DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site

General => Political and Religious Forum (aka the echo chamber) => Topic started by: Chino on January 12, 2017, 11:57:15 AM

Title: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on January 12, 2017, 11:57:15 AM
Figured we'll have plenty to discuss in this thread.

I am really not okay with this.
(https://i.redditmedia.com/Svp4adcNmiIhhdISqTZay9ZGVEeUw5aENDw9WUeYpKU.jpg?w=688&s=68cc8b8ffef5c833a2a2344455832ef0)

Maybe I'm over thinking it, but this doesn't sit well with me in any capacity. Trump has shown repeatedly that his tweets have the power to tank or raise a stock. He, his family, and his other business associates have hundreds of millions of dollars spread throughout the market, and I can't help but think that intentional market manipulation won't come into play at some point. It also demonstrates, at least to me, that he's willing to play favorites in exchange for praise or cash. Linda Bean 'donates' $60,000 to MAGA LLC, and in return she gets a Tweet. Seems ripe for abuse. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets
Post by: cramx3 on January 12, 2017, 11:59:56 AM
I hate everything about him tweeting.  I would love for him to hand over his account to someone else to run and only tweet things that a President should tweet (I really don't even like the idea of a president being on twitter, but maybe that's an old school mentality).
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on January 12, 2017, 12:02:08 PM
His tweets are 100% responsible for me looking at anybodies twitter. I have no twitter account, and read no one's twitter......except Trump's. That man's tweets are just so damn entertaining.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: cramx3 on January 12, 2017, 12:03:54 PM
His tweets are 100% responsible for me looking at anybodies twitter. I have no twitter account, and read no one's twitter......except Trump's. That man's tweets are just so damn entertaining.

My brother in law just signed up for twitter for one reason, to follow Trump.  You can't deny the entertainment value, but the entertainment is coming at all our expense sadly.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on January 12, 2017, 12:15:59 PM
His tweets are 100% responsible for me looking at anybodies twitter. I have no twitter account, and read no one's twitter......except Trump's. That man's tweets are just so damn entertaining.

My brother in law just signed up for twitter for one reason, to follow Trump.  You can't deny the entertainment value, but the entertainment is coming at all our expense sadly.

Quick derail... I'm no good at what relationships equal what title, but how do you have a brother in law if you're not married?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on January 12, 2017, 12:16:50 PM
His tweets are 100% responsible for me looking at anybodies twitter. I have no twitter account, and read no one's twitter......except Trump's. That man's tweets are just so damn entertaining.

My brother in law just signed up for twitter for one reason, to follow Trump.  You can't deny the entertainment value, but the entertainment is coming at all our expense sadly.

Quick derail... I'm no good at what relationships equal what title, but how do you have a brother in law if you're not married?

He could have a married sister or brother.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: cramx3 on January 12, 2017, 12:19:20 PM
His tweets are 100% responsible for me looking at anybodies twitter. I have no twitter account, and read no one's twitter......except Trump's. That man's tweets are just so damn entertaining.

My brother in law just signed up for twitter for one reason, to follow Trump.  You can't deny the entertainment value, but the entertainment is coming at all our expense sadly.

Quick derail... I'm no good at what relationships equal what title, but how do you have a brother in law if you're not married?

He could have a married sister or brother.

yes, I have two married sisters.  My older sister's husband is a big time democrat and who I was referencing.  He's great though to talk to about politics because he's smart and not a dick about it.  My father's a big time republican who is not as easy to talk to so those two go at it a lot, but I have some good convos with him sometimes.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: 7th on January 12, 2017, 12:31:18 PM
I agree with Chino's observation that this is ripe for abuse.  Yet, as an old school (read middle age) technologist who has always questioned the pros and cons of social media, I think we have to accept the brave new world we have created and the potential abuses that come with a technology driven humanity.  I actually find Trump's use of social media an indicator of his ability to lead a nation of device addicts and instant gratification junkies.  Trump tweets are extremely effective marketing, and yes, the POTUS must market himself and his supporters, that is simply part of the game.  As I said in another post, Trump has created a persona that feeds on the negativity of his detractors.  I called him winning this over a year ago and I made that loose prediction based on the phenomenon by which he actually gets more popular the more "outraged" the progressive left are at his silly comments.  Right now the progressive left is dead, completely out of political power, and its remaining negative energy towards Trump only makes him more loved by his supporters.  It's absolutely amazing and I just fucking love every bit of it.  To quote Michael Moore, it is the biggest FUCK YOU in human history.  So my advice to those who do not support Trump: ignore him, don't spend energy on how he scares you or how you hate everything he stands for because it is that negative energy that makes him more powerful.  It's like a weird version of The Force or something. :-)
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on January 12, 2017, 12:36:09 PM
It had never occurred to me that in-law-ness was reciprocal. I only ever thought of it as one way. In that you're your sister's husband's brother in-law. Not that he was also yours. But of course it is and hes is. Just hadn't considered it.

The tweet's problematic. However, as I keep saying, the bigger issue is that he could never understand why. Trying to prohibit him from doing silly things isn't going to help because he's just going to push back.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: cramx3 on January 12, 2017, 12:39:11 PM
The tweet's problematic. However, as I keep saying, the bigger issue is that he could never understand why. Trying to prohibit him from doing silly things isn't going to help because he's just going to push back.

Of course, I don't think there is any way of stopping him. 

I watched a video that was being shared a bunch on facebook about how social media is addicting.  I believe it and it's pretty clear that Trump is addicted to the "likes" and attention when he tweets.  It might also explain the 3am tweeting, when no one else wants to give him attention, he will go to twitter to feed his addiction. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: 7th on January 12, 2017, 12:48:42 PM
However, as I keep saying, the bigger issue is that he could never understand why. Trying to prohibit him from doing silly things isn't going to help because he's just going to push back.

Because he knows what he's doing playing a game at a level he's been at for decades.  His frame of reference is vastly different than most so assuming he "could never understand" is unfair.  Maybe he understands perfectly and knows exactly what he's doing?  Trump, I would guarantee, is working in a totally different frame of reference than any previous President-elect.  He's also not a politician so he will take leaps and risks that NO politician would ever make.  Risks lead to rewards.  I say let him do his thing, it may work out better for the country.  If he fails miserably, he be out in four years.  The country has already been decimated by the last four presidents, no harm in giving an outsider a shot at this point. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on January 12, 2017, 12:56:32 PM
His frame of reference is vastly different than most so assuming he "could never understand" is unfair.
Nonsense. Even if he's the brilliant strategist you make him out to be, there have been countless opportunities for him to demonstrate that he has the capacity to understand the hows and whys without undermining his game. Instead he doubles down like the impulsive manchild he is.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: kingshmegland on January 12, 2017, 01:03:26 PM
I don't even follow Trump but I see every Tweet of his s cell he is so polarizing for all other Tweeters I follow.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: 7th on January 12, 2017, 01:11:12 PM
His frame of reference is vastly different than most so assuming he "could never understand" is unfair.
Nonsense. Even if he's the brilliant strategist you make him out to be, there have been countless opportunities for him to demonstrate that he has the capacity to understand the hows and whys without undermining his game. Instead he doubles down like the impulsive manchild he is.

Undermining his game?  Doubling down?  He won the POTUS position against all odds.  Seems to me he knows exactly what he's doing and it's working out okay for him.  Why not just let him do his thing?  He's good at it, people are entertained by it which keeps them engaged in the national conversation.  It's really pretty cool when looked at positively.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: cramx3 on January 12, 2017, 01:19:47 PM
His frame of reference is vastly different than most so assuming he "could never understand" is unfair.
Nonsense. Even if he's the brilliant strategist you make him out to be, there have been countless opportunities for him to demonstrate that he has the capacity to understand the hows and whys without undermining his game. Instead he doubles down like the impulsive manchild he is.

Undermining his game?  Doubling down?  He won the POTUS position against all odds.  Seems to me he knows exactly what he's doing and it's working out okay for him.  Why not just let him do his thing?  He's good at it, people are entertained by it which keeps them engaged in the national conversation.  It's really pretty cool when looked at positively.

The national conversation on politics sucks and is not about entertaining the masses IMO.  It's hardly a conversation.  Also, Trump thought he was going to lose so I'm not sold that he knows exactly what he is doing.  I don't even think it's possible since he was not a politician.  I do think he is smarter than most give him credit for though and I do think his twitter account is a powerful tool, I just personally don't like it.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on January 12, 2017, 01:28:08 PM
people are entertained by it

This is part of the problem.  Despite being a reality TV star, this isn't reality TV.  This is the governing of our country.  It isn't something I or most other people, truly wish to be entertained by.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on January 12, 2017, 01:41:21 PM
I don't think he's stupid at all. I think he's shallow. I think he's a halfway bright guy with the emotional maturity of a 12 year old and similarly undeveloped reasoning skills. I agree with 7th that he's playing a good game. At the same time he's given me no reason to think that it is a game. In fact he's convincing me more and more that he actually is every bit as simpleminded as he comes across.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on January 12, 2017, 01:47:04 PM
I look at him as an idiot savant (that's a real thing) of sorts. He's brilliant when it comes to negotiating and arranging deals like a game of chess, but he's handicapped basically everywhere else.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 12, 2017, 01:51:58 PM
^^ I don't think that's literally true, but it's a good way of saying it to get the point across.   

John Adams just shit his angel smock. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on January 12, 2017, 01:55:01 PM
^^ I don't think that's literally true, but it's a good way of saying it to get the point across.   

John Adams just shit his angel smock.

That's why I added "of sorts". Most idiot savants while brilliant in one area, are so mentally challenged elsewhere they can hardly communicate. Kim Peek isn't able to dress himself.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: lonestar on January 12, 2017, 03:50:41 PM
Yup, I'll admit to blowing the dust of my Twitter and following him, the shit shows that follow each tweet are just too entertaining. But I agree with the OP that the potential for wrong is just too immense.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Ben_Jamin on January 13, 2017, 03:52:29 PM
I agree with Chino's observation that this is ripe for abuse.  Yet, as an old school (read middle age) technologist who has always questioned the pros and cons of social media, I think we have to accept the brave new world we have created and the potential abuses that come with a technology driven humanity.  I actually find Trump's use of social media an indicator of his ability to lead a nation of device addicts and instant gratification junkies.  Trump tweets are extremely effective marketing, and yes, the POTUS must market himself and his supporters, that is simply part of the game.  As I said in another post, Trump has created a persona that feeds on the negativity of his detractors.  I called him winning this over a year ago and I made that loose prediction based on the phenomenon by which he actually gets more popular the more "outraged" the progressive left are at his silly comments.  Right now the progressive left is dead, completely out of political power, and its remaining negative energy towards Trump only makes him more loved by his supporters.  It's absolutely amazing and I just fucking love every bit of it.  To quote Michael Moore, it is the biggest FUCK YOU in human history.  So my advice to those who do not support Trump: ignore him, don't spend energy on how he scares you or how you hate everything he stands for because it is that negative energy that makes him more powerful.  It's like a weird version of The Force or something. :-)

Where's that clap emoji?...I feel exactly the same way.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: ReaperKK on January 13, 2017, 05:32:59 PM
Trumps tweets are pretty much the only ones I follow, I'm really curious what his twitter activity is going to be like when he takes office.

As for the LL Bean tweet, it really rubs me the wrong way.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: pogoowner on January 13, 2017, 09:23:20 PM
Man, if you guys are using Twitter solely for Trump, I wouldn't even bother. :lol The nightly news and every other media outlet basically screenshots his tweets for you daily anyway. Twitter is an awesome tool for news or any topic of interest, but it's only as good as you make it.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: eric42434224 on January 14, 2017, 02:13:09 PM
The POTUS should not post tweets expressing his love or hate for businesses or people, especially in such a bias, personal, and usually childish manner.  Wholly inappropriate for the office.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: KevShmev on January 14, 2017, 03:08:57 PM
The POTUS should not post tweets expressing his love or hate for businesses or people, especially in such a bias, personal, and usually childish manner.  Wholly inappropriate for the office.

When did Obama do that?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: eric42434224 on January 14, 2017, 03:21:55 PM
The POTUS, or POTUS Elect should not post tweets expressing his love or hate for businesses or people, especially in such a bias, personal, and usually childish manner.  Wholly inappropriate for the office.

When did Obama do that?

Fixes
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: KevShmev on January 14, 2017, 03:28:37 PM
That's better.  :biggrin:

I would say I am surprised that no one on his team has told him to lay off the tweets again, but I doubt he'd listen to anybody at this point.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: 7th on January 14, 2017, 03:50:49 PM
The POTUS should not post tweets expressing his love or hate for businesses or people, especially in such a bias, personal, and usually childish manner.  Wholly inappropriate for the office.

Was it wholly inappropriate for the office when Obama used to tweet about his favorite sports teams or promoting his favorite sports figures or hip hop artists?  I think people are making WAY too much out of Trump's tweets.  I also suspect they'll be toned down considerably after the inauguration.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on January 14, 2017, 05:39:24 PM
The POTUS should not post tweets expressing his love or hate for businesses or people, especially in such a bias, personal, and usually childish manner.  Wholly inappropriate for the office.

Was it wholly inappropriate for the office when Obama used to tweet about his favorite sports teams or promoting his favorite sports figures or hip hop artists?  I think people are making WAY too much out of Trump's tweets.  I also suspect they'll be toned down considerably after the inauguration.

Dude. C'mon.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on January 16, 2017, 08:44:45 AM
I'm really surprised people aren't picking up the President Camacho vibe here. He's inching closer every day.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: ReaperKK on January 16, 2017, 02:54:15 PM
The POTUS should not post tweets expressing his love or hate for businesses or people, especially in such a bias, personal, and usually childish manner.  Wholly inappropriate for the office.

Was it wholly inappropriate for the office when Obama used to tweet about his favorite sports teams or promoting his favorite sports figures or hip hop artists?  I think people are making WAY too much out of Trump's tweets.  I also suspect they'll be toned down considerably after the inauguration.

Dude. C'mon.

I have to agree with Chino. It's one thing the root for a sports team it's another to endorse a company simply on personal endorsement of your presidential campaign.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: TAC on January 16, 2017, 03:02:29 PM
I don't think that's quite it. He's basically defending someone because some clowns decided to boycott LL Bean based on the political contributions of a board member. If that doesn't happen, LL Bean is not getting a Trump tweet sent their way.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: XJDenton on January 17, 2017, 12:48:25 AM
I'm really surprised people aren't picking up the President Camacho vibe here. He's inching closer every day.

Unfair comparison. Camacho recognised and deferred to people smarter than him.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on January 17, 2017, 01:06:10 AM
I'm really surprised people aren't picking up the President Camacho vibe here. He's inching closer every day.

I feel like people have been comparing this to idiocracy for months. I know I have.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on January 17, 2017, 03:54:21 PM
Also now apparently he's saying that the approval rating poll is rigged against him and is false.


I can see this getting really dangerous if he simply tells everyone that anything that isn't favorable toward him is a lie.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Elite on January 17, 2017, 04:22:19 PM
I can see this getting really dangerous if he simply tells everyone that anything that isn't favorable toward him is a lie.

Well, isn't that just what has been happening all along?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on January 17, 2017, 07:01:27 PM
I can see this getting really dangerous if he simply tells everyone that anything that isn't favorable toward him is a lie.

Well, isn't that just what has been happening all along?

