issue. The issue is whether some people who supported him disliked these activities.
Quoting tim wood
He applied the espionage act numerous times against whistleblowers.
Quoting tim wood
I happen to know two completely unacquainted people who cited this as something they did not like about Obama, people who otherwise liked him.
Quoting tim wood
What's there to show? Either you believe me that he turned off otherwise friendly faces with these actions, or you don't. If you don't believe me, I really don't care.
Quoting unenlightened
Hoover.
Accuse me of racism again on the basis of a post that has nothing to do with race and I will [##############]
Lecture me about knowing my history. Wanker.
"To his most hopeful followers, Obama’s unique gift was being able to turn soaring statements of principle into simple truths of politics, marrying a national inheritance of social movements from below to a plainspoken pragmatism from above. There was something to that view, but it never reckoned with the fact that Obama’s radicalism was, from the very beginning, bound up with a narrow notion of what politics was about. His was a vision less of power than of process, the culmination of twenty years of political theory journals where democracy was deliberation and deliberation was democracy. Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan won election by promising to crush a systemic social malignancy: the slaveocracy, economic royalists, a parasitic class of liberal elites. Unlike these transformative presidents of left and right, Obama disavowed any structural transformations of society or the economy. Even when it came to race, as Obama’s most electrifying speech (on Jeremiah Wright) made clear, his vision of change was almost completely divorced from the social bases of power. His goal was to help both sides understand each other, to make our conversations better.
... As men and women watched their life savings go up in smoke and their homes disappear into foreclosure, Obama hailed the “power” of the market, declaring in his first inaugural address that capitalism’s capacity “to generate wealth and expand freedom” was “unmatched.” Encouraging free enterprise and rewarding individual initiative, he said in his 2013 State of the Union address, was the “unfinished task” of government. That was the positive vision. Just as often, he was reminding the left and reassuring the right of his belief in the limitations of government. Even as he affirmed his commitment to enforcing federal laws against discrimination, he was convinced “that a transformation of conscience and a genuine commitment to diversity on the part of the nation’s CEOs could bring about quicker results than a battalion of lawyers.” His famous phrase, “Hard things are hard,” which was made into a plaque he kept on his desk, was not a reference to the Affordable Care Act, as is commonly believed. According to top strategist David Axelrod, it was a reference to entitlement cuts, to Obama’s genuine desire to impose some kind of austerity on Social Security and Medicare in return for a deal with the Republicans on taxes and the debt. Thankfully, the Republicans refused it.
... Obama’s public philosophy: a moral minimalism that rendered him not so much ill-prepared for a fight with the Republicans as ideologically indisposed to the very idea of a fight. “Yes we can” was a sonorous but empty phrase: yes we can what? When Obama got concrete, he might stay in that register of grandness—there was that moment when the rise of the oceans would begin to slow, and so on—but more often than not he opted for unapologetic avowals of smallness. “The true genius of America,” he told the DNC in 2004, is “an insistence on small miracles; that we can tuck in our children at night and know that they are fed and clothed and safe from harm.” No one-off, that turn to the slight but simple truth of children being safe was a recurring theme of Obama’s presidency, arguably its epistemological ground. “There’s only one thing we can be sure of,” he said after Sandy Hook, “and that is the love that we have for our children. . . . The warmth of a small child’s embrace, that is true.” These were not just comforting words to a grief-stricken nation. They emanated from the idiom of bare life, the wariness of deep foundations that had come to characterize liberalism in the wake of the New Deal order and the end of the Cold War.
In retrospect, it seems obvious that such a smallness of vision could never withstand the largeness of the right. But, for Obama, opposing largeness with smallness was the point. In this age of Trump and Twitter, it’s easy to forget the exhaustion of the electorate after the foreign wars of Bush and the domestic wars of Rove. Obama was keenly attuned to it. Rather than depict the Republicans as revanchists, he chose to describe them as irresponsible and grandiose, reckless adventurers who fought extravagant wars they didn’t pay for and squandered a surplus they hadn’t earned. Theirs was a “politics of anything goes,” he said, a bacchanal of waste and war. They were dangerous and dumb and out of control; he was safe and smart and in control. After eight years of operatic conflict, the last thing Americans wanted was more. What they wanted was less. That’s what Obama promised them—action that was “imperfect,” victories that were “partial”—and no amount of Republican wilding would stop him from keeping that promise. Even if it meant the peace of a graveyard, the quiet of a tomb."
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/the-obamanauts
Obama was a corporate tool and continued Bush's warmongering foreign policy. Street is right about Carter too. There is zero racial context to that. I mean you think we don't like Trump because he's orange?
I've said it before, but you are as misguided about Dems as Repubs are about Trump. The Dems and the Repubs are competing vendors in a political market where the product is political favors and the customers are monied interests. Obama previously won this competition for corporate money, hence his two election victories. Now the Repubs are back in the mix. The most egregious examples of this competition being the bailouts. Because Obama was cool and charming and had the Dem label plastered on his butt changes none of that.
No. It's you utter inability to understand that people can be critical of BOTH Trump AND the Democrats.
If you see that being critical about Obama / Bush is validating Trump, it is simply absurd. It's the common stupidity in juxtapositioning everything. It's genuinely all that you see.
Besides, I think that a President that gives an order to kill an under aged American citizen just because his father (also an American citizen) was a spokesperson for Al Qaeda (after being tortured in an Egyptian prison) is something to be critical about. And as the President has made the decision himself after Bush (as the CIA and the Armed Forces obviously wanted a 'free from jail card' for the extrajudicial killings), it can be said it's his decision. But that doesn't validate Trump at all. He is a weak, inept and likely extremely corrupt leader.
The fact that people opposed Bush in his extrajudicial and secret operations during "The War on Terror" is understandable, but that the same people then fell silent when Obama continued many of the same practices just show how these people had nothing else but partisan politics in their mind.
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/w/us-blocks-sale-ventilators-cuba-after-acquiring-medical-companies?fbclid=IwAR0F6xenKKXw1JMFR_9GLmiRtPQWmqrl9buOwzbnmQ4CGeQe1LYif3Cm5JY#.XpqlAEYopjo.facebook
It's not so much the President that's the problem. You could elect Karl Marx president and it wouldn't make a huge difference.
[Cross posted.]
Get money out of politics and edit the Senate out of your constitution. You might have a chance then.
Yep. Both sides do that to the point that my eyes glaze over at any criticism, which might be bad if I weren't a nihilist.
Did you know that horror generated by evil kings is an expression of the divine child archetype? The evil king (Herod) is the shadow if the divine child (Jesus).
Snipped for the scrapbook.
People want scapegoats and saviors.
Both of which are an evasion from personal responsibility.
Yes. And also give a face to complex problems and the even more abstruse solutions to those problems.
So in answer I'll refer you back to an article I cited a while back: The End of the Roman Empire Wasn’t That Bad
In the light of that article, reflect on the response of the Governors to the idiocy of the Trump administration during the pandemic.
Where else but Texas would one find active protests against lockdown restrictions? There's a deep flaw in 'mercan culture that prevents it from taking collective action. Hence so much of 'merica will fall to the Tragedy of the Commons. Those states that can implement collective action will; and those that can't - we'll see.
Quoting csalisbury
Worth considering.
I think you have to blame the people in a democracy. If the people get conned, as the people clearly have been conned, it is hard for them to admit it until it is impossible to deny it. And there are always the same weaknesses at the heart of every conned person, which are greed and fear. Let's make everything great again without any hard work or sacrifice. Vote Ponzi!
It's so annoying when that happens isn't it? But I suspect there is a category error hiding there. Slaves have no human rights because they are property, so the abuse of slaves wouldn't be rape or child rape, but some kind of animal husbandry.
Bestiality? That's sick in more ways than one.
Well I understand you moderns have delicate sensibilities about slavery and this strange 'eat it or fuck it but not both' thing going, but it's hardly fair to project these onto the good ol' boys, now is it? You'll be saying next that trial by ordeal isn't proper justice!
When US forces were in Bagdad, he said, "They're not even within 100 miles of Baghdad. They are not in any place. They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion ... they are trying to sell to the others an illusion."
After the US forces captured the airport, he announced, "Today we slaughtered them in the airport. They are out of Saddam International Airport. The force that was in the airport, this force was destroyed." and later: "We have retaken the airport. There are no Americans there. I will take you there and show you. In one hour."
And this particularly memorable quote:"The American press is all about lies! All they tell is lies, lies and more lies!"
Remind you of anyone?
Yes. Yes it does:
same with our warlord The Great Putin, that thug will also not be in the scene
but just cashing the name and fame which these americans has gathered by hook or crook.
An excellent op-ed:
Trump Rewrites the Book on Emergencies
That's because the US faced a series of crises which required a more powerful fed. This crisis was better met by local gov'ts deciding when and how to act.
A lion in the bed?
because western people are on summit of material civilization and already know what is what. and dont have to be taught materially. is it not ?
A lion is a large predatory cat.
ECONOMIC IMPACT PAYMENT
YOUR NARCISSIST PRESIDENT
Well, supposedly in the long run we're all dead.
And then there's this:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/403815
None of which was his fault. You want more neocon New World Order shit?
A few red states are planning to loosen restrictions within about a week, so DJT might be deprived of some votes.
Her body, her choice... and she's voting for Trump?
But dude, that one is so lame. Surely you can do better?
If you're three years old maybe.
I'll give Trump credit for being the master of fake news.
never mind that 'her choice' might result in another's infection and death.