Totally. But what a dude running for president does isn't as important as what the president does.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 18, 2017, 08:22:33 AM
Also now apparently he's saying that the approval rating poll is rigged against him and is false.


I can see this getting really dangerous if he simply tells everyone that anything that isn't favorable toward him is a lie.


Well, the real problem is, of course, that he's not RIGHT, but he's not totally WRONG, either.   There is a decided lack of reasonableness, a decided lack of even-handedness, and a decided preference for shock value over substance.  He's got tidbits of truth backing him up.  Buzzfeed was almost negligent in their desire to by pass sound journalistic practice in order to put damaging information (to Trump) out there.    Yeah, it was roundly debunked, but we've all seen enough Law and Order to know that even when the judge says "Sustained; the jury will disregard that outburst", they can't unring the bell.   

I don't like Trump, I certainly do not like the Twattering (I am vehemently against social media, in case you don't know), but what is he supposed to do?  Let the white wash go unchecked? 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on January 18, 2017, 08:32:37 AM
Also now apparently he's saying that the approval rating poll is rigged against him and is false.


I can see this getting really dangerous if he simply tells everyone that anything that isn't favorable toward him is a lie.


*snip*

I don't like Trump, I certainly do not like the Twattering (I am vehemently against social media, in case you don't know), but what is he supposed to do?  Let the white wash go unchecked?

He could provide a link or some kind of proof indicating that the numbers are all a sham rather than just declaring "Lies", "Fake news", and "SAD!".
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: TAC on January 18, 2017, 08:33:57 AM
I don't like Trump, I certainly do not like the Twattering (I am vehemently against social media, in case you don't know), but what is he supposed to do?  Let the white wash go unchecked?

This is how I feel.


He could provide a link or some kind of proof indicating that the numbers are all a sham rather than just declaring "Lies", "Fake news", and "SAD!".

I think it's more along the lines of what he feels is the media's influence on his approval rating.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: gmillerdrake on January 18, 2017, 08:35:55 AM
He could provide a link or some kind of proof indicating that the numbers are all a sham rather than just declaring "Lies", "Fake news", and "SAD!".

Well....I mean, him being elected President is pretty good evidence on how bunk 'polls' are. It's no secret that near every news outlet despises and has despised the man for some two years now....he faced a heavily biased media as he campaigned and it's not getting any better for him.

I'm not going to sit and defend Trump non stop....but I can see his point when he speaks about the reportage available in today's media.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: cramx3 on January 18, 2017, 08:56:50 AM
I can see his point when he speaks about the reportage available in today's media.

Agreed.  He has proof of this from the election.  I think the truth is somewhere in the middle with all of this.  There is a large amount of unfavorability towards him, but it's probably not as bad as the media makes it out to be.  I mean, everything from Trump so far hasn't been as bad as the media has painted it and Trump has been able to back a lot of this up in the past (such as him winning the election).

Regardless, I wish he would not comment on such things.  Just let them be.  I don't think he needs to do anything to stop the white washing.  His actions should shut people up, not his twitter account. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: XJDenton on January 18, 2017, 09:20:59 AM
He could provide a link or some kind of proof indicating that the numbers are all a sham rather than just declaring "Lies", "Fake news", and "SAD!".

Well....I mean, him being elected President is pretty good evidence on how bunk 'polls' are.

Not really. The polls were showing he was losing the popular vote by a few percent and had there was enough margin of error in the state polls by election day to give him a reasonable shot at winning the electoral college despite his popular vote deficit. And that's exactly what happened.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: RuRoRul on January 18, 2017, 10:00:15 AM
Thing is, even if the people that believe Trump is sensible or has a point are correct in their interpretation  - we shouldn't be in a position where it takes a bunch of people to "interpret" / "spin" (depending on how you see it) Donald Trump's 140 character, ALL CAPS punctuated Tweets into something that might come close to a sensible point.

If Trump really believed that  "Public approval is lower than it should be right now because Buzzfeed irresponsibly released a document filled with unverified claims, and once all investigations are complete and everyone will be able to see there is nothing there people wil come around", he could say that.

If Trump's point was that "The media's coverage has been unfair and public approval polls are influenced by that", he could tell people that.

If Trump thought that "Polls have been shown to be inaccurate and underestimate my appeal, either because of flawed sampling or because of a climate where people don't like to admit they approve of me", he is free to say that.

But no. All he can say is that a news organisations report on the approval poll's results is "FAKE NEWS! SAD!"

His Twittering is bad from either perspective. For those that believe Trump does have substantive things to say about anything, you should be hoping that he can actually come out and communicate those points properly, rather than appearing to just sling petty Twitter insults at whatever he doesn't like in stilted 140 character bursts.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on January 18, 2017, 12:21:05 PM
Also now apparently he's saying that the approval rating poll is rigged against him and is false.


I can see this getting really dangerous if he simply tells everyone that anything that isn't favorable toward him is a lie.


Well, the real problem is, of course, that he's not RIGHT, but he's not totally WRONG, either.   There is a decided lack of reasonableness, a decided lack of even-handedness, and a decided preference for shock value over substance.  He's got tidbits of truth backing him up.  Buzzfeed was almost negligent in their desire to by pass sound journalistic practice in order to put damaging information (to Trump) out there.    Yeah, it was roundly debunked, but we've all seen enough Law and Order to know that even when the judge says "Sustained; the jury will disregard that outburst", they can't unring the bell.   

I don't like Trump, I certainly do not like the Twattering (I am vehemently against social media, in case you don't know), but what is he supposed to do?  Let the white wash go unchecked?

It's not the government's job to control the media. It's definitely not the President's job to influence it either.

Let the market work it out, right? Won't people decide they want good news and stop supporting the bad places?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: cramx3 on January 18, 2017, 12:40:04 PM
Let the market work it out, right? Won't people decide they want good news and stop supporting the bad places?

This is interesting.  I feel like reasonable people want "good news" regardless of the subject of such news.  But that's not what gets the ratings.  News networks have become more entertainment because that's what the market has dictated for these media outlets.  Click bait articles, crazy headlines, left/right extremist commentary... this is what the market has worked out for us for "news".  Now people like myself are extremely skeptical of news because it's becoming tougher to filter out the BS, the entertainment, the opinion vs fact.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on January 18, 2017, 12:41:18 PM
Thing is, even if the people that believe Trump is sensible or has a point are correct in their interpretation  - we shouldn't be in a position where it takes a bunch of people to "interpret" / "spin" (depending on how you see it) Donald Trump's 140 character, ALL CAPS punctuated Tweets into something that might come close to a sensible point.

If Trump really believed that  "Public approval is lower than it should be right now because Buzzfeed irresponsibly released a document filled with unverified claims, and once all investigations are complete and everyone will be able to see there is nothing there people wil come around", he could say that.

If Trump's point was that "The media's coverage has been unfair and public approval polls are influenced by that", he could tell people that.

If Trump thought that "Polls have been shown to be inaccurate and underestimate my appeal, either because of flawed sampling or because of a climate where people don't like to admit they approve of me", he is free to say that.

But no. All he can say is that a news organisations report on the approval poll's results is "FAKE NEWS! SAD!"

His Twittering is bad from either perspective. For those that believe Trump does have substantive things to say about anything, you should be hoping that he can actually come out and communicate those points properly, rather than appearing to just sling petty Twitter insults at whatever he doesn't like in stilted 140 character bursts.

I honestly don't think he's capable of stringing such a statement together. His vocabulary or ability to speak like an adult isn't anywhere near where it should be for such a position. I was reading an interview with him earlier today where he was speaking about having full military presence on display at parades. After revealing his ingenious 2020 campaign slogan and telling his lawyer on air to trademark it, he went into this;
“But I am so confident that we are going to be, it is going to be so amazing. It’s the only reason I give it to you. If I was, like, ambiguous about it, if I wasn’t sure about what is going to happen — the country is going to be great.”

 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on January 18, 2017, 12:44:19 PM
Let the market work it out, right? Won't people decide they want good news and stop supporting the bad places?

This is interesting.  I feel like reasonable people want "good news" regardless of the subject of such news.  But that's not what gets the ratings.  News networks have become more entertainment because that's what the market has dictated for these media outlets.  Click bait articles, crazy headlines, left/right extremist commentary... this is what the market has worked out for us for "news".  Now people like myself are extremely skeptical of news because it's becoming tougher to filter out the BS, the entertainment, the opinion vs fact.

Indeed, so either we have to do the work ourselves and settle for a world with some bad news, or we let the government tell us what is news and what isn't. I'm not so much a fan of the latter idea.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 18, 2017, 01:42:42 PM
Also now apparently he's saying that the approval rating poll is rigged against him and is false.


I can see this getting really dangerous if he simply tells everyone that anything that isn't favorable toward him is a lie.


Well, the real problem is, of course, that he's not RIGHT, but he's not totally WRONG, either.   There is a decided lack of reasonableness, a decided lack of even-handedness, and a decided preference for shock value over substance.  He's got tidbits of truth backing him up.  Buzzfeed was almost negligent in their desire to by pass sound journalistic practice in order to put damaging information (to Trump) out there.    Yeah, it was roundly debunked, but we've all seen enough Law and Order to know that even when the judge says "Sustained; the jury will disregard that outburst", they can't unring the bell.   

I don't like Trump, I certainly do not like the Twattering (I am vehemently against social media, in case you don't know), but what is he supposed to do?  Let the white wash go unchecked?

It's not the government's job to control the media. It's definitely not the President's job to influence it either.

Let the market work it out, right? Won't people decide they want good news and stop supporting the bad places?

Well, I'm a free market guy, but we're mixing apples and oranges here, and so no, I don't think people will decide that.  I think people ARE deciding that they want to hear what reinforces their world view, not a collection of facts that perhaps calls into question what they already believe.   

Look, Jon Stewart wouldn't be "America's most trusted news source" if people wanted "good news". 

I think it's called the "Fourth Estate" for a reason, and like government should be free - or at least removed from - the free market dictates.   I think the old model - where the differentiator was the DELIVERER of the news, not the news itself - works/worked best. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on January 18, 2017, 01:43:59 PM
And that's all fine and good, but I still don't think it's up to the government or the president to be telling people what news is good and what news is bad, especially when the president is only interested in news that boosts his ego.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 18, 2017, 01:54:21 PM
Let the market work it out, right? Won't people decide they want good news and stop supporting the bad places?

This is interesting.  I feel like reasonable people want "good news" regardless of the subject of such news.  But that's not what gets the ratings.  News networks have become more entertainment because that's what the market has dictated for these media outlets.  Click bait articles, crazy headlines, left/right extremist commentary... this is what the market has worked out for us for "news".  Now people like myself are extremely skeptical of news because it's becoming tougher to filter out the BS, the entertainment, the opinion vs fact.

Indeed, so either we have to do the work ourselves and settle for a world with some bad news, or we let the government tell us what is news and what isn't. I'm not so much a fan of the latter idea.

I don't know that government has to tell us what is news and what isn't but perhaps there are ways of keeping the Sean Hannity's and Rachel Maddow's of the world a little more honest and transparent.  I realize that Hannity isn't a newscaster per se (if I hear him pompously say "as a Conservative..." one more time before pontificating on something idiotic, I'm going to puke). 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on January 18, 2017, 02:04:41 PM
That's all well and good. However, at no point is it the President's job to tell the people what news to watch and what news to ignore, or what news is real/good, or what news is fake/bad. No matter how much we agree with him, or how much we dislike the news, the most powerful man in the country telling us what is real/fake or good/bad regarding the news is not healthy for the country.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on January 20, 2017, 01:48:21 PM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/01/20/donald_trump_s_new_twitter_background_is_a_photo_from_the_inauguration_of.html

 :lol :lol

Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: lonestar on January 22, 2017, 11:06:49 AM
(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p480x480/16114849_10155072173814883_4598226713751463712_n.jpg?oh=0ea373c3987b42538a65f84f2449c1bc&oe=590AF2B8)
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: BlobVanDam on January 22, 2017, 11:11:34 AM
I'm pretty sure someone wrestled his phone away from him to write his last tweet. :lol
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: lonestar on January 22, 2017, 11:29:09 AM
Oh for sure....

Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Elite on January 22, 2017, 11:31:13 AM
This one?

"Watched protests yesterday but was under the impression that we just had an election! Why didn't these people vote? Celebs hurt cause badly."

Very presidential indeed..
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on January 22, 2017, 11:42:43 AM
Probably the one he wrote a couple of hours after that one^^ which definitely dosen't have that special Trump flair:

"Peaceful protests are a hallmark of our democracy. Even if I don't always agree, I recognize the rights of people to express their views."
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on January 22, 2017, 12:38:16 PM
Probably the one he wrote a couple of hours after that one^^ which definitely dosen't have that special Trump flair:

"Peaceful protests are a hallmark of our democracy. Even if I don't always agree, I recognize the rights of people to express their views."

I like how he points out "even if I don't agree" when the cause is women's rights and equality.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: KevShmev on January 22, 2017, 01:20:01 PM
You left out "always."  He didn't say he didn't agree with yesterday's protests. Plenty to blast Trump for without making stuff up or assuming.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on January 22, 2017, 01:21:46 PM
Oh I know, but if this were a march that he agreed with, do you really think he'd include that part?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: KevShmev on January 22, 2017, 01:24:43 PM
Probably not, but I don't think it's a good idea to assume.

Besides, Trump's MO with the media is already plain as day.  He will say or do 394 bizarre things a week, which the media will then turn into 844, and Trump can then rip them for exaggerating and/or lying about the 450, while ignoring the 394.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on January 22, 2017, 01:28:07 PM
Probably not, but I don't think it's a good idea to assume.

Besides, Trump's MO with the media is already plain as day.  He will say or do 394 bizarre things a week, which the media will then turn into 844, and Trump can then rip them for exaggerating and/or lying about the 450, while ignoring the 394.

Mostly fair point.

At this point, I just look for his twitter posts that are made from 150% ego. Luckily for me, he posts plenty of those as is.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: pogoowner on January 22, 2017, 04:29:11 PM
I saw this posted today regarding Sean Spicer's role as press secretary:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/pogoowner/C2wCbaBXAAApIyq.jpg%20large_1.jpg)
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Dave_Manchester on January 22, 2017, 04:39:16 PM
^^^ "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State" - Joseph Goebbels.

I'm not for a second suggesting Trump and Spicer are anywhere near that level, but there are echoes in the methodology.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 23, 2017, 08:54:33 AM
Oh I know, but if this were a march that he agreed with, do you really think he'd include that part?

Maybe, maybe not, but that's not, as I understand it, what he was responding to.  Context is important.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 23, 2017, 09:01:53 AM
^^^ "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State" - Joseph Goebbels.

I'm not for a second suggesting Trump and Spicer are anywhere near that level, but there are echoes in the methodology.

But the RESPONSE to Trump is every bit as reliant on that strategy.  Why imply that HE took down references to LGBT and climate change from the White House website when it wasn't true?   Why, in that piece above, did they WRONGLY imply that all the "non-voters" would be against Trump (whether he won or lost the general election, it wasn't a "2/3 to 1/3 majority".   Clinton won by a couple million Californians, but HER support is only about 1/3 of the population and no assumptions can be made about the remaining 1/3.  It's likely that at least some of them would nominally be pro-Trump. 