Trumpism is finally fulfilling its destiny - as a Death Cult.
The Trump campaign has a sophisticated digital team. The worst you could do is underestimate it, just like last time.
Remember when you guys got outraged at a sharpie mark on a map? Three years old.
Hm.
Don't know how anyone could object to the freedom to kill the old and vulnerable with a deadly disease. That would kind of be like objecting to allowing dumb fucks to run around with automatic rifles. Did I mention FREEDOM? :party: :party: :death:
At least he didn’t use a crayon. That shows some maturity.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot about them Russians. Thanks for reminding me.
Would you buy a used car from this man?
The hoax you guys peddled back and forth to each other for years. Man, you guys were so sure of yourself. It was brilliant.
Check out this fire meme, from the leader of the free world himself.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1252204786059018240?s=21[/tweet]
So the Russian trolls will be backing off of improvising and focusing on just repeating native conspiracy theories (I read). Just trying to add oomph to already existing conflicts.
Can you imagine having that job? Pathetic.
We get it, NOS, when the target demographic possesses the maturity of a three year old you have to advertise appropriately.
They probably regret their pro-Trump efforts. Besides, it’s the ChiComs we have to worry about.
As for the other half: conspiracy theory advocates don't believe the establishment ever allows the truth to be told. The longer Trump is in office, the closer he comes to being viewed as establishment. He loses credibility. See how that works?
What if he came out and cleared suspicion of China? Would that get us a division? No. That wouldn't be news.
The China thing doesn't have a path to fruition. The US is heavily dependent on China.
I suspect China will be a political cudgel this time around, as Russia was last time. But this time the evidence of foreign interference and espionage is insurmountable, and not just relegated to Facebook ads and twitter posts. Chi-com spying, hacking, and intellectual theft have been on the books for years and years now. But as this pandemic has taken over, the campaigning has taken a back seat.
As this pandemic unfolds the certainty around Trump’s re-election have diminished in my view.
I agree that Trump was unable to strike a presidential pose through the pandemic. Word is he intends to blame it all on China, the guys who sent NYC 1000 ventilators.
Yes, the Biden campaign are not going to let Trump's kissing up to China be forgotten.
Trump is clearly a politburo sleeper agent.
Yes sir, documented verification tends to make people sure of themselves. But we'll always find the odd sort who keep shouting 'Hoax!', regardless.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-to-temporarily-halt-immigration-into-the-u-s-amid-coronavirus-crisis-11587436960
The reasoning behind it is to reserve jobs for the millions of citizens who have lost theirs, not to reduce infections.
Evidence of a lack of joined up thinking.
I don’t trust Trump. I would never leave the guy around my wife, for example. The best I can do is try to empathize with him.
It’s wrong to assume immigrants only occupy low-grade jobs. But if a company has difficulty attracting workers they need to become more competitive on the job market.
If you are in on the act, it all makes sense and you can support it because there is a hidden agenda which is being furthered while he is politically successful.
I know all this because the exact same thing has been going on in the UK, so I have two equivalent examples to analyse.
A hidden agenda? The agenda could not get any more explicit.
The problem with Trump’s case is you cannot compare him to any other person. He’s one of a kind. It’s why you waste time fantasizing about hidden agendas while you search the lexicon of archetypes and past leaders for any hint of what you’re actually dealing with.
Are you sure about that ( to the extent that it is relevant o the argument).
It's not that simple, it's the kind of work. British workers won't do these jobs even if they are paid twice as much.
??
Nor am I, yet the article rang true. Nos' reaction will be more about Nos than about 'merica.
As I've suggested, I don't see how constructivism is committed to finitism
Nor do I see that constructivism is committed to rejecting the Law of Excluded Middle. Rather, a constructivist approach would say that including the law leads us this way, excluding it leads us that way; and which way you choose depends on what you are planning to do.
Another way to put it is, contrary to Brouwer, mathematics just is the language of mathematics.
Nor is mathematics just a creation of the mind; that's too solipsistic. Mathematics is a collaborative enterprise, not something in individual minds.
Trump has said lots of stupid things. Thank goodness the deep state is doing many good things, in spite of him.
Nice article.
[quote=Not Fake News, 4/23/20]Confirmed first cases of Covid-19 infection:
South Korea - 1/19/20
United States - 1/19/20
:chin:
By 4/22/20, deaths from Covid-19 infections:
South Korea (pop. 52m; 519 pp/km^2) - 240
United States (pop. 328m; 23.2 pp/km^2) - 47,750[/quote]
How can the U.S. presidential election this November NOT be solely a referendum on tRUMP's criminal negligence evident from the start of this pandemic which has produced - and will continue to produce - so much needless "American Carnage"? Someone please explain it to me.
Some people care more about RBGs seat than holding one idiot responsible for the fact that we aren't South Korea.