I get it, we have to remain diligent, but "suppressing dissent" is only relevant to Goebbels when that dissent is honest, and relevant itself.    Yeah, Trump probably does lie every bit as much as any other politician, but I have never, ever seen this much dishonesty and partisanship in an institution (the fourth estate) that is nominally bipartisan and a-political.  Now CNN is electing to not cover legitimate news, not because of it's truthfulness or relevance, but because of it's CONTENT. WTF?  I know I can get that information elsewhere, but if we're worried so much about ONE PRESIDENT, and his Administration, for one particular trait, why are we not worried about the entire news media for the same exact trait?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 23, 2017, 09:40:49 AM
Trump probably does lie every bit as much as any other politician
You are being very generous to Mr. Trump.  He is the lyingest liar I have ever seen.  Most politicians lie when it is beneficial to them, or to cover his ass.  He (and his spokepeople like Conway and Spicer) lie when there is no reason to lie.  They just open their mouths and lie for the sheer hell of it.  To quote our great national poet LL Cool J, "you lied about the lies that you lied about".

but I have never, ever seen this much dishonesty and partisanship in an institution (the fourth estate) that is nominally bipartisan and a-political.  Now CNN is electing to not cover legitimate news, not because of it's truthfulness or relevance, but because of it's CONTENT. WTF?  I know I can get that information elsewhere, but if we're worried so much about ONE PRESIDENT, and his Administration, for one particular trait, why are we not worried about the entire news media for the same exact trait?
What "dishonesty" are you talking about from the media?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 23, 2017, 10:40:46 AM
Trump probably does lie every bit as much as any other politician
You are being very generous to Mr. Trump.  He is the lyingest liar I have ever seen.  Most politicians lie when it is beneficial to them, or to cover his ass.  He (and his spokepeople like Conway and Spicer) lie when there is no reason to lie.  They just open their mouths and lie for the sheer hell of it.  To quote our great national poet LL Cool J, "you lied about the lies that you lied about".

but I have never, ever seen this much dishonesty and partisanship in an institution (the fourth estate) that is nominally bipartisan and a-political.  Now CNN is electing to not cover legitimate news, not because of it's truthfulness or relevance, but because of it's CONTENT. WTF?  I know I can get that information elsewhere, but if we're worried so much about ONE PRESIDENT, and his Administration, for one particular trait, why are we not worried about the entire news media for the same exact trait?
What "dishonesty" are you talking about from the media?

There are countless examples.  The "take down" of the White House webpage is one example.  The truncations of quotes is another.   Not 20 minutes ago, my daughter pointed me to a HuffPo article about international aid and abortion, and the sentence was something to the effect that "Trump said during the campaign that 'women that had abortions should be punished'", then later rethought that position (or had someone rethink it for him)."   One, the full context of the quote was ILLEGAL abortions, not ALL abortions, and two, why the need to pontificate and imply that he can't think for himself?  That's both factually dishonest (he didn't say what they said he said) and intellectually dishonest (using that to make an unrelated and unsubstantiated point).   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 23, 2017, 11:48:24 AM
Not sure using HuffPo as your example is a great idea  :lol

I mean, I read some of their articles, but they aren't "journalism" like ABC, CBS, NBC, or even CNN or Fox News.  ALL of which (yes, even Fox) decried the idiocy spewed by Sean Spicer about the size of the inauguration crowd and the stupid "alternate facts" nonsense brought out by Kellyanne Conway.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on February 07, 2017, 08:12:17 AM

   
@realDonaldTrump February 7, 2017

"I don't know Putin, have no deals in Russia, and the haters are going crazy - yet Obama can make a deal with Iran, #1 in terror, no problem!"


__________________________________________________________________________

"Yes, a long time ago," Trump said. "[Putin and I] got along great, by the way."

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-2015-interview-claims-he-met-putin


Trump declared, “I do have a relationship and I can tell you that he’s very interested in what we’re doing here today He’s probably very interested in what you and I am saying today, and I’m sure he’s going to be seeing it in some form."

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/in-a-2013-interview-trump-said-i-do-have-a-relationship-with-vladimir-putin/


"Putin has big plans for Russia. He wants to edge out its neighbors so that Russia can dominate oil supplies to all of Europe," Trump said. "I respect Putin and Russians but cannot believe our leader (Obama) allows them to get away with so much...Hats off to the Russians. Will he become my new best friend?" Trump asked of Putin in a tweet wondering whether Putin would attend the 2013 Miss Universe pageant Trump brought to Moscow. I think I'd get along very well with Vladimir Putin. I just think so,"

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/28/politics/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-quotes/


Trump said of the letter: "A very nice letter from Vladimir Putin; his thoughts are so correct. I hope both sides are able to live up to these thoughts, and we do not have to travel an alternate path.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-putin-clinton-democrats-lose-dignity-232957


"If he says great things about me, I'm going to say great things about him," the Republican nominee said. "I've already said he is very much of a leader. The man has very strong control over his country

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-strong-leader-obama-2016-9


"You know, I was in Moscow a couple of months ago. I own the Miss Universe Pageant and they treated me so great. Putin even sent me a present, a beautiful present."

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2014/03/06/donald-trump-peppers-cpac-speeches-with-humblebrags


"Russia does not respect our country any longer. They see we've been greatly weakened, both militarily and otherwise, and he certainly does not respect President Obama. So what I would do—as an example, I own Miss Universe, I was in Russia, I was in Moscow recently and I spoke, indirectly and directly, with President Putin, who could not have been nicer, and we had a tremendous success. The show was live from Moscow, and we had tremendous success there and it was amazing, but to do well, you have to get the other side to respect you, and he does not respect our president, which is very sad."

http://www.press.org/events/npc-luncheon-donald-trump-chairman-and-president-trump-organization


"As far as the Ukraine is concerned … if Putin wants to go in -- and I got to know him very well because we were both on 60 Minutes. We were stablemates, and we did very well that night."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republican-debate-transcript-primetime-debate-on-economy
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on February 07, 2017, 09:34:11 AM
Not sure using HuffPo as your example is a great idea  :lol

I mean, I read some of their articles, but they aren't "journalism" like ABC, CBS, NBC, or even CNN or Fox News.  ALL of which (yes, even Fox) decried the idiocy spewed by Sean Spicer about the size of the inauguration crowd and the stupid "alternate facts" nonsense brought out by Kellyanne Conway.

Honestly?  Fox News has been REMARKABLY fair in this whole proceeding.  Yeah, you've still got Sean "Can I wipe your balls now, Mr. President?" Hannity, but Shep Smith is a veritable Walter Cronkite for the twenty tens on there.   He calls bullshit on something Trump's done about twice a day.    Hell, even the greatest show on the planet, "Outnumbered" is starting to make Meghan McCain look like a raving lunatic, it's moving so far to the center.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on February 15, 2017, 05:59:31 AM
Spoken like a true president.

@RealDonaldTrump

Feb 15, 2017 07:42:20 AM - Crimea was TAKEN by Russia during the Obama Administration. Was Obama too soft on Russia?

Feb 15, 2017 07:28:37 AM - Thank you to Eli Lake of The Bloomberg View - "The NSA & FBI...should not interfere in our politics...and is" Very serious situation for USA

Feb 15, 2017 07:19:18 AM - Information is being illegally given to the failing @nytimes & @washingtonpost by the intelligence community (NSA and FBI?).Just like Russia

Feb 15, 2017 07:08:12 AM - This Russian connection non-sense is merely an attempt to cover-up the many mistakes made in Hillary Clinton's losing campaign.

Feb 15, 2017 06:40:32 AM - The fake news media is going crazy with their conspiracy theories and blind hatred. @MSNBC & @CNN are unwatchable. @foxandfriends is great!
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Elite on February 15, 2017, 06:03:21 AM
This dude is unbelievably incompetent and childish.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on February 17, 2017, 06:02:29 PM
@realdonaldtrump

"Feb 17, 2017 04:48:22 PM - The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!"

Fuck right off with that shit.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: pogoowner on February 17, 2017, 06:05:55 PM
My favorite part is that the original tweet included less news organizations, but he deleted it to add more.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: chknptpie on February 17, 2017, 08:24:25 PM
So, curious question... does naming a particular person or organization as an Enemy of the State mean or change anything legally?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on February 17, 2017, 10:26:25 PM
So, curious question... does naming a particular person or organization as an Enemy of the State mean or change anything legally?

I believe he said "the enemy of the American people", not "Enemy of the State", but either way there is no legal ramification.  Just a credibility ramification.  :)
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on February 17, 2017, 10:30:55 PM
So, curious question... does naming a particular person or organization as an Enemy of the State mean or change anything legally?

Just a credibility ramification.  :)

For whom? Honest question.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on February 17, 2017, 10:36:23 PM
So, curious question... does naming a particular person or organization as an Enemy of the State mean or change anything legally?

Just a credibility ramification.  :)

For whom? Honest question.

Trump.   I believe in the media bias as much as anyone, but it's not the MEDIA that is the enemy of the American people, it's the PEOPLE who don't put in the work.   That's ultimately where the problem lies.   That's why I spend so much time asking people to be fair and do their homework.  Stop with the hyperbole. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: ariich on February 18, 2017, 03:07:25 AM
So, curious question... does naming a particular person or organization as an Enemy of the State mean or change anything legally?
I've actually been wondering whether some of these publications that he insists on naming can sue him for libel or whatever similar laws you have over in the US.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: chknptpie on February 18, 2017, 08:02:32 AM
So, curious question... does naming a particular person or organization as an Enemy of the State mean or change anything legally?
I've actually been wondering whether some of these publications that he insists on naming can sue him for libel or whatever similar laws you have over in the US.

Thats one of the reasons I asked...
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/17/515760101/when-a-politician-says-fake-news-and-a-newspaper-threatens-to-sue-back?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170217


Also wondering if they are labeled as enemy of the state, if they can be shut down or investigated without certain legal restrictions.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on March 13, 2017, 11:29:01 AM
Mar 13, 2017 07:52:29 AM - It is amazing how rude much of the media is to my very hard working representatives. Be nice, you will do much better!


 :lol

I feel sorry for Rosie 's new partner in love whose parents are devastated at the thought of their daughter being with @Rosie--a true loser.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 14, 2011


You must admit that Bryant Gumbel is one of the dumbest racists around - an arrogant dope with no talent. Failed at CBS etc-why still on TV?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 21, 2013


I loved beating these two terrible human beings. I would never recommend that anyone use her lawyer, he is a total loser!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 23, 2013


@michellemalkin You were born stupid!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 22, 2013

Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: hefdaddy42 on March 13, 2017, 11:53:58 AM
SAD!
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on March 15, 2017, 07:48:51 AM
http://www.cc.com/shows/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah/third-month-mania

Get on it people.  March Madness to determine Trump's greatest tweet of all time.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: ? on March 15, 2017, 11:54:37 AM
http://www.cc.com/shows/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah/third-month-mania

Get on it people.  March Madness to determine Trump's greatest tweet of all time.
"It's freezing in NYC, we need global warming" is not an option? SAD!
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: ariich on March 15, 2017, 02:04:32 PM
"I never fall for scams. I am the only person who walked out of my 'Ali G' interview"

Oh my god. :rollin
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on March 15, 2017, 06:15:23 PM
"I never fall for scams. I am the only person who walked out of my 'Ali G' interview"

Oh my god. :rollin

I think Gingrich did too.

*Edit*

Newt Gingrich did not.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: cramx3 on March 16, 2017, 08:02:39 AM
 :lol Ali G was awesome
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on March 16, 2017, 09:37:30 AM
:lol Ali G was awesome

"It's like my friend, Rainbow Jeremy. He just stays at home, smokes his own home grown. He wants nothing to do with techmology. You can check his website"
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on March 21, 2017, 07:33:58 AM
 :corn :corn :corn

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/324932-arnold-schwarzenegger-blasts-trump-over-low-approval-ratings

Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: axeman90210 on March 21, 2017, 08:35:25 AM
:corn :corn :corn

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/324932-arnold-schwarzenegger-blasts-trump-over-low-approval-ratings



If you went back in time 25 years and told everyone that some day in the future former governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger would be publicly mocking president Donald Trump over his low approval ratings, they'd have put you in a room with padded walls and a very snug fitting jacket.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on April 07, 2017, 10:10:15 AM
(https://i.redditmedia.com/DaQ3rd0Aoc4ezSpCZRbzMipFMmXM1qKOzrc17pOYnZM.png?w=750&s=1f8f858e45a752cee07044b836786391)
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: PowerSlave on April 16, 2017, 02:59:20 PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-calls-investigation-tax-day-protesters-tweets-election-over-n747101

Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on April 16, 2017, 06:48:19 PM
Trump is this country's biggest snowflake. If this didn't get under his skin, he'd be ignoring it.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on April 17, 2017, 03:11:36 AM
Trump is this country's biggest snowflake. If this didn't get under his skin, he'd be ignoring it.

Wonder how often he "grabs" himself?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on May 12, 2017, 07:39:05 AM
May 12, 2017 07:07:36 AM - ...Maybe the best thing to do would be to cancel all future "press briefings" and hand out written responses for the sake of accuracy???

Yep. Definitely sounds like something the greatest nation on Earth would do... you take what your leader says at face value and as absolute truth.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on May 12, 2017, 08:43:52 AM
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-calls-investigation-tax-day-protesters-tweets-election-over-n747101

That article seems to have been written by a 16-year-old.  In fact, I showed it to my 16-year-old and even SHE was embarrassed by it.    What legit news piece editorializes something like "President Donald Trump on Twitter Sunday lashed out against citizens who'd taken to the streets to exercise their First Amendment rights."   That is not at all what he lashed out against.    And ironically, what he lashed out against is probably worse than what this noob said, so why extemporize?   

And this:  "But a poll from the Pew Research Center in January found that more than two-thirds of all Americans believe the president has an obligation to release his tax returns."  And this, with no explanation or context; this statement says NOTHING about Trump, and only that 2/3 of Americans are dumbasses (he has no "obligation" to release his taxes, and neither did any other of the "nearly all major presidential candidates" that released them "since the 1970s".   Let's just continue to attack Trump and fuck all if the facts are right.  We're journalists, we don't have to be CORRECT, we just need to get our OPINIONS OUT THERE!   

And lest people start banging the "There goes Stadler! Supporting Trump again!", let me say that since I don't see what the big deal is - the top two pages of the 1040 don't tell you jack scratch (as we've seen from the two previous Trump tax returns we've seen) - I'm indifferent on the issue.  I can see why he should (shut everyone up once and for all and make them look as incompetent as they are), and I can see why he shouldn't (because it's meaningless, it's a charade, and if you're "draining the swamp" you presumably don't participate in charades).   What I can't figure out is why the story morphs so much.  Just say "Yes" or "No" and be done with it.     
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on May 12, 2017, 09:50:28 AM
I can see your point on this poll - you're absolutely right... he has no "obligation" to release them.  However, my personal interpretation is that the intent of the poll is one to guage opinion, and 2/3 of Americans believe he should release them - ie, a moral obligation to his citizens.  It's likely that some of that group DO actually believe there is an actual obligation, but I highly doubt all of them do.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: PowerSlave on May 12, 2017, 02:24:32 PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-calls-investigation-tax-day-protesters-tweets-election-over-n747101

That article seems to have been written by a 16-year-old.  In fact, I showed it to my 16-year-old and even SHE was embarrassed by it.    What legit news piece editorializes something like "President Donald Trump on Twitter Sunday lashed out against citizens who'd taken to the streets to exercise their First Amendment rights."   That is not at all what he lashed out against.    And ironically, what he lashed out against is probably worse than what this noob said, so why extemporize?   