Really Big Guns?
Rude banana germs
I ask this in all sincerity, what other option do we have?
Also: what do you think the election 7 months from now will look like? Operationally speaking.
My best of health to you :heart:
The other guy is literally having his onset of senility propped up on display. The election is over unless Joe drops out and someone else comes in.
Yes Benkei, you did in fact warn me about Trump but the idea of Hillary handling this pandemic is unthinkable.
You have a rich imagination then. Handling it worse than Trump did and is doing is nearly impossible.
Biden currently leads Trump by 6 points on RCP. If the election were held today and that's accurate then Trump would be crushed. Biden's mental decline is certainly an issue, but at least half of America would vote for a cardboard box rather than the Donald, so no matter what happens, Biden is probably the slight favourite to win.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html
The scapegoating is marvellous, but predictable. It’s been the going rate for opinion pieces in The Atlantic for a few years now. Trump has already been blamed for everything from climate change to war in the Middle East, so it’s no wonder he’ll be blamed for a pandemic. He is their whipping boy after all. But note that they can only come up with few out-of-context reasons why he is to blame, most of which revolve around his apparent word crimes.
Of course this comes with zero blame on the governors, who have the most power and jurisdiction over what goes on in their states during emergencies. New York, for instance, has a policy that readmits coronavirus patients to nursing homes. There has already been over 3000 deaths in nursing homes in New York alone. Is that Trump’s fault? No, because Trump doesn’t set the policy for New York. They have their own health officials, their own laws, their own systems. The best Trump could do for New York was provide the USS Comfort, build the Javits Center into a hospital, provide military and financial support, which he has done in spades. Every governor has been laudatory about Trump’s leadership.
No, Trump has done his job, has done it well, and all without seizing any new powers for the federal government.
So you haven't read the article because it's not blaming Trump. Meanwhile, you're setting up pathetic strawmen in place of the criticism that has been rightly levelled at Trump. Trump has been criticised for denying climate change in the face of overwhelming evidence and unilaterally breaking the promises of the Paris accord without regard of the withdrawal mechanism. He's not blamed for a pandemic but for downplaying the risks, touting an unproven and ineffective medicine as the cure and reacting way to fucking late to the whole thing. And then turns around and blames the governors.
Quoting NOS4A2
Because the reality is that if you don't have your face firmly planted on Trump's ass, he will shaft you. As we've seen ample proof of in the past 3,5 years.
Quoting NOS4A2
Unitary executive theory anyone? What fucking bullshit from you as usual. Don't bother replying either. It's for people who aren't Trump stooges.
The problem is your only criticisms are about his optimism. You suspiciously leave out everything he has done while magnifying the trite, superficial complaints of a few of Washington journos and Democrats. Another mouthful of turd from you.
Now, since you are of a philosophical disposition, go back and have a look at your reply and tell me, what are the forms of the arguments you have use.
Why would I do that?
But perhaps you are not up for that.
I shared my opinion; you shared someone else’s. When you want to reflect on your ideas, or mine, let me know.
Let me start, then. A scapegoat takes away one's sins. So how is it that the Atlantic is using Trump to take away its sins?
And that first paragraph -it doesn't address anything in the article, but instead attacks the author. Hence it seems invalid. That's not a concern for you?
I'd buy that. Trump doesn't show up well in an intellectual domain, so we easily trash him here on this forum.
What we may overlook is the impotence of intellectuals through the ages. They're mere servants to the powerful apes who do the real creation and destruction that drives human life.
An intellectual is no more than a helpful dog whose whining means nothing.
I’m not attacking the author in particular, I was attacking those who scapegoat the president in general. Hence my use of the plural pronoun “they”. Some of them write opinion articles at the Atlantic.
I am using the term “scapegoat” in the colloquial sense, not in the biblical sense.
I know your opinion if Trump supporters, what is your opinion on the matter at hand? Surely philosopher wouldn’t pass off someone’s opinion as his own.
Sure, and on this we might agree - I think @StreetlightX made the same point against one of my earielr posts; or was it @180 Proof?
Anyway, the point is that even if they are scapegoating Trump, there are criticisms of substance in the article that remain unaddressed.
That’s fair. Is there any one in particular you’d like me to address?
Cute, but the fact of Obama invalidates your poetry when analyzed intellectually.
As U.S. political history decisively demonstrates (especially since the last 'Gilded Age'), every election for a second term is a referendum on the incumbent and never a choice between "options". :roll: And even if it were a choice (which it's not!), Joe Biden, in over four decades in government has not proven himself to be as uninformed, anti-science, incompetent, corrupt, pathologically untruthful, demogogic, disrespectful of career public/civil servants, unpatriotic or unpopular as the Donald; there's no way any challenger could serve this country worse in the coming years than the 45th POTUS has since 2017.
As for this fall, Tiff, it's too early to tell how far the WH, AG Barr & the GOP will go in trying to sabotage the election by (e.g.) suppressing student, minority & urban voters; (again) suborning foreign interference via cyber-espionage, etc; and terrorizing the electorate with incitements of mob violence against poll workers, Democratic Governors & Mayors, "deep state" IGs & Public Health officials, and, of course, against "the fake news" media. Because both the WH & RNC know they've already lost - behaviors, forensic psychologists et al will tell you, never lie. I suspect things are going get much uglier this fall. :shade:
Be well, Tiff, stay healthy. :mask:
I hope I can defend any statement I make or position I hold. Which position do you wish to see me justify?
:up:
We can play all day. In the interests of moving the conversation along...
You say
Quoting NOS4A2
Yet the USA has the worst of Covid-19.
SO presumably it was somehow out of his control? So what powers does Trump lack that, say, Angela Merkel or Scott Morrison has?
Without the intellectuals we would still be apes.
:smirk:
It's odd, that claiming not to be able to think about things is now so popular a way of thinking about things.
Strictly speaking we are apes. It's the intellectual who wants to forget that.
Also the notion of the intellectual in the Nietzschean sense is far cry from the contemporary notion.
"It is the intellect that saves us from being utterly burnt and reduced to ashes..."
(Wish I knew my Nietzsche better. Maybe someone knows a more apropos quote.)
Strictly speaking we are absolutely not apes. We are human.
"What is the ape to man? A laughing-stock, a thing of shame. And just the same shall man be to the Superman: a laughing-stock, a thing of shame. Ye have made your way from the worm to man, and much within you is still worm....Lo, I teach you the Superman!
The Superman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: The Superman SHALL BE the meaning of the earth!"
Who has not fallen short of the glory of god.
Hominidae
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
We are smart apes, but apes, and being a smart ape is a major piece of our existential problem.
There are exceptions, of course. Some humans are dumb apes, like the current POTUS. Therefore, DUMP TRUMP IN NOVEMBER!
What does this mean to you?
We actually aren't apes. Our ancestors were apes.
You might as well say we're a single cell. Or pre-gelid cosmic dust. Or a singularity. Why stop at ape.
It inspires me to continue to become larger than I am. In incites me to continue to master the arts of peace, intellect, wisdom and glory. It's a question of human dignity.
As to what it means: Poetry is open to interpretation. I'm certain I've had the very experience that incited Nietzsche to write those lines. (Not to say I have a speck of his intellect.)
cool
Wiki.
We have only 1.2 percent genetic difference between modern humans and chimpanzees. Granted, that 1.2% makes a significant difference. I don't think chimps have a hyoid bone, a piece of bone located in the human throat which is a critical part of speech production. Still, we are a lot like chimps in many ways. (Intellect isn't the only thing significant about our (plural) species.)
Does the fox object to being related to the wolf? Does the family dog object to being related to both fox and wolf?
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
So, at what point did we leave the company of primates?
That isn't known, to my knowledge. What's known is we are no longer apes. To call us apes is to say something untrue.
Science draws funny lines. Science doesn't draw the only lines.
It's easy to argue humans aren't apes. The jury would not be hung.
I laugh at apes. They're a laughing-stock.
A joke set beside the sublimity of man.
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
Intellect isn't all or nothing. Even clams have enough sense to shut up and get out of town when trouble comes their way, (Octopi and squid are both in the same group as clams, and have quite a bit of brain power. A dog has much more brain power than a squid, but a Dalmatian can't change its spots. A squid can. A bonobo or pan troglodytes (Chimps official name) have a lot more brain power than dogs, and have a brain structure similar to ours. Bees are much different than squid, dogs, chimps, and you -- but bees too have some brain power.
That we are closely related to apes should be a matter of delight. Why? Because they are kin. They aren't our ancestors (we branched off from the stalk of the family, as they also did, millions of years ago. Well, about 8 million years ago,
[I]“Supposing we hit the body with a tremendous ultra violet or just very powerful light. And I think you said that hasn’t been checked but you are going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you could do either through the skin or in some other way. I think you said that you are going to test that, too. And then I saw the disinfectant, where knocks it out in one minute, and is there a way we could do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning. As you see it gets in the lungs, it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that.”[/i]
Is it wrong of me to wish he would try these things on himself?
I agree we are closely related. Too closely. I hope we become less and less closely related to the apes.
To look back on the ape as today we look back on the single cell.
I hear what you're saying. A couple anthropology professors I've spoken with have told me that although the term "ape" technically includes homo sapiens, they don't often use the term as such -- even among their colleagues -- as the term has come to connote something different in ordinary non-scientific discourse. Usually what I'll hear is, "Humans and apes share a common ancestor," but 'ape' here just means non-human hominoids. In any case, I suspect this is a semantic disagreement.