And this:  "But a poll from the Pew Research Center in January found that more than two-thirds of all Americans believe the president has an obligation to release his tax returns."  And this, with no explanation or context; this statement says NOTHING about Trump, and only that 2/3 of Americans are dumbasses (he has no "obligation" to release his taxes, and neither did any other of the "nearly all major presidential candidates" that released them "since the 1970s".   Let's just continue to attack Trump and fuck all if the facts are right.  We're journalists, we don't have to be CORRECT, we just need to get our OPINIONS OUT THERE!   

And lest people start banging the "There goes Stadler! Supporting Trump again!", let me say that since I don't see what the big deal is - the top two pages of the 1040 don't tell you jack scratch (as we've seen from the two previous Trump tax returns we've seen) - I'm indifferent on the issue.  I can see why he should (shut everyone up once and for all and make them look as incompetent as they are), and I can see why he shouldn't (because it's meaningless, it's a charade, and if you're "draining the swamp" you presumably don't participate in charades).   What I can't figure out is why the story morphs so much.  Just say "Yes" or "No" and be done with it.   

Jingle covered most of my thoughts about it. However, regardless of your opinion of the quality of the article, his assertion that people should be investigated for excersizing their constitutional rights to peacefully protest is alarming to say the least. You and I are probably the most vocal representatives of Libertarianism in this forum even if we are at the extremes from one another in that particular realm of thought. I'd think that we could both agree that any sitting president that would openly attack those rights deserves a great deal of critisism that comes his way.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on May 15, 2017, 10:15:50 AM
I can see your point on this poll - you're absolutely right... he has no "obligation" to release them.  However, my personal interpretation is that the intent of the poll is one to guage opinion, and 2/3 of Americans believe he should release them - ie, a moral obligation to his citizens.  It's likely that some of that group DO actually believe there is an actual obligation, but I highly doubt all of them do.

I don't disagree with any of what you say, but I am bothered by the degree to which we are getting careless in our zeal to castigate this - or any - President.  The PRESS should know the difference and should ask the right question.   I grant you that people may have differing opinions/ideas/interpretations, but the PRESS should not.  They are professionals, they deal in "words", they should know what they mean and use them correctly.  They should have no vested interest in using certain words in certain ways to elicit certain responses.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on May 15, 2017, 10:19:10 AM
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-calls-investigation-tax-day-protesters-tweets-election-over-n747101

That article seems to have been written by a 16-year-old.  In fact, I showed it to my 16-year-old and even SHE was embarrassed by it.    What legit news piece editorializes something like "President Donald Trump on Twitter Sunday lashed out against citizens who'd taken to the streets to exercise their First Amendment rights."   That is not at all what he lashed out against.    And ironically, what he lashed out against is probably worse than what this noob said, so why extemporize?   

And this:  "But a poll from the Pew Research Center in January found that more than two-thirds of all Americans believe the president has an obligation to release his tax returns."  And this, with no explanation or context; this statement says NOTHING about Trump, and only that 2/3 of Americans are dumbasses (he has no "obligation" to release his taxes, and neither did any other of the "nearly all major presidential candidates" that released them "since the 1970s".   Let's just continue to attack Trump and fuck all if the facts are right.  We're journalists, we don't have to be CORRECT, we just need to get our OPINIONS OUT THERE!   

And lest people start banging the "There goes Stadler! Supporting Trump again!", let me say that since I don't see what the big deal is - the top two pages of the 1040 don't tell you jack scratch (as we've seen from the two previous Trump tax returns we've seen) - I'm indifferent on the issue.  I can see why he should (shut everyone up once and for all and make them look as incompetent as they are), and I can see why he shouldn't (because it's meaningless, it's a charade, and if you're "draining the swamp" you presumably don't participate in charades).   What I can't figure out is why the story morphs so much.  Just say "Yes" or "No" and be done with it.   

Jingle covered most of my thoughts about it. However, regardless of your opinion of the quality of the article, his assertion that people should be investigated for excersizing their constitutional rights to peacefully protest is alarming to say the least. You and I are probably the most vocal representatives of Libertarianism in this forum even if we are at the extremes from one another in that particular realm of thought. I'd think that we could both agree that any sitting president that would openly attack those rights deserves a great deal of critisism that comes his way.

I agree with you 1000% philosophically, but that's not at all what is happening. He's NOT demanding that they be investigated for exercising their First Amendment rights. He's saying - rightly or wrongly - that it is NOT actually a free speech demonstration, but rather an organized rally using paid participants.  I suppose you can argue that the person/entity that is funding it is expressing their free speech rights, but I don't think it's untoward to demand a full explanation of the rally.  A "rally" implies that all those people are zealous enough (in a good way) to make their presence felt.  If that's not the case, and it's really just one very wealthy person with an opinion, that is fair information to know. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on May 15, 2017, 10:20:31 AM
I can see your point on this poll - you're absolutely right... he has no "obligation" to release them.  However, my personal interpretation is that the intent of the poll is one to guage opinion, and 2/3 of Americans believe he should release them - ie, a moral obligation to his citizens.  It's likely that some of that group DO actually believe there is an actual obligation, but I highly doubt all of them do.

I don't disagree with any of what you say, but I am bothered by the degree to which we are getting careless in our zeal to castigate this - or any - President.  The PRESS should know the difference and should ask the right question.   I grant you that people may have differing opinions/ideas/interpretations, but the PRESS should not.  They are professionals, they deal in "words", they should know what they mean and use them correctly.  They should have no vested interest in using certain words in certain ways to elicit certain responses.

Well then you're getting into the question as to why the press has more interest in sensationalism and less in cold-hard reporting. For that, I blame capitalism and the fact that sensationalism sells a lot, causing the press to move toward that direction to stay alive.

In an ideal world though, the press should be totally unbias. But in our world, it will never happen.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on May 15, 2017, 10:27:54 AM
I can see your point on this poll - you're absolutely right... he has no "obligation" to release them.  However, my personal interpretation is that the intent of the poll is one to guage opinion, and 2/3 of Americans believe he should release them - ie, a moral obligation to his citizens.  It's likely that some of that group DO actually believe there is an actual obligation, but I highly doubt all of them do.

I don't disagree with any of what you say, but I am bothered by the degree to which we are getting careless in our zeal to castigate this - or any - President.  The PRESS should know the difference and should ask the right question.   I grant you that people may have differing opinions/ideas/interpretations, but the PRESS should not.  They are professionals, they deal in "words", they should know what they mean and use them correctly.  They should have no vested interest in using certain words in certain ways to elicit certain responses.


Well then you're getting into the question as to why the press has more interest in sensationalism and less in cold-hard reporting. For that, I blame capitalism and the fact that sensationalism sells a lot, causing the press to move toward that direction to stay alive.

In an ideal world though, the press should be totally unbias. But in our world, it will never happen.

I'm a devout capitalist, but I'm not entirely sure it's solely capitalism.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on May 15, 2017, 10:37:53 AM
I can see your point on this poll - you're absolutely right... he has no "obligation" to release them.  However, my personal interpretation is that the intent of the poll is one to guage opinion, and 2/3 of Americans believe he should release them - ie, a moral obligation to his citizens.  It's likely that some of that group DO actually believe there is an actual obligation, but I highly doubt all of them do.

I don't disagree with any of what you say, but I am bothered by the degree to which we are getting careless in our zeal to castigate this - or any - President.  The PRESS should know the difference and should ask the right question.   I grant you that people may have differing opinions/ideas/interpretations, but the PRESS should not.  They are professionals, they deal in "words", they should know what they mean and use them correctly.  They should have no vested interest in using certain words in certain ways to elicit certain responses.


Well then you're getting into the question as to why the press has more interest in sensationalism and less in cold-hard reporting. For that, I blame capitalism and the fact that sensationalism sells a lot, causing the press to move toward that direction to stay alive.

In an ideal world though, the press should be totally unbias. But in our world, it will never happen.
I'm a devout capitalist, but I'm not entirely sure it's solely capitalism.   
Then what? That's where I always run into issues with this whole MSM conspiracy thing. Who are they taking their orders from? Where does FOX get its?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on May 15, 2017, 10:43:23 AM
I can see your point on this poll - you're absolutely right... he has no "obligation" to release them.  However, my personal interpretation is that the intent of the poll is one to guage opinion, and 2/3 of Americans believe he should release them - ie, a moral obligation to his citizens.  It's likely that some of that group DO actually believe there is an actual obligation, but I highly doubt all of them do.

I don't disagree with any of what you say, but I am bothered by the degree to which we are getting careless in our zeal to castigate this - or any - President.  The PRESS should know the difference and should ask the right question.   I grant you that people may have differing opinions/ideas/interpretations, but the PRESS should not.  They are professionals, they deal in "words", they should know what they mean and use them correctly.  They should have no vested interest in using certain words in certain ways to elicit certain responses.


Well then you're getting into the question as to why the press has more interest in sensationalism and less in cold-hard reporting. For that, I blame capitalism and the fact that sensationalism sells a lot, causing the press to move toward that direction to stay alive.

In an ideal world though, the press should be totally unbias. But in our world, it will never happen.
I'm a devout capitalist, but I'm not entirely sure it's solely capitalism.   
Then what? That's where I always run into issues with this whole MSM conspiracy thing. Who are they taking their orders from? Where does FOX get its?

I don't know that anyone is "getting orders".  I think to some degree it's down to the participants.  I guess that makes it tangentially "capitalism", but not in the sense of marketing and sale.   I think Sean Hannity likes being "Sean HannityTM, and broadcasts accordingly.   Same with Van Jones.  I think there is an arrogance and an entitlement from some of these new-fangled "journalists" who came up in the Twitter-era of "MY OPINION MATTERS!  MY OPINION MATTERS!" 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on May 15, 2017, 10:44:35 AM
I can see your point on this poll - you're absolutely right... he has no "obligation" to release them.  However, my personal interpretation is that the intent of the poll is one to guage opinion, and 2/3 of Americans believe he should release them - ie, a moral obligation to his citizens.  It's likely that some of that group DO actually believe there is an actual obligation, but I highly doubt all of them do.

I don't disagree with any of what you say, but I am bothered by the degree to which we are getting careless in our zeal to castigate this - or any - President.  The PRESS should know the difference and should ask the right question.   I grant you that people may have differing opinions/ideas/interpretations, but the PRESS should not.  They are professionals, they deal in "words", they should know what they mean and use them correctly.  They should have no vested interest in using certain words in certain ways to elicit certain responses.


Well then you're getting into the question as to why the press has more interest in sensationalism and less in cold-hard reporting. For that, I blame capitalism and the fact that sensationalism sells a lot, causing the press to move toward that direction to stay alive.

In an ideal world though, the press should be totally unbias. But in our world, it will never happen.

I'm a devout capitalist, but I'm not entirely sure it's solely capitalism.

Well, it's not solely the abstract concept of capitalism. It's capitalism responding to the interests of the people. The people want to be entertained. They want to be affirmed. They want their emotional responses heightened. Thus the press has moved toward doing that.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on May 15, 2017, 10:48:13 AM
I can see your point on this poll - you're absolutely right... he has no "obligation" to release them.  However, my personal interpretation is that the intent of the poll is one to guage opinion, and 2/3 of Americans believe he should release them - ie, a moral obligation to his citizens.  It's likely that some of that group DO actually believe there is an actual obligation, but I highly doubt all of them do.

I don't disagree with any of what you say, but I am bothered by the degree to which we are getting careless in our zeal to castigate this - or any - President.  The PRESS should know the difference and should ask the right question.   I grant you that people may have differing opinions/ideas/interpretations, but the PRESS should not.  They are professionals, they deal in "words", they should know what they mean and use them correctly.  They should have no vested interest in using certain words in certain ways to elicit certain responses.


Well then you're getting into the question as to why the press has more interest in sensationalism and less in cold-hard reporting. For that, I blame capitalism and the fact that sensationalism sells a lot, causing the press to move toward that direction to stay alive.

In an ideal world though, the press should be totally unbias. But in our world, it will never happen.

I'm a devout capitalist, but I'm not entirely sure it's solely capitalism.

Well, it's not solely the abstract concept of capitalism. It's capitalism responding to the interests of the people. The people want to be entertained. They want to be affirmed. They want their emotional responses heightened. Thus the press has moved toward doing that.

You're the expert here, and so I defer, but I would offer that subjectively, my gut tells me it's a different mechanism.  It's less about "entertainment" and "emotional responses" than it is the quick affirmation and the reinforcement of their subjective identity.   We don't like being told we're wrong (and in fact, in some cases, as we've seen here, to do so is counterproductive). 

I don't at all deny there is a capitalist/ monetary impact to this, but I see it as a secondary by-product, and not the primary objective.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on May 15, 2017, 10:51:04 AM
Yes, I wasn't saying they were all even, just all factors, and I made sure to include affirmation.

Though, it might not apply to you and your friends/family, I can assure you that many people seek out and respond to things that emotionally heighten them.

You're coming from the perspective of a well educated, well-thought out, rather dashing, perspective. However, most people aren't.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on May 15, 2017, 12:36:22 PM
I can see your point on this poll - you're absolutely right... he has no "obligation" to release them.  However, my personal interpretation is that the intent of the poll is one to guage opinion, and 2/3 of Americans believe he should release them - ie, a moral obligation to his citizens.  It's likely that some of that group DO actually believe there is an actual obligation, but I highly doubt all of them do.

I don't disagree with any of what you say, but I am bothered by the degree to which we are getting careless in our zeal to castigate this - or any - President.  The PRESS should know the difference and should ask the right question.   I grant you that people may have differing opinions/ideas/interpretations, but the PRESS should not.  They are professionals, they deal in "words", they should know what they mean and use them correctly.  They should have no vested interest in using certain words in certain ways to elicit certain responses.

Given the way POTUS is flippant in his use of "words" (quotations to emphasize the fully intended pun), I find it ironic you are bothered the with the careless way the PRESS uses words in this case (and yes... in many others surely), yet you are repeatedly an apologist/defender of the "most powerful man in the nation" who is beyond careless with his use English - both written and spoken.

Let's try this - I'm going to flip Press and President in your statement...

I don't disagree with any of what you say, but I am bothered by the degree to which we are getting careless in our zeal to castigate this - or any - Press.  The PRESIDENT should know the difference and should ask the right question.   I grant you that people may have differing opinions/ideas/interpretations, but the PRESIDENT should not.  They are He is the most powerful man in the world professionals, they he deals in "words", they he should know what they mean and use them correctly.  They He should have no vested interest in using certain words in certain ways to elicit certain responses.

Seems legit. Your move  ;) :D
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: PowerSlave on May 15, 2017, 02:01:04 PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-calls-investigation-tax-day-protesters-tweets-election-over-n747101

That article seems to have been written by a 16-year-old.  In fact, I showed it to my 16-year-old and even SHE was embarrassed by it.    What legit news piece editorializes something like "President Donald Trump on Twitter Sunday lashed out against citizens who'd taken to the streets to exercise their First Amendment rights."   That is not at all what he lashed out against.    And ironically, what he lashed out against is probably worse than what this noob said, so why extemporize?   

And this:  "But a poll from the Pew Research Center in January found that more than two-thirds of all Americans believe the president has an obligation to release his tax returns."  And this, with no explanation or context; this statement says NOTHING about Trump, and only that 2/3 of Americans are dumbasses (he has no "obligation" to release his taxes, and neither did any other of the "nearly all major presidential candidates" that released them "since the 1970s".   Let's just continue to attack Trump and fuck all if the facts are right.  We're journalists, we don't have to be CORRECT, we just need to get our OPINIONS OUT THERE!   

And lest people start banging the "There goes Stadler! Supporting Trump again!", let me say that since I don't see what the big deal is - the top two pages of the 1040 don't tell you jack scratch (as we've seen from the two previous Trump tax returns we've seen) - I'm indifferent on the issue.  I can see why he should (shut everyone up once and for all and make them look as incompetent as they are), and I can see why he shouldn't (because it's meaningless, it's a charade, and if you're "draining the swamp" you presumably don't participate in charades).   What I can't figure out is why the story morphs so much.  Just say "Yes" or "No" and be done with it.   

Jingle covered most of my thoughts about it. However, regardless of your opinion of the quality of the article, his assertion that people should be investigated for excersizing their constitutional rights to peacefully protest is alarming to say the least. You and I are probably the most vocal representatives of Libertarianism in this forum even if we are at the extremes from one another in that particular realm of thought. I'd think that we could both agree that any sitting president that would openly attack those rights deserves a great deal of critisism that comes his way.

I agree with you 1000% philosophically, but that's not at all what is happening. He's NOT demanding that they be investigated for exercising their First Amendment rights. He's saying - rightly or wrongly - that it is NOT actually a free speech demonstration, but rather an organized rally using paid participants.  I suppose you can argue that the person/entity that is funding it is expressing their free speech rights, but I don't think it's untoward to demand a full explanation of the rally.  A "rally" implies that all those people are zealous enough (in a good way) to make their presence felt.  If that's not the case, and it's really just one very wealthy person with an opinion, that is fair information to know.

I'd certainly like for it to be transparent. I'd love to know if big money interests were behind the rally. However, I think it's fair to say that him calling it out that way is hypocritical at best. It's his side of the aisle that have rejoiced at things like Citizen United where free speech = big money. How thin skinned does he have to be to cry foul when the tools that he took full advantage of during his campaign are turned around and used on him? Also, he's been sworn to protect the constitution. There's no provision in that document barring anyone from paying participants for peaceful protest. We could argue about it being against the spirit of the founders that wrote the document, but then we'd arrive back at the supreme court ruling again.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on May 16, 2017, 06:34:31 AM
I can see your point on this poll - you're absolutely right... he has no "obligation" to release them.  However, my personal interpretation is that the intent of the poll is one to guage opinion, and 2/3 of Americans believe he should release them - ie, a moral obligation to his citizens.  It's likely that some of that group DO actually believe there is an actual obligation, but I highly doubt all of them do.

I don't disagree with any of what you say, but I am bothered by the degree to which we are getting careless in our zeal to castigate this - or any - President.  The PRESS should know the difference and should ask the right question.   I grant you that people may have differing opinions/ideas/interpretations, but the PRESS should not.  They are professionals, they deal in "words", they should know what they mean and use them correctly.  They should have no vested interest in using certain words in certain ways to elicit certain responses.

Given the way POTUS is flippant in his use of "words" (quotations to emphasize the fully intended pun), I find it ironic you are bothered the with the careless way the PRESS uses words in this case (and yes... in many others surely), yet you are repeatedly an apologist/defender of the "most powerful man in the nation" who is beyond careless with his use English - both written and spoken.

Let's try this - I'm going to flip Press and President in your statement...

Have you been reading?   My two biggest non-policy beefs with Trump are, in order, the TWEETING and his carelessness with words.  It drives me fucking CRAZY.   I'm not at all "apologizing" for Trump (I'm actually starting to slip quietly over to the "let's impeach him and get Pence in there ASAP" wagon, though I'm no Pence fan either.  His position on identity politics is not my thing.) but I am saying that those criticizing him don't get to pick and choose when to hold him at his word and when not to.    When Trump - carelessly and without forethought - says "MUSLIM BAN!" then to the critics EVERYTHING that comes after is a de facto Muslim ban.   Like the EO, which is in no way, shape or form a "Muslim ban" (how you can have a ban on Muslims that doesn't actually apply to over 90% of the world's Muslims is beyond me entirely.)    They hold him to his words when it helps their cause.   But when he ACTUALLY says something, and it doesn't jive with the agenda, all of a sudden he's "careless with his words".  Can't have it both ways. 

Quote
I don't disagree with any of what you say, but I am bothered by the degree to which we are getting careless in our zeal to castigate this - or any - Press.  The PRESIDENT should know the difference and should ask the right question.   I grant you that people may have differing opinions/ideas/interpretations, but the PRESIDENT should not.  They are He is the most powerful man in the world professionals, they he deals in "words", they he should know what they mean and use them correctly.  They He should have no vested interest in using certain words in certain ways to elicit certain responses.

Seems legit. Your move  ;) :D

There's no move.  I can't say I disagree, but it doesn't prove anything.   I'm not a doctor.  I just go by what I see on WebMD.  When I actually DO go see a specialist, is it then right for him to "flip words" and just use "WebMD"?  Of course not.   Should the President be more precise in his/her language? Of course.   (Why do you think so many lawmakers are lawyers?  We actually argue about whether there should be an "and" or an "or" in sentences that run a page and a half, I shit you not.)   But it's not a requirement.  It IS a requirement of someone who SELLS WORDS FOR A LIVING, which is what a journalist does.   Allowing a journalist to be flip and cavalier with his words is like saying to the aforementioned doctor, "you don't need to be precise with that scalpel. Not important."
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on May 16, 2017, 06:39:49 AM
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-calls-investigation-tax-day-protesters-tweets-election-over-n747101

That article seems to have been written by a 16-year-old.  In fact, I showed it to my 16-year-old and even SHE was embarrassed by it.    What legit news piece editorializes something like "President Donald Trump on Twitter Sunday lashed out against citizens who'd taken to the streets to exercise their First Amendment rights."   That is not at all what he lashed out against.    And ironically, what he lashed out against is probably worse than what this noob said, so why extemporize?   

And this:  "But a poll from the Pew Research Center in January found that more than two-thirds of all Americans believe the president has an obligation to release his tax returns."  And this, with no explanation or context; this statement says NOTHING about Trump, and only that 2/3 of Americans are dumbasses (he has no "obligation" to release his taxes, and neither did any other of the "nearly all major presidential candidates" that released them "since the 1970s".   Let's just continue to attack Trump and fuck all if the facts are right.  We're journalists, we don't have to be CORRECT, we just need to get our OPINIONS OUT THERE!   

And lest people start banging the "There goes Stadler! Supporting Trump again!", let me say that since I don't see what the big deal is - the top two pages of the 1040 don't tell you jack scratch (as we've seen from the two previous Trump tax returns we've seen) - I'm indifferent on the issue.  I can see why he should (shut everyone up once and for all and make them look as incompetent as they are), and I can see why he shouldn't (because it's meaningless, it's a charade, and if you're "draining the swamp" you presumably don't participate in charades).   What I can't figure out is why the story morphs so much.  Just say "Yes" or "No" and be done with it.   

Jingle covered most of my thoughts about it. However, regardless of your opinion of the quality of the article, his assertion that people should be investigated for excersizing their constitutional rights to peacefully protest is alarming to say the least. You and I are probably the most vocal representatives of Libertarianism in this forum even if we are at the extremes from one another in that particular realm of thought. I'd think that we could both agree that any sitting president that would openly attack those rights deserves a great deal of critisism that comes his way.

I agree with you 1000% philosophically, but that's not at all what is happening. He's NOT demanding that they be investigated for exercising their First Amendment rights. He's saying - rightly or wrongly - that it is NOT actually a free speech demonstration, but rather an organized rally using paid participants.  I suppose you can argue that the person/entity that is funding it is expressing their free speech rights, but I don't think it's untoward to demand a full explanation of the rally.  A "rally" implies that all those people are zealous enough (in a good way) to make their presence felt.  If that's not the case, and it's really just one very wealthy person with an opinion, that is fair information to know.

I'd certainly like for it to be transparent. I'd love to know if big money interests were behind the rally. However, I think it's fair to say that him calling it out that way is hypocritical at best. It's his side of the aisle that have rejoiced at things like Citizen United where free speech = big money. How thin skinned does he have to be to cry foul when the tools that he took full advantage of during his campaign are turned around and used on him? Also, he's been sworn to protect the constitution. There's no provision in that document barring anyone from paying participants for peaceful protest. We could argue about it being against the spirit of the founders that wrote the document, but then we'd arrive back at the supreme court ruling again.

You mean like social media?  Twitter?  How about the failure to vote on Merrick Garland?  How about the nuclear option in the Congress?  Point being that while I abhor it, this is not the first time that there has been "hypocrisy" in Washington.  I too wish it was better, but it's not just Trump's "thin skin" that leads to this.

As for the Constitutional argument, go back to what I said above.  When Trump says "MUSLIM BAN!" we take him specifically and literally.  When he says "he wants to know who paid", all of a sudden we extrapolate it out to an attack on free speech.  Which is it? 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: PowerSlave on May 16, 2017, 12:18:19 PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-calls-investigation-tax-day-protesters-tweets-election-over-n747101

That article seems to have been written by a 16-year-old.  In fact, I showed it to my 16-year-old and even SHE was embarrassed by it.    What legit news piece editorializes something like "President Donald Trump on Twitter Sunday lashed out against citizens who'd taken to the streets to exercise their First Amendment rights."   That is not at all what he lashed out against.    And ironically, what he lashed out against is probably worse than what this noob said, so why extemporize?   

And this:  "But a poll from the Pew Research Center in January found that more than two-thirds of all Americans believe the president has an obligation to release his tax returns."  And this, with no explanation or context; this statement says NOTHING about Trump, and only that 2/3 of Americans are dumbasses (he has no "obligation" to release his taxes, and neither did any other of the "nearly all major presidential candidates" that released them "since the 1970s".   Let's just continue to attack Trump and fuck all if the facts are right.  We're journalists, we don't have to be CORRECT, we just need to get our OPINIONS OUT THERE!   

And lest people start banging the "There goes Stadler! Supporting Trump again!", let me say that since I don't see what the big deal is - the top two pages of the 1040 don't tell you jack scratch (as we've seen from the two previous Trump tax returns we've seen) - I'm indifferent on the issue.  I can see why he should (shut everyone up once and for all and make them look as incompetent as they are), and I can see why he shouldn't (because it's meaningless, it's a charade, and if you're "draining the swamp" you presumably don't participate in charades).   What I can't figure out is why the story morphs so much.  Just say "Yes" or "No" and be done with it.   

Jingle covered most of my thoughts about it. However, regardless of your opinion of the quality of the article, his assertion that people should be investigated for excersizing their constitutional rights to peacefully protest is alarming to say the least. You and I are probably the most vocal representatives of Libertarianism in this forum even if we are at the extremes from one another in that particular realm of thought. I'd think that we could both agree that any sitting president that would openly attack those rights deserves a great deal of critisism that comes his way.

I agree with you 1000% philosophically, but that's not at all what is happening. He's NOT demanding that they be investigated for exercising their First Amendment rights. He's saying - rightly or wrongly - that it is NOT actually a free speech demonstration, but rather an organized rally using paid participants.  I suppose you can argue that the person/entity that is funding it is expressing their free speech rights, but I don't think it's untoward to demand a full explanation of the rally.  A "rally" implies that all those people are zealous enough (in a good way) to make their presence felt.  If that's not the case, and it's really just one very wealthy person with an opinion, that is fair information to know.

I'd certainly like for it to be transparent. I'd love to know if big money interests were behind the rally. However, I think it's fair to say that him calling it out that way is hypocritical at best. It's his side of the aisle that have rejoiced at things like Citizen United where free speech = big money. How thin skinned does he have to be to cry foul when the tools that he took full advantage of during his campaign are turned around and used on him? Also, he's been sworn to protect the constitution. There's no provision in that document barring anyone from paying participants for peaceful protest. We could argue about it being against the spirit of the founders that wrote the document, but then we'd arrive back at the supreme court ruling again.

You mean like social media?  Twitter?  How about the failure to vote on Merrick Garland?  How about the nuclear option in the Congress?  Point being that while I abhor it, this is not the first time that there has been "hypocrisy" in Washington.  I too wish it was better, but it's not just Trump's "thin skin" that leads to this.

As for the Constitutional argument, go back to what I said above.  When Trump says "MUSLIM BAN!" we take him specifically and literally.  When he says "he wants to know who paid", all of a sudden we extrapolate it out to an attack on free speech.  Which is it?

To answer your last question, it doesn't have to be either/or, it can be both. In my view, it's not a big stretch when any sitting president utters the word "investigate" to easily come to the conclusion that he'd like to have some sort of legal action taken. Then again, I don't have anyone to compare this president to in a historic sense. No president in my life-time (I was born when Nixon was in office) has openly conducted themselves as poorly as this president has. The person in that position has the responsibility to choose their words wisely, and should be taken to task when they don't. The very fact that this president can't control himself during a small scale peaceful protest shows his thin skin, in my opinion. It makes me wonder how he's going to conduct himself when the real shit hits the fan. Every president faces a major crisis at some point during their administration, and if he's going to piss and moan on social media during the small stuff, then we're all fucked when something major happens.

To summarize: His words carry weight, and this thread wouldn't exist if there wasn't something there to begin with.

As far as social media goes for me, 99% of the time I don't participate in religious/political discussion on there. I have a very small friends list that is fairly diverse as far as those beliefs go. The big difference is that the people that I choose to communicate with on there usually abstain from shitting on each other over their differences. That's certainly not the norm on places like that, but I've weeded out the fools over the years.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on May 16, 2017, 01:45:54 PM
To answer your last question, it doesn't have to be either/or, it can be both. In my view, it's not a big stretch when any sitting president utters the word "investigate" to easily come to the conclusion that he'd like to have some sort of legal action taken. Then again, I don't have anyone to compare this president to in a historic sense. No president in my life-time (I was born when Nixon was in office) has openly conducted themselves as poorly as this president has. The person in that position has the responsibility to choose their words wisely, and should be taken to task when they don't. The very fact that this president can't control himself during a small scale peaceful protest shows his thin skin, in my opinion. It makes me wonder how he's going to conduct himself when the real shit hits the fan. Every president faces a major crisis at some point during their administration, and if he's going to piss and moan on social media during the small stuff, then we're all fucked when something major happens.

And this is the underlying point to most of what I write here:  your sentence is factually incorrect; it's not that "no president in my life-time ... has openly conducted themselves as poorly as this president has".   It is more accurate to say "no president in my life-time... has openly conducted themselves so far from what my ideal of a president is".   We have a lot to compare this President to; we have 44 (43 if you account for Grover Cleveland).  We only have to go to his predecessor to see someone who exhibited similar traits.   (http://humanevents.com/2012/01/30/barack-obama-our-thinskinned-president/)  I know you said "my life-time", so that leaves on Nixon as another comparable, but FDR was NOTORIOUSLY thin-skinned.  He was EXTREMELY interested in what people said about him. 

Quote
To summarize: His words carry weight, and this thread wouldn't exist if there wasn't something there to begin with.

I respectfully do not agree with that one bit.   As long as there are people that view Trump as "not our guy", you will see threads like this.  After all, we have to RESIST!

Quote
As far as social media goes for me, 99% of the time I don't participate in religious/political discussion on there. I have a very small friends list that is fairly diverse as far as those beliefs go. The big difference is that the people that I choose to communicate with on there usually abstain from shitting on each other over their differences. That's certainly not the norm on places like that, but I've weeded out the fools over the years.