Thanks.
It's a disagreement over connotation. No one is right or wrong. It feels powerful and righteous to say I am not an ape, I am human.
You think you have the same relationship to apes that the gods have to us? a joke...
How do you make the gods laugh?
Tell them your plans.
If we're so smart, how come we don't seem to be able to do anything about the reality that we are wrecking the environment.
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
In the fullness of time (which we probably don't have, being too stupid as we are to solve our problems) we will become less and less like primates, We'll probably get a bit lighter in build, and maybe--dear god, may it be--smarter. But this will take a long time--many, many generations.
And we will probably wipe ourselves out before we get many, many generations to evolve into something closer to the paragon of animals that Shakespeare thought we were.
And of course Larry Summers, who helped Obama devise the last criminal bailout of the rich while leaving the poor to burn, is advising Biden on CV recovery. God, everything about your leaders is just total trash.
Oh yes and I forgot about the shithead governer of some buttfuck state somewhere the other day, who, on TV in a mask, gloves, and full, gleaming blue protective gear, told his state that reopening is totally safe and everything is fine. There's no debate here: US leadership is uniformly terrible, and it is led by someone whose incompetence is the mutiplictive product of all of them.
It will teach us patience.
I never said we're smart. We're dumb.
I said we are beautiful in the mode of the sublime.
"A joke set beside the sublimity of man."
You said god. I didn't say god.
I have the same relationship to my apy ancestors that I have to the single cell. Again: Why stop at ape? Why not say we're fish or ooze?
The man has broken through to the other side. It reads like a paragraph from Dr. Scheber's diary.
(Say if Schreber had gone through with the lobotomy.)
We’re sapiens, a species infinity more lethal to itself and other species than, uh, any other species.
This wipe ourselves out notion is interesting. It's an expression of pessimism without a rational basis. It is easy to kill billions of people, less easy to kill all. It seems ludicrous to include the phrase "we will probably wipe ourselves out" in a discussion of this kind without providing statistic-like projections (graphs and charts) in support of this hyperbolic hypothetical. Is there a math to do here? Is it probable that we will wipe ourselves out, statistically speaking? How can the numbers on this be run? If the numbers on this can't be run why is it considered rational to continue to say we will probably wipe ourselves out?
Compare this massive economic and social disruption, just over 3 months long and which isn't over by any means, to the kind of massive long-term industrial/economic/social changes required to sharply and permanently reduce CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gas emissions. The costs, disruptions, ruptures with habit, and so on are so severe that it will cause far worse disruption.
The alternative -- doing what we have been doing since the industrial revolution got underway -- will mean a slower, but no less severe disruption and severe disruption--likely worse, because it will last for a very long time.
OK, technically, global warming won't wipe out the species. Remnants of humanity will remain. They will be isolated little groups of former industrial masters reduced to figuring out how to hunt and gather--if they live long enough. They will have left the glories of human culture behind--the loss of which will only take a couple of generations. Culture is either maintained or it is lost. We know this from ample historical experience.
So sure, we'll survive global warming.
Why would we do this to ourselves? Because: bright as we are, we do not seem to possess the ability to detect distant disasters (like, even 50 years away) and act in the present to avoid them. Environmental, agricultural, population, nuclear, disease, and other disasters have been clearly seen coming down the pike. Humans have not, by and large, acted effectively to avoid any of these calamities.
The [western] Roman Empire endured for many centuries--much longer than the modern world has--and sustained repeated calamities. It always bounced back. Resilience. It bounced back until just the right combination of disasters overwhelmed their exhausted resilience, Then they went down the cloaca Maximus fairly fast.
Definitely pessimistic, hardly irrational. I'm getting old; I can afford to be honestly pessimistic -- I won't be around, most likely, too much longer. I don't need to maintain optimistic delusions of the sort that I used to.
I'd prefer that the evidence led to optimism. It just doesn't.
Trump is corrupt and a product of a corrupt political system in the US, which system is propped up by both parties. He is too stupid and doesn't inform himself or inspire those who serve him to advise him on how to avert a crisis.
Trump has done exactly nothing to "drain the swamp", has not made the world safer, and his lack of action on the coronavirus has killed many more Americans in the short term than that would have otherwise died. All this was glaringly obvious from the beginning as the thread on the coronavirus had made clear.
data:
Geographical Areas, National Populations & Population Densities (best online stats I can find):
South Korea
• 100,210km^2 (38,691mi^2)
• c52 million
• 519 pp/km^2 (1,344 pp/mi^2)
United States
• 9,833,517km^2 (3,796,742mi^2)
• c228 million
• 23.2 pp/km^2 (60 pp/mi^2)
With about 1/6th the population, South Korea has 22.4× greater population density than the United States.