You're better than I am; I don't even bother.   I have resigned myself that there is nothing on social media that I need.  Yeah, I have to Google my favorite bands, and I can't stalk touch base with that cute girl in high school, to see if she's still cute, but small price to pay. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: PowerSlave on May 16, 2017, 05:46:44 PM
To answer your last question, it doesn't have to be either/or, it can be both. In my view, it's not a big stretch when any sitting president utters the word "investigate" to easily come to the conclusion that he'd like to have some sort of legal action taken. Then again, I don't have anyone to compare this president to in a historic sense. No president in my life-time (I was born when Nixon was in office) has openly conducted themselves as poorly as this president has. The person in that position has the responsibility to choose their words wisely, and should be taken to task when they don't. The very fact that this president can't control himself during a small scale peaceful protest shows his thin skin, in my opinion. It makes me wonder how he's going to conduct himself when the real shit hits the fan. Every president faces a major crisis at some point during their administration, and if he's going to piss and moan on social media during the small stuff, then we're all fucked when something major happens.

And this is the underlying point to most of what I write here:  your sentence is factually incorrect; it's not that "no president in my life-time ... has openly conducted themselves as poorly as this president has".   It is more accurate to say "no president in my life-time... has openly conducted themselves so far from what my ideal of a president is".   We have a lot to compare this President to; we have 44 (43 if you account for Grover Cleveland).  We only have to go to his predecessor to see someone who exhibited similar traits.   (http://humanevents.com/2012/01/30/barack-obama-our-thinskinned-president/)  I know you said "my life-time", so that leaves on Nixon as another comparable, but FDR was NOTORIOUSLY thin-skinned.  He was EXTREMELY interested in what people said about him. 

OK, I'll begin with the article since you were very recently critical of an article that I posted:

The only example sited that carries any weight is the meeting between Obama and Brewer. The other things sited were either taken out of context, or outright bullshit. For example, "But until recently, Obama was unaccustomed to hearing real criticism. He grew up in liberal cities and university towns, insulated from those who might have challenged his beliefs and values." His time in Indonesia is brought up by conservative commentators quite regularly(to prey on the xenophobia that a certain sub-section of the readership of those type of articles feeds on), but this one chose to ignore that because it didn't fit the narrative of this particular article.

Another example: "Last year, Majority Leader Eric Cantor called Obama “overly sensitive to someone differing with him on policy grounds.”

The same assessment was made by Kansas Senator Pat Roberts after he and other Senate Republicans had a combative meeting with the president last year. “He needs to take a Valium before he comes in and talks to Republicans,” Roberts said. “He’s pretty thin-skinned.”

You know as well as I do that none of them were going to come out of any meeting with him and have glowing things to say. That would be political suicide to say the least. Both sides are guilty of this, so I'm not pointing fingers. In fact, it may very well be true, but my original statement very clearly said "openly". Every person under the sun knows about Nixon's stupidity, but he did it privately. You brought up FDR as well, I'm not a fan of FDR because of the way that he treated Japanese-Americans, and I wasn't there for it. That's not to say that I'm choosing to ignore history, it's that I'm trying to gauge things off of my own personal experiences as much as possible. This sort of situation works better for me when I look at it this way.

We can argue about if my sentence is factually correct, or not, but I don't think that I'm being unreasonable if I expect someone in that office to handle themselves with a certain sense of decorum. All other things aside, diplomacy is part of the job description, and in my humble opinion, he's taking a shit on the very definition of that word in almost every way possible. I know that every person that has held that office has most likely got a lot of asshole qualities in their personality. However, asking to see someone show a certain amount of restraint when it's called for is simply asking for them to show a leadership quality that I would admire. He's seemingly incapable of this, so I can't find myself admiring him on any level.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on May 17, 2017, 07:30:10 AM
We can argue about if my sentence is factually correct, or not, but I don't think that I'm being unreasonable if I expect someone in that office to handle themselves with a certain sense of decorum. All other things aside, diplomacy is part of the job description, and in my humble opinion, he's taking a shit on the very definition of that word in almost every way possible. I know that every person that has held that office has most likely got a lot of asshole qualities in their personality. However, asking to see someone show a certain amount of restraint when it's called for is simply asking for them to show a leadership quality that I would admire. He's seemingly incapable of this, so I can't find myself admiring him on any level.

I hope it's clear to you that I too expect the President to handle themselves with a certain sense of decorum.  But my point is, that's as far as it goes.   If they don't actually handle themselves with the level of decorum that YOU feel, your options are limited.    I didn't like how Obama whored himself out to late night TV.  I didn't like seeing Clinton on Arsenio with a saxophone and a pair of Risky Business glasses.   (I'm naming Democrats, because - despite decisions that many find controversial - I feel like in terms of demeanor, Bush Jr. and Bush Sr. handled themselves rather "presidentially"; I'm not saying they were better Presidents than the Dems; Clinton was our best President since Reagan.).   So be it.   I'm not suggesting that you have to ADMIRE them (I don't admire Obama, except in specific instances, and I do admire Clinton very much, except for the perjury thing) but it can't color everything after.   It's one variable in a bigger equation. 

I'm seeing a lot of this lately, and it's frustrating:    "I hate Trump and I oppose every thing he does, on PRINCIPLE. Oh, and Republicans are assholes to a man because of how they treated Obama!"   Uh, what?   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: PowerSlave on May 17, 2017, 11:03:51 AM
I'm seeing a lot of this lately, and it's frustrating:    "I hate Trump and I oppose every thing he does, on PRINCIPLE. Oh, and Republicans are assholes to a man because of how they treated Obama!"   Uh, what?

Definitely not me. Yes, I'm mostly a lefty, but there's some folks on the right that I greatly admire. Had Jon Huntsman made it through to the nomination in '12 I would have easily voted for him. I voted for Perot in the 90's, and supported Ron Paul in his most recent efforts. Those men were very principled, and that's something that is extremely important to me. That's also why I like Bernie now. These men are ideologically opposites, but in my opinion they all share a similar trait of being true to their word.

I don't feel like I can trust The D. I'll try to be fair with him, and I did praise him when he appointed the aformentioned Mr. Huntsman to a post as a diplomat. However, there's certain things that I have zero tolerance for. Bush 2 and Obama both shit freely on civil liberties, and The D looks like he wants to turn that up to 11. I'm going to piss and moan everytime he does, or says anything remotely close to violating anyone's civil liberties.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on May 17, 2017, 11:47:12 AM
If this is a derailure, I apologize, but in my own way, I'm with you on the civil liberties thing.   I'm far more "libertarian" than either D or R, but to couch things in "civil liberties", isn't that a subjective thing?    How can one say they are "for" civil liberties and be "for" the ACA?    Or Trump's tariffs?   

I know you said you're of "no party", so this isn't you, but I find that even the "civil liberties" argument is less about the actual liberties, than it is a way to couch "my outlook on life".    BOTH sides trample them, or celebrate them, as is convenient to their agenda. 

I try to be more consistent.  I recognize that in a free society there is always a compromise on rights, but for me, I err on the side of:
- marry who you want
- fuck who you want
- get an abortion if that's what you want
- get healthcare insurance if that's what you want
- watch the television, movies or porn that you want
- be racist if that's what you want
- pray to who you want


Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on May 17, 2017, 11:54:38 AM
I agree with all of that, including the get health insurance part. The problem is that it really only works if you're willing to let people die if they willingly opt out and need emergency treatment. After all, isn't that part of personal responsibility?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on May 17, 2017, 12:00:26 PM
I agree with all of that, including the get health insurance part. The problem is that it really only works if you're willing to let people die if they willingly opt out and need emergency treatment. After all, isn't that part of personal responsibility?

Well, what is "willing"?   I wouldn't say I'm "willing", but I do recognize that for many things, there is a transition period, and in those transition periods, people have a way of falling through the cracks.  I get that as a society we try like hell to avoid that, but I think at some point - and we've already made this reconciliation with respect to combat and war - there has to be harder conversations than we're willing to have at this point.   There are examples that don't involve "death", too, if you're interested. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on May 17, 2017, 12:13:18 PM
I agree with all of that, including the get health insurance part. The problem is that it really only works if you're willing to let people die if they willingly opt out and need emergency treatment. After all, isn't that part of personal responsibility?

Well, what is "willing"?   I wouldn't say I'm "willing", but I do recognize that for many things, there is a transition period, and in those transition periods, people have a way of falling through the cracks.  I get that as a society we try like hell to avoid that, but I think at some point - and we've already made this reconciliation with respect to combat and war - there has to be harder conversations than we're willing to have at this point.   There are examples that don't involve "death", too, if you're interested.
I'm not sure where the variable with willing is. If somebody gets mangled in a car accident hospitals are required to treat them. If somebody hobbles into the ER fixing to squirt out another bambino, ditto. If these people voluntarily decide to go without, do we still do this and eat the losses, or let them suffer the consequences of their own foolishness? I'm fundamentally opposed to letting them die on the front steps of Parkland, but that does create an inherent conflict with regards to civil liberties and ACA.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: PowerSlave on May 17, 2017, 01:03:51 PM
If this is a derailure, I apologize, but in my own way, I'm with you on the civil liberties thing.   I'm far more "libertarian" than either D or R, but to couch things in "civil liberties", isn't that a subjective thing?    How can one say they are "for" civil liberties and be "for" the ACA?    Or Trump's tariffs?   

I know you said you're of "no party", so this isn't you, but I find that even the "civil liberties" argument is less about the actual liberties, than it is a way to couch "my outlook on life".    BOTH sides trample them, or celebrate them, as is convenient to their agenda. 

I try to be more consistent.  I recognize that in a free society there is always a compromise on rights, but for me, I err on the side of:
- marry who you want
- fuck who you want
- get an abortion if that's what you want
- get healthcare insurance if that's what you want
- watch the television, movies or porn that you want
- be racist if that's what you want
- pray to who you want

I'm completely in line with you on all of those points. In fact, that's my attraction to Huntsman that I mentioned earlier. When he was governor of Utah many of his policies tended to lean in that direction.

This next section probably belongs in the ACA thread, but since you touched on it I'll talk about it a little bit here. I remember many years back a poster that was originally born/raised in Germany talked about their healthcare system, and I always thought that it would be a good basis for our own. I'm doing this from memory, so I could be getting much of this wrong. But he mentioned that they have a single payer system that you could opt out of, and get private coverage instead. If you decided to get back into the single payer system then you had to wait an entire year before you were eligible to participate. That would prevent people from abusing the system. It would also give those that didn't want government healthcare from being forced into it. On the surface, it sounds like a great approach to me, but I'm far from being very knowledgable about the subject.

As far as tariffs go, I'm usually not in favor of them. However, I've read about foreign governments that subsidize their exports to the U.S. that do undermine our domestic products ability to compete in the market. If we are able to produce a product domestically that is being undercut by foreign manipulation, then I'm in favor of us placing a tariff on that product to bring it in line as far as price to the domestically produced product. I do realize that this is a potentially slippery slope, but I think that it has played a big part in the weakening of our manufacturing base.

The one case that I wouldn't be in favor of doing this (and it's something that we already do), is the case of us importing ethanol from Brazil that is being made from cane-sugar. We currently make ours from corn, and our process is terribly inefficient as far as the amount of energy used to create the amount of energy gained. Our process also has forced higher prices domestically.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: XeRocks81 on May 18, 2017, 08:01:38 AM

 If somebody gets mangled in a car accident hospitals are required to treat them.

Maybe this belongs in the ACA thread but I'm curious about how this works in the US.  So if someone gets into a car accident,  the hospital is required to treat them.   If they happen to not have any insurance, once they're released from the hospital do they leave with a huge bill?   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: cramx3 on May 18, 2017, 08:16:55 AM

 If somebody gets mangled in a car accident hospitals are required to treat them.

Maybe this belongs in the ACA thread but I'm curious about how this works in the US.  So if someone gets into a car accident,  the hospital is required to treat them.   If they happen to not have any insurance, once they're released from the hospital do they leave with a huge bill?

Don't know what the actual policies are for this, but my friend who is a surgeon in a hospital in a not so good area of NJ experiences this constantly.  Not necessarily car accidents, but emergency surgeries on people who have no money.  Essentailly he's told me they don't even bother billing most of their patients without insurance.  It's just pointless.  They eat the costs.  They are supposed to have sit downs and discuss payment plans, but how do you do that with someone who has no income and when you have someone else who needs surgery waiting on you?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: bosk1 on May 18, 2017, 08:26:44 AM
Speaking of careless use of words...
and it doesn't jive with the agenda
Dammitall
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on May 18, 2017, 08:32:55 AM
But here's the thing:   if we're willing to use taxpayer money to fund the healthcare of 325 million people, whether they want it or not, why not have a fund for hospitals that accept people "mangled in a car wreck"?  We can have procedures in place that incentivize people to get coverage early, but I'm not at all suggesting we check insurance cards before we implement the jaws of life and pull them from the wreckage.  Treat first, ask questions later.   I don't think there's any practical argument against this.   

I really don't understand the subjectivity and the arbitrariness of our healthcare system.  The same people that will argue FOR inflated premiums for 325 million people will complain about paying for emergency care for 15 million people* as "inefficient".   Makes no sense.  We need a holistic look at this, beyond the myopic, agenda-driven "NUMBER OF PEOPLE INSURED", "TAX THE RICH!" mentality.   Let's actually talk about our CARE. 


* Assuming 10 million uninsured, out of 325 million, that's 3%.   This (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/emergency-department.htm) says there were 150 million ER visits in 2013; assuming 3% of that, 4.5 million, and a safety factor of 3 so I don't get bitched at for gaming the numbers, we're at 15 million.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on May 18, 2017, 08:34:36 AM

 If somebody gets mangled in a car accident hospitals are required to treat them.

Maybe this belongs in the ACA thread but I'm curious about how this works in the US.  So if someone gets into a car accident,  the hospital is required to treat them.   If they happen to not have any insurance, once they're released from the hospital do they leave with a huge bill?

Don't know what the actual policies are for this, but my friend who is a surgeon in a hospital in a not so good area of NJ experiences this constantly.  Not necessarily car accidents, but emergency surgeries on people who have no money.  Essentailly he's told me they don't even bother billing most of their patients without insurance.  It's just pointless.  They eat the costs.  They are supposed to have sit downs and discuss payment plans, but how do you do that with someone who has no income and when you have someone else who needs surgery waiting on you?
They might bill you, but for the most part they eat the costs. I know that in Dallas County 10% of your property taxes go to Parkland to help offset this, and plenty more in federal money. That was one of my arguments in favor of ACA. People were already paying to subsidize the uninsured, but in this case it was the irresponsible as well as the poor. In any case, to answer your question, yes they might well bill you. They don't really expect to make it back, though. When my brother broke his back he told every single person he saw when they wheeled him in, loudly and sternly "I have no insurance!" People mopping the floor who spoke no English heard it. They took very good care of him and then saddled him with a ridiculous amount of debt, which of course he could never pay. If you wound up with a quarter million in medical debt would you even think about how you might pay it back, or would you just plan for a life with wrecked credit?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on May 18, 2017, 08:35:01 AM
Speaking of careless use of works...
and it doesn't jive with the agenda
Dammitall

I meant to say that.  :)   

Actually, I meant to use the archaic "gybe", but spell correct.  Emails.   Russia.  :) 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on May 18, 2017, 08:37:37 AM
But here's the thing:   if we're willing to use taxpayer money to fund the healthcare of 325 million people, whether they want it or not, why not have a fund for hospitals that accept people "mangled in a car wreck"?  We can have procedures in place that incentivize people to get coverage early, but I'm not at all suggesting we check insurance cards before we implement the jaws of life and pull them from the wreckage.  Treat first, ask questions later.   I don't think there's any practical argument against this.   