extrapolation (guesstimate):
Assuming the United States government had acted immediately and as effectively as the South Korean government had (NB: both the Bush & Obama administrations have helped South Korea develop and rehearse rapid response protocols, etc over the decade or more since the SARS-1 outbreak in East Asia in the mid-2000s, in preparation for the next pandemic :brow:), it's reasonable to expect similar mortality outcomes, especially as a percentage of national population adjusted for relative population density as a/the major driver of the rate of transmission of highly contagious pathogen like Covid-19 (aka SARS-2) and the same time period (93 days) for public health mitigation efforts and emergency-critical care medical interventions: as of 4/22/20, the United States' death toll should have been
6.3 (times greater national population than S.K.) ×
1/22.4 (lower population density than S.K.) ×
10 (times scale of bureaucratic inefficiency, *fudge factor* in U.S.'s favor) ×
240 (S.K. deaths) =
:point: "675 deaths" (or 1/70.7th of the current U.S. death toll of 47, 750).
As a grade on a scale of 1-100, using South Korea as a perfect 100 (for the sake of argument) @240 dead, the United State response - indicated by its national death rate being nearly 1.8 orders of magnitude higher than S.K.'s to date @47,750 dead - earns a grade of 0 (rounded).
Well, we disagree. I see things exactly opposite to what you say here.
:mask:
I'm convinced the gross level of presidential maladminstration is even greater than these cocktail napkin figures suggest. The Covidiot-in-Chief has been pushing dangerous drugs unproven for Covid-19 treatment for about a month and now suggests injecting disinfectants into Covid-19 patients to "clean" them inside out. As if he doesn't have enough blood on his tiny hands already ... :shade:
Denying that humans are apes is just as wrong as denying dolphins and whales are mammals and calling them fish instead. The problem is just the connotations of the word "ape". But, hey, we made a dude who thinks we should inject bleach into each other to cure us of COVID, the leader of the free world, so let's not overestimate ourselves.
I hope Trump isn't the standard by which you judge humankind.
"The average man is closer to an ape than to Einstein."
-I Forget
Trump is far below average.
Quoting Baden
This expression is obsolete.
Quoting Baden
This position is irrationally science-centric. You're going to let the eggheady chaos-codifiers dictate what your language will connote.
I will dictate my own connotations.
I am not an ape, I am human.
Again: Where are your charts and graphs demonstrating that "we will probably wipe ourselves out"? If you lack charts and graphs why do you continue to say we will probably wipe ourselves out? Explicate the rationality of your position, if you can.
Due to the lower population density in the USA, the speed of the spread should be lower so the number of deaths in the short term in the USA should have been lower in absolute terms than in South Korea. On the other hand, I think the large cities in the US are as densely populated as the large cities in SK, so I suspect the effect of a slower spread based on average population density is too heavyhanded.
Trump says some extremely stupid things, but its less clear that any of his actions or inactions have caused preventable harm.
It's easy, with hindsight, to say actions should have been taken earlier, but we'd need to judge that based on the conditions, and state of available knowledge, at the time.
I'm not a Trump apologist, but I do think we should judge the facts fairly. IMO, the majority of the untruths he mouths are the result of extreme stupidity, not duplicity. Fortunately, there are smart people doing the real work here (like Dr. Faucci). Trump is nothing more than an idiotic pundit.
Fuckin retard in charge of that country lol
When I first heard Trump at the press conference, it seemed like he was taking a more questioning tone than anything else. He said disinfectants hurt the virus, as do heat and light, and he wanted to know if there was a way to replicate these effects somehow in the form of a treatment. "Maybe we can, maybe we can't. I'm not a doctor... But maybe it's worth looking into." I'm not a Trump apologist either, but I think if a normal person hears that such and such has been found to hurt the virus, their next thought might be, "I wonder if there's a way we can use that somehow." I think the idea that he is suggesting injecting bleach into people, or something like this, is an uncharitable, not to mention inaccurate, interpretation of what he was saying. It doesn't really add anything to the discussion unless the goal is to just pile more hate onto the bandwagon.
In any case, Trump is probably the most imprudent, undiplomatic, egotistical president we have ever had. He needs to have these kinds of discussions in private with his medical advisors as opposed to out in the open during a press conference. There are some extraordinarily stupid people in this country, and while I don't particularly care about them misinterpreting his words and introducing cleaning agents into their bodies, I am concerned about them maybe doing it to their kids.
That’s one of the things I’m trying to figure out. I’m not sure how one can misconstrue a layman’s question to a doctor into an official suggestion that the public should do such and such.
A layman? What a joke. Anything to cast your hero in the most innocent light.
So...he’s not a layman?
You are right of course. It is my partisanship, my ideological blinkers, and my thorough lack of critical thinking skills that lead me to believe Trump implied injecting bleach into your veins has a hope of curing coronavirus, in public, just for a PR move.