I really don't understand the subjectivity and the arbitrariness of our healthcare system.  The same people that will argue FOR inflated premiums for 325 million people will complain about paying for emergency care for 15 million people* as "inefficient".   Makes no sense.  We need a holistic look at this, beyond the myopic, agenda-driven "NUMBER OF PEOPLE INSURED", "TAX THE RICH!" mentality.   Let's actually talk about our CARE. 


* Assuming 10 million uninsured, out of 325 million, that's 3%.   This (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/emergency-department.htm) says there were 150 million ER visits in 2013; assuming 3% of that, 4.5 million, and a safety factor of 3 so I don't get bitched at for gaming the numbers, we're at 15 million.
Coming from somebody who demands that personal accountability be factored into the equation, this seems strange. Under the pre-2010 system, we were paying for the poor and the irresponsible. This started as a civil liberties discussion, and from that standpoint you either need to decide to pay for the people who just blow off medical insurance to not die, or let them die. That's where your conflict is. Saying you should let people go uninsured if they want to doesn't work if you're still going to pay for the consequences of their poor judgement.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on May 18, 2017, 09:27:03 AM
But here's the thing:   if we're willing to use taxpayer money to fund the healthcare of 325 million people, whether they want it or not, why not have a fund for hospitals that accept people "mangled in a car wreck"?  We can have procedures in place that incentivize people to get coverage early, but I'm not at all suggesting we check insurance cards before we implement the jaws of life and pull them from the wreckage.  Treat first, ask questions later.   I don't think there's any practical argument against this.   

I really don't understand the subjectivity and the arbitrariness of our healthcare system.  The same people that will argue FOR inflated premiums for 325 million people will complain about paying for emergency care for 15 million people* as "inefficient".   Makes no sense.  We need a holistic look at this, beyond the myopic, agenda-driven "NUMBER OF PEOPLE INSURED", "TAX THE RICH!" mentality.   Let's actually talk about our CARE. 


* Assuming 10 million uninsured, out of 325 million, that's 3%.   This (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/emergency-department.htm) says there were 150 million ER visits in 2013; assuming 3% of that, 4.5 million, and a safety factor of 3 so I don't get bitched at for gaming the numbers, we're at 15 million.
Coming from somebody who demands that personal accountability be factored into the equation, this seems strange. Under the pre-2010 system, we were paying for the poor and the irresponsible. This started as a civil liberties discussion, and from that standpoint you either need to decide to pay for the people who just blow off medical insurance to not die, or let them die. That's where your conflict is. Saying you should let people go uninsured if they want to doesn't work if you're still going to pay for the consequences of their poor judgement.

Well, you're right, but we've already covered this.  I wouldn't do any of this, necessarily, but that ship sailed a while ago (I think Copernicus was on that ship).  We're already past philosophical and into the land of compromise.   My position, though, is predicated on some sort of behavioral incentive short of "death".  I can get behind the notion - barely - that "letting someone die" is a stiff penalty for a bad decision, but if we want to encourage people to make GOOD decisions - especially when the "good" or "bad" isn't really tied to the outcome but to the decision itself, as we do with speeding, seat belts, etc. - we have to have SOME downside to the "bad" decision.    Though, I feel obligated to point out, we CELEBRATE the deaths that result from "bad decisions" every single day (Prince, Heath Ledger, James Marshal Hendrix, anyone who climbs Mount Everest and doesn't make it back to base camp). 

It's also a good time to remind that none of this exists in a vacuum.  I would be revising "income taxes" to "consumption taxes" as well.   Not everyone is paid over the table, or claims all of the income they receive.  But everyone has to buy things.    It's a cliché, but that kid on the street with the sweet kicks and the rad lid had to pay for them; he's likely not filling out a 1040A with his weed money on it, but by golly he can be paying sales tax on the uniform.    I would also sever the "employer/insurance" bond, and I would make it easier for insurers to save money and drive out cost layers.   

But I'm not backing off my "personal responsibility" baseline at all, just recognizing that some compromise is likely necessary.  Tend Your Own GardenTM
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on May 18, 2017, 09:35:49 AM
But here's the thing:   if we're willing to use taxpayer money to fund the healthcare of 325 million people, whether they want it or not, why not have a fund for hospitals that accept people "mangled in a car wreck"?  We can have procedures in place that incentivize people to get coverage early, but I'm not at all suggesting we check insurance cards before we implement the jaws of life and pull them from the wreckage.  Treat first, ask questions later.   I don't think there's any practical argument against this.   

I really don't understand the subjectivity and the arbitrariness of our healthcare system.  The same people that will argue FOR inflated premiums for 325 million people will complain about paying for emergency care for 15 million people* as "inefficient".   Makes no sense.  We need a holistic look at this, beyond the myopic, agenda-driven "NUMBER OF PEOPLE INSURED", "TAX THE RICH!" mentality.   Let's actually talk about our CARE. 


* Assuming 10 million uninsured, out of 325 million, that's 3%.   This (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/emergency-department.htm) says there were 150 million ER visits in 2013; assuming 3% of that, 4.5 million, and a safety factor of 3 so I don't get bitched at for gaming the numbers, we're at 15 million.
Coming from somebody who demands that personal accountability be factored into the equation, this seems strange. Under the pre-2010 system, we were paying for the poor and the irresponsible. This started as a civil liberties discussion, and from that standpoint you either need to decide to pay for the people who just blow off medical insurance to not die, or let them die. That's where your conflict is. Saying you should let people go uninsured if they want to doesn't work if you're still going to pay for the consequences of their poor judgement.

Well, you're right, but we've already covered this.  I wouldn't do any of this, necessarily, but that ship sailed a while ago (I think Copernicus was on that ship).  We're already past philosophical and into the land of compromise.   My position, though, is predicated on some sort of behavioral incentive short of "death".  I can get behind the notion - barely - that "letting someone die" is a stiff penalty for a bad decision, but if we want to encourage people to make GOOD decisions - especially when the "good" or "bad" isn't really tied to the outcome but to the decision itself, as we do with speeding, seat belts, etc. - we have to have SOME downside to the "bad" decision.    Though, I feel obligated to point out, we CELEBRATE the deaths that result from "bad decisions" every single day (Prince, Heath Ledger, James Marshal Hendrix, anyone who climbs Mount Everest and doesn't make it back to base camp). 

It's also a good time to remind that none of this exists in a vacuum.  I would be revising "income taxes" to "consumption taxes" as well.   Not everyone is paid over the table, or claims all of the income they receive.  But everyone has to buy things.    It's a cliché, but that kid on the street with the sweet kicks and the rad lid had to pay for them; he's likely not filling out a 1040A with his weed money on it, but by golly he can be paying sales tax on the uniform.    I would also sever the "employer/insurance" bond, and I would make it easier for insurers to save money and drive out cost layers.   

But I'm not backing off my "personal responsibility" baseline at all, just recognizing that some compromise is likely necessary.  Tend Your Own GardenTM

Maybe I'm being dense, but I still don't get it. Should people be required to pay for insurance? Should they have to pay a fine if they don't? What are the consequences we should be enacting should they take the Ned Flanders approach? The logical consequences would be that you don't get treated, but none of us actually want to see that happen. So what? I get that you see the need for compromise, but I'm not sure what form that takes when balancing it with personal responsibility.

(Ned didn't believe in insurance as he felt it was a form of gambling)
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on May 18, 2017, 09:59:31 AM
But here's the thing:   if we're willing to use taxpayer money to fund the healthcare of 325 million people, whether they want it or not, why not have a fund for hospitals that accept people "mangled in a car wreck"?  We can have procedures in place that incentivize people to get coverage early, but I'm not at all suggesting we check insurance cards before we implement the jaws of life and pull them from the wreckage.  Treat first, ask questions later.   I don't think there's any practical argument against this.   

I really don't understand the subjectivity and the arbitrariness of our healthcare system.  The same people that will argue FOR inflated premiums for 325 million people will complain about paying for emergency care for 15 million people* as "inefficient".   Makes no sense.  We need a holistic look at this, beyond the myopic, agenda-driven "NUMBER OF PEOPLE INSURED", "TAX THE RICH!" mentality.   Let's actually talk about our CARE. 


* Assuming 10 million uninsured, out of 325 million, that's 3%.   This (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/emergency-department.htm) says there were 150 million ER visits in 2013; assuming 3% of that, 4.5 million, and a safety factor of 3 so I don't get bitched at for gaming the numbers, we're at 15 million.
Coming from somebody who demands that personal accountability be factored into the equation, this seems strange. Under the pre-2010 system, we were paying for the poor and the irresponsible. This started as a civil liberties discussion, and from that standpoint you either need to decide to pay for the people who just blow off medical insurance to not die, or let them die. That's where your conflict is. Saying you should let people go uninsured if they want to doesn't work if you're still going to pay for the consequences of their poor judgement.

Well, you're right, but we've already covered this.  I wouldn't do any of this, necessarily, but that ship sailed a while ago (I think Copernicus was on that ship).  We're already past philosophical and into the land of compromise.   My position, though, is predicated on some sort of behavioral incentive short of "death".  I can get behind the notion - barely - that "letting someone die" is a stiff penalty for a bad decision, but if we want to encourage people to make GOOD decisions - especially when the "good" or "bad" isn't really tied to the outcome but to the decision itself, as we do with speeding, seat belts, etc. - we have to have SOME downside to the "bad" decision.    Though, I feel obligated to point out, we CELEBRATE the deaths that result from "bad decisions" every single day (Prince, Heath Ledger, James Marshal Hendrix, anyone who climbs Mount Everest and doesn't make it back to base camp). 

It's also a good time to remind that none of this exists in a vacuum.  I would be revising "income taxes" to "consumption taxes" as well.   Not everyone is paid over the table, or claims all of the income they receive.  But everyone has to buy things.    It's a cliché, but that kid on the street with the sweet kicks and the rad lid had to pay for them; he's likely not filling out a 1040A with his weed money on it, but by golly he can be paying sales tax on the uniform.    I would also sever the "employer/insurance" bond, and I would make it easier for insurers to save money and drive out cost layers.   

But I'm not backing off my "personal responsibility" baseline at all, just recognizing that some compromise is likely necessary.  Tend Your Own GardenTM

Maybe I'm being dense, but I still don't get it. Should people be required to pay for insurance? Should they have to pay a fine if they don't? What are the consequences we should be enacting should they take the Ned Flanders approach? The logical consequences would be that you don't get treated, but none of us actually want to see that happen. So what? I get that you see the need for compromise, but I'm not sure what form that takes when balancing it with personal responsibility.

(Ned didn't believe in insurance as he felt it was a form of gambling)

I'm not sure I have all the ins and outs.   But I think it's more than just "put a mandate in, make the rich pay, and we're close enough!". 

We need single payer.  Short of that, we need a comprehensive program that:
- reduces costs
- has clear, meaningful targets and metrics (outcomes, not just "number of people covered" while you force them into coverage)
- provides choice and flexibility
- reduces regulations that don't add to coverage or reduce costs (state lines; some of the prescription regulations; FSA regulations)
- has more transparency between the PAYER for the services and the RECIPIENT of the services (to get rid of the idea that "it's covered by insurance; it's free!")
- better educates the people that are using the system (so they can stop with this "FSA are for the RICH!" nonsense).

I don't think that people should be REQUIRED to buy insurance.  They should be incentivized to do so, and those incentives should be such that the people that WANT it, but CAN'T get it, are subsidized to do so.   That's not philosophically square with me, but it's morally square and a fair compromise.    I don't know what the exact best incentive is (perhaps it's a combo of incentives) but we have Harvard doctorates that do.  Get this out of the hands of Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi, and in the hands of people that know what the fuck they're doing. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on June 29, 2017, 09:06:20 AM
Social media has officially gone full retard.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-tweets-mika-was-bleeding-badly-from-a-face-lift


He then went off the deep end, christening new nicknames for his one-time pals and tossing out an insult aimed at Brzezinski’s looks: “Then how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year’s Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!”

Within minutes, Brzezinski shot back with a photograph showing text on the back side of a Cheerios cereal box: “Made for Little Hands,” a reference to the common refrain that President Trump has unusually small hands.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on June 29, 2017, 09:09:06 AM
I loved Jake Tapper's response... 'So, FLOTUS, how's that anti cyber-bullying campaign going?'

Brzezinski's response was unprofessional, and hardly 'going high'.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: cramx3 on June 29, 2017, 09:11:35 AM
It's like grade school on twitter but with people of some of the highest (and Trumps case, the highest) positions in our country.   Sad.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on June 29, 2017, 09:20:04 AM
test 2
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jammindude on June 29, 2017, 09:56:40 AM
Welcome to the new "normal"
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: lonestar on June 29, 2017, 05:05:56 PM
I loved Jake Tapper's response... 'So, FLOTUS, how's that anti cyber-bullying campaign going?'

 :lol

The local SF congresswoman compared today's tweet to a grade school insult, and said 45 was due a time out.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on June 29, 2017, 06:06:52 PM
Love how Huckabee-Sanders was doubling down on her defense of the statement.  Good lord, wonder how she'd feel if a tweet ever came her way about liposuction scars.

FFS, how do these people sleep at night?  Even Paul-goddamned-Ryan had the wits and morals to distance himself from this one.

(https://memecreator.org/static/images/memes/4607730.jpg)
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: KevShmev on June 29, 2017, 08:05:04 PM
It is almost comical how embarrassing Trump is now. Almost.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on June 30, 2017, 06:19:32 AM
It is almost comical how embarrassing Trump is now. Almost.

It's been comical for a while.  Now it's just scary that people can still support/defend his statements.  FFS, even Conway was avoiding this one like it was and envelope of antrhax.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: chknptpie on June 30, 2017, 07:39:04 AM
I really think these tweets are meant to distract from Trumpcare during the long weekend. Instead of coverage on that, all the media is focused on their colleagues.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on June 30, 2017, 07:46:00 AM
I really think these tweets are meant to distract from Trumpcare during the long weekend. Instead of coverage on that, all the media is focused on their colleagues.

He posted this about four hours ago.

Jun 30, 2017 05:37:57 AM - If Republican Senators are unable to pass what they are working on now, they should immediately REPEAL, and then REPLACE at a later date!
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: lonestar on June 30, 2017, 07:55:28 AM
He has no filter. None.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on June 30, 2017, 08:03:04 AM
I really think these tweets are meant to distract from Trumpcare during the long weekend. Instead of coverage on that, all the media is focused on their colleagues.

He posted this about four hours ago.

Jun 30, 2017 05:37:57 AM - If Republican Senators are unable to pass what they are working on now, they should immediately REPEAL, and then REPLACE at a later date!

I was about to buy what Tricia was selling, then Trump went and shone a spotlight on the Trumpcare disaster.

SAD!  Lol
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on June 30, 2017, 08:18:13 AM
It's one thing to point fingers at Trump and  say what a buffoon he is, if you're perfect, and you're not  playing any of the Reindeer games he is...

But you're not.