I’m not accusing you of anything. I’m just asking how one can misconstrue Trump’s question to the doctor into an official suggestion that the public should inject disinfectant into their veins. Can you suggest that I do something by asking someone else a question? I just don’t understand it, but perhaps that’s my own blinkers.
Can I imply something with a question?
Nonchalantly affixing the term "layman" to the President of the United States is an act of decontextualizing reductivism. You know this.
Wolfman addressed that best:
Quoting Wolfman
A President doing a press conference to address an ongoing crisis should stick to setting out the facts about what the administration is doing and the like. Some off-the-cuff question about possibly injecting disinfectant or irradiating the body has no place on the podium.
The President's words can move armies.
Armies of all kinds.
In this case, very stupid armies. Have some empathy for the very stupid.
They're apes. They do what apes do.
I disagree with that. I like being able to watch the leadership spitball and brainstorm. But maybe I am one of the few who don’t look to politicians for medical advice.
I'm a normal person and I still know it's a fucking stupid suggestion. I'd expect that the most serious problem affecting the US at the moment would have the president's undivided attention, meaning he should know at least as much as I do. In fact, he should be better informed, with what little time I spend on the subject next to a full time job, a wife and two kids who are at home all the time at the moment.
You are a Dutchman, and the Dutch are on balance smarter than Americans. Plus, you are smarter than the average Dutchman, so this would practically make you Albert Einstein over here.
:razz:
The FDA and Lysol, among other players, felt it was an accurate enough interpretation to release a statement warning against DIY injection-treatments.
It's easy to underestimate the power of the President's words and not so easy to overestimate the stupidity of the American people.
I think these warnings have more to do with (a) them knowing that there are a lot of stupid people in the country, and (b) liability (moreso in Lysol's case), than the accuracy and/or intent of Trump's statement. I think if you watch the press conference, you don't really get the impression that Trump is recommending injecting ourselves with disinfectants.
In any case, this point really just serves to reinforce the conclusion in my second paragraph -- that his "spitballing" should have never been done during a public press conference.
I don't really have any interest in defending a person I vehemently dislike, but I do like to try and strive for honest discussion.
I agree with the bulk of this. But carelessness is no defence.
It conveys just how low Trump has set the bar. He has a gift for pushing the bar lower and lower - not unlike the boiling frog scenario. He is a gifted man.
Liability because they want to cover their ass when people start trying this shit out.
My first thought was nanobots with little UV lamps. Or maybe just chemo and radiation. Then we wouldn't be able to tell if the virus is making them nauseous or the chemo.
Gamma knife. Now we're talking. If that doesn't work, then maybe tiny H-bombs as Evil suggested earlier.
What about some nebulizer filled with something that kills the virus?
I can only find this paper on the possibility of using ethanol solutions.
Possibility of Disinfection of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) in Human Respiratory Tract by Controlled Ethanol Vapor Inhalation
It's not a brainstorm, which implies there's thought involved. Try this: Speculate on injecting disinfectant into someone's lungs as a treatment for COVID with a nine-year child. Here's the response I got: "That's stupid! It would make them die quicker!" The fact that you're not concerned that your president is considerably intellectually less able than a nine-year-old says everything we need to know about your level of political analysis.
I think he's just curious and asking questions.
Yeah, well, people tend to be easily swayed by rhetoric and celebrity. Living in Northern California you get the impression that everyone hates Trump, but people forget there's a whole other country out there filled with people who think just like him. There's also a lot of silent voters who share Trump's values but will never admit to it in public.
:rofl:
Brilliant
Our cousin
What? So it wasn't some "innocent question" as @NOS4A2 suggested but him fucking around with the media for shits and giggles?
(Although, honestly, I don't believe his backtracking here. He's just a moron who genuinely thought injecting disinfectant could help - or he just wasn't thinking and talking out of his ass.)
Yeah I don’t know why he’s backtracking on this one. But if idiots are pretending he suggested drinking bleach and shoving lightbulbs up their ass I suppose it’s warranted.
Because he said a stupid thing so he's trying to save face.
He's just trying to cover for his stupidity and is, unfortunately, adding to it. Look at the tape, he was talking to the doctors not the media.
[Crosspost]
Got my vote.
Birx's face is priceless.
I'll be impressed when he can exegize Hegel or describe a beatific psychirradiance. [sic]
Once he goes to prison he'll be someone's bitch. Does that count?
It's interesting the thought had a president or prime minister could govern the country from a jail cell. During the Brexit debacle, the unlawful preroging of parliament, there was a possibility that the Prime minister could be sent to prison and his supporters were shouting that he would continue to run the country and have their support while in jail. Johnson didn't shirk from the possibility.
*any kind of mental aberration, or illness would be insufficient.
I don’t know the answer to the question. Care to enlighten me?
Quoting NOS4A2