"Trumpcare".   It's not Trumpcare at this point (he has threatened that, though).  This is McConnell's baby at this point.  But that matters not, because it's TRUMP and "Anything goes!"

Brzizinski.  She was my local news-person for a while (Hartford, CT).  She's not squeaky clean on this, and as noted before here, when Trump went low, she went right down WITH him, making "penis references". Add to that that she's now taking it from her co-host - which pretty sure started while she was married - and we're not talking about Mother Teresa.

"Disaster".  You (collective) still haven't answered why "number of people insured" is the magic metric (and only metric, it seems) and while there are fancy videos of Chris Cuomo "challenging" the Republican Senator about "Fake News" ("Tell me what I've got incorrect") he - in what I've seen - didn't answer the question either.  Obamacare FORCED people to get coverage; so if you FORCE someone - wrongly - to do something they don't want to  do, then give them the freedom to make their own choices, why is that a ding on the program itself?    FAKE NEWS.

And none of this should be taken to "defend" Trump's tweets; it's an abomination.  But fair is fair, FFS.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on June 30, 2017, 08:27:58 AM
Total number of uninsured isn't a good metric. It's imprecise and includes people who want to go with out (and freeload off of the taxpayers when they get sick). Number of uninsured not by choice is a valid metric. These are the people we allegedly want to help. However, since we're seeing numbers that suggest ~70% of the total number fit into the latter, non-volunteer category, I think it's an effective shorthand metric.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on June 30, 2017, 09:59:17 AM
Brzizinski.  She was my local news-person for a while (Hartford, CT).  She's not squeaky clean on this, and as noted before here, when Trump went low, she went right down WITH him, making "penis references". Add to that that she's now taking it from her co-host - which pretty sure started while she was married - and we're not talking about Mother Teresa.

I'm not sure I follow any of this.  What is she "not squeeky clean" about?  What did she do BEFORE the tweet?  I think you might be referring to some infidelity issues ("taking it from her co-host")?  If so, what does that have to do with anything?  Sure, speaks a bit to her character, but does that in anyway justify or make what Grabby tweeted ok?  If you TRULY believe Trump's tweet was an abomination, then why the need to point out any of this?  What does the personality/character/past behaviour of who he's attacking matter in any way?  I already said that her response was unprofessional - but that was AFTER Grabby's initial tweet.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: axeman90210 on June 30, 2017, 10:26:02 AM
"Trumpcare".   It's not Trumpcare at this point (he has threatened that, though).  This is McConnell's baby at this point.  But that matters not, because it's TRUMP and "Anything goes!"

I know for me  (though I can't speak to everybody else) the way I look at it is that Obama campaigned on health care reform, as did a lot of Democrats. He and they were elected, and they subsequently passed health care reform. Then it started being called Obamacare and was used to politicize the bill by attaching it at the hip to a president who was hated by the other side of the aisle (for reasons both reasonable and not). To the point where there were studies done where within the same population of people the ACA was noticeably more popular than "Obamacare". There were interview subjects and social media posts from people who trashed "Obamacare" in one sentence, only to talk about how thankfully it was replaced with the ACA which allowed them to get health insurance. Now Trump, as did a lot of Republicans, campaigned on repeal and replace Obamacare. If Congress is able to pass a repeal and replace and he signs it into law (even though the final bill will likely break at least one of his major campaign promises), I don't see why he shouldn't have to own it as his legacy the same way Obama did the ACA.
Brzizinski.  She was my local news-person for a while (Hartford, CT).  She's not squeaky clean on this, and as noted before here, when Trump went low, she went right down WITH him, making "penis references". Add to that that she's now taking it from her co-host - which pretty sure started while she was married - and we're not talking about Mother Teresa.

I'm not sure I follow any of this.  What is she "not squeeky clean" about?  What did she do BEFORE the tweet?  I think you might be referring to some infidelity issues ("taking it from her co-host")?  If so, what does that have to do with anything?  Sure, speaks a bit to her character, but does that in anyway justify or make what Grabby tweeted ok?  If you TRULY believe Trump's tweet was an abomination, then why the need to point out any of this?  What does the personality/character/past behaviour of who he's attacking matter in any way?  I already said that her response was unprofessional - but that was AFTER Grabby's initial tweet.

I think it's fair to point out if she was happy to get down in the gutter with him about someone else back when they were on good terms (though I think we can all agree that maybe we should be holding the fucking President to a higher standard than a morning TV personality). Agree with you though, that stuff about her marriage/sex life has absolutely zero relevance and at least suggest some slut shaming and/or victim blaming bullshit imo.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on June 30, 2017, 11:08:24 AM
I'm not sure why "fair is fair" is even an issue here.  This is a thread about tweets from Trump, who treats people unfairly on a regular basis.  Who gives a shit about fair when Trump can't stay above the fucking belt himself?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on June 30, 2017, 12:32:28 PM
though I think we can all agree that maybe we should be holding the fucking President to a higher standard than a morning TV personality.

Nailed it.  Though, I'd take it a few steps further and hope that any "free" country should hold it's President/Prime Minister to the HIGHEST of standards - beyond anyone, let alone a TV personality.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: lonestar on June 30, 2017, 05:05:55 PM
Mark Hammil reading the Mika tweet in the Joker's voice...

https://audioboom.com/posts/6063140-maligning-mika-savaging-psycho-joe (https://audioboom.com/posts/6063140-maligning-mika-savaging-psycho-joe)
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: ReaperKK on June 30, 2017, 06:00:08 PM
Mark Hamilton needs to do this for all Trumps tweets
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: lonestar on June 30, 2017, 06:08:12 PM
I know, it's so good.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: lonestar on July 02, 2017, 10:12:03 AM
Boy, it didn't even take him a week to out do the morning Joe tweet. His wrestling /CNN fake news gift this morning was just... Disturbing...

I'm speechless at this point, and embarrassed for our governing general.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: antigoon on July 02, 2017, 10:21:34 AM
who could have predicted he would act this way
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: KevShmev on July 02, 2017, 12:59:50 PM
I don't think that tweet is that bad; it's a joke.  I mean, it's wrestling, FFS. :lol :lol :lol

The Morning Joe tweets were far more offensive and worrisome.

I suspect that the GOP would love to get together and all band against him to get him impeached, but I'll bet they are all scared of how Trump would target them if they tried such a thing.  There is no way he would go down without taking the rest of the party with him, and they know it.  What an awful situation.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Jaffa on July 03, 2017, 12:44:39 AM
I don't think that tweet is that bad; it's a joke.  I mean, it's wrestling, FFS. :lol :lol :lol

I don't know. 

I mean, yes, it's a joke, but that doesn't exactly comfort me.  All it means is that the president of the United States (a president who has declared that the media is an enemy of the American people, mind you - was that a joke, too?) thinks it's totally funny to joke about assaulting a news organization. 

What would comfort me would be to see him stop telling jokes and start taking his job seriously.  He is the president of the United States
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on July 03, 2017, 04:40:07 AM
It would barely qualify as funny if he was JUST the Celebrity Apprentice "star".  As POTUS, it's just ludicrous.  This might appeal to his most hardcore supporters, but to those on the fringe that are in the 'give him tim / a chance' camp, they've got to be running low of hope/patience when he pulls shit like this.

His opposition has come to almost expect this type of shit.

As a non-US citizen, I feel bad for the country that this is the shit you have to put up with, which includes the fact that the Dems are powerless to do anything meaningful about it, and the GOP doesn't have the pills to stand up to him - though, that tweet last week crossed the line for some (see Exhibit: Lindsay Graham).
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 03, 2017, 08:02:06 AM
Total number of uninsured isn't a good metric. It's imprecise and includes people who want to go with out (and freeload off of the taxpayers when they get sick). Number of uninsured not by choice is a valid metric. These are the people we allegedly want to help. However, since we're seeing numbers that suggest ~70% of the total number fit into the latter, non-volunteer category, I think it's an effective shorthand metric.

But it's the point of it.   You can do the shorthand - use a calculator, for example - when you know the longhand, and know when you're cutting corners.    Let me put it this way:  far more than ~70% of the people blathering about the CBO assessment don't understand what you and I are discussing right now, and people like Chuck "22 million hypmotized by my somniferous voice, and counting!" Schumer aren't lifting a finger to help clear the confusion. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 03, 2017, 08:07:08 AM
though I think we can all agree that maybe we should be holding the fucking President to a higher standard than a morning TV personality.

Nailed it.  Though, I'd take it a few steps further and hope that any "free" country should hold it's President/Prime Minister to the HIGHEST of standards - beyond anyone, let alone a TV personality.

Of course; whatever standard still allows you to bluster about TRUMP.   Why not? 

We didn't worry about "higher standards" when Bill was setting sexual records that Cosby and Trump can only dream of; we didn't worry about "higher standards" when Hillary was perjuring herself - that is, knowingly and with intent lying under oath to a Federal investigative body - in order to 'stay in the race'!   Why are we all of a sudden worried about "higher standards"?   

I'm not suggesting I disagree with that - one of my biggest beefs with Trump is the lack of gravitas and professionalism in the way he conducts himself - but at least I've been saying this since Bill appeared in "Risky Business" sunglasses and a saxophone on Arsenio Hall.   You can't have it both ways.  You can't love it when Obama talks in street patois and shoots hoops with the neighborhood kids and then bitch about "higher standards!" when Trump joins the Twitter maelstrom.     
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 03, 2017, 08:17:25 AM

As a non-US citizen, I feel bad for the country that this is the shit you have to put up with, which includes the fact that the Dems are powerless to do anything meaningful about it, and the GOP doesn't have the pills to stand up to him - though, that tweet last week crossed the line for some (see Exhibit: Lindsay Graham).

Why would you feel bad?  This the way - for better or worse - the system is supposed to work.   What some of you don't quite understand is that as bad as some hate the Tweeting (and look in the General part of the forum, specifically the "things that irritate me" threads, to see how badly I abhor the tweeting) others hated the idea of universal healthcare.   Or the legalization of marijuana.  Or the <insert topic of choice>.   You're not SUPPOSED to be able to dump someone just because you disagree with what/how he is doing what is he doing.    The government is SUPPOSED to be methodical and deliberative on things like this.   We've gone 240 years, plus or minus, without the general idea that EVERYTHING we want - WANT, not NEED - is supposed to be available to us with lightning fast download speeds of greater than 50MBps. 

I was in Ireland back in the late 90's when supposedly the "world" was "laughing at us" because our President couldn't keep his cock on the reservation.   We survived.   I was in Germany back in the mid-2000's when supposedly the "world" was "laughing at us" because our President was a walking talking version of Howdy Doody.   We survived.   I wasn't lucky enough to ACTUALLY be there, but I worked with a subgroup in my company that was headquartered in Paris, France when supposedly the "world" was "laughing at us" because our President was weak and indecisive in world affairs, and worried more about his personal social legacy than the well-being of our country (and Osama bin-Laden was, at that time, making our special forces look stupid).    We survived.   

It's one thing to not like his demeanor (I absolutely don't), or his choices (I largely don't) or his policies (I'm 50-50 on that, but that is par for the course for me at this point; I can't really expect better than that) but the lack of perspective on this is mind-boggling to me. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on July 03, 2017, 08:40:58 AM
though I think we can all agree that maybe we should be holding the fucking President to a higher standard than a morning TV personality.

Nailed it.  Though, I'd take it a few steps further and hope that any "free" country should hold it's President/Prime Minister to the HIGHEST of standards - beyond anyone, let alone a TV personality.

Of course; whatever standard still allows you to bluster about TRUMP.   Why not? 

Getting a little tired that a lot of the times you "agree" with people, you then accompany it with a backhanded compliment.  Your implication here is that I'm picking my "standard" with the aim of still being able to rag on Grabby, and it is insulting.  YOU are better than this.

We didn't worry about "higher standards" when Bill was setting sexual records that Cosby and Trump can only dream of; we didn't worry about "higher standards" when Hillary was perjuring herself - that is, knowingly and with intent lying under oath to a Federal investigative body - in order to 'stay in the race'!   Why are we all of a sudden worried about "higher standards"?   

First, one would think (the royal) you would ALWAYS be worried about "higher standards" for POTUS - otherwise you've allowed yourself to normalize this shit-show.  Second, why the need to make his behaviour relative to a historical comparison?  We're not talking about anyone else's past transgressions - bringing it up is simply a means of deflection.  Trump's playbook has bled into your own psyche it would seem.  You weaken your argument if all you can do is make an issue 'not as bad' as the past. 

"Your honor... the bruises my client left on her face aren't nearly as bad as the broken bones her ex-husband gave her"
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: PowerSlave on July 03, 2017, 08:52:05 AM
but at least I've been saying this since Bill appeared in "Risky Business" sunglasses and a saxophone on Arsenio Hall.     

I voted against Bill, so my next statement has nothing to do with my side/your side.

Bringing up his appearance on a late night talk show is false equivalency at best.

1. He didn't insult anyone by doing it.
2. Playing a half-ass rendition of late 50's rock for a couple of minutes in the early 90's probably shouldn't have been controversial to anyone, unless they were making a huge reach as an excuse to get their panties into a bunch.
3. There was no political message attached to it, other than "look at me! I'm young, hip and cool!" Every candidate since the dawn of time has tried to bullshit their way into making their constituents/potential voters think that their shit doesn't stink.

At the end of the day it's none of our business who he sleeps with. However, he's fair game with how things went down with him using his office inappropriately, and him lying about it afterwards. But calling him out for wearing sunglasses, and playing a sax?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 03, 2017, 09:15:19 AM
though I think we can all agree that maybe we should be holding the fucking President to a higher standard than a morning TV personality.

Nailed it.  Though, I'd take it a few steps further and hope that any "free" country should hold it's President/Prime Minister to the HIGHEST of standards - beyond anyone, let alone a TV personality.

Of course; whatever standard still allows you to bluster about TRUMP.   Why not? 

Getting a little tired that a lot of the times you "agree" with people, you then accompany it with a backhanded compliment.  Your implication here is that I'm picking my "standard" with the aim of still being able to rag on Grabby, and it is insulting.  YOU are better than this.

Except it's not about me.   I AM better than this, and I'm trying to show it in every post.  Take the topic at face value and assess, or reassess.  You haven't made one effort to be fair in your evaluation.   When have I resorted to "Grabby" to refer to my President?   Yes, he is OUR President (I know not yours).   I never resorted to "Obummer" or any of that nonsense either, for someone who was also MY President.   

First, one would think (the royal) you would ALWAYS be worried about "higher standards" for POTUS - otherwise you've allowed yourself to normalize this shit-show.  Second, why the need to make his behaviour relative to a historical comparison?  We're not talking about anyone else's past transgressions - bringing it up is simply a means of deflection.  Trump's playbook has bled into your own psyche it would seem.  You weaken your argument if all you can do is make an issue 'not as bad' as the past. 

"Your honor... the bruises my client left on her face aren't nearly as bad as the broken bones her ex-husband gave her"

You don't have to use the royal "you".  It applies to me.  I am DEEPLY troubled by the lack of higher standards for our President and our politicians in general.   But you're making my point for me:  this nonsense about "normalizing" this "shit show".  Haven't you been paying attention to the "shit show" that is American politics and has been since, as far as I can tell, somewhere around the mid-90's?   This idea that somehow Trump is an abomination that can't be "normalized"; what we have in Trump has BEEN normalized for over a decade now.  He is the inevitable, logical, and unavoidable result of where we've been headed for a LONG time now, and it's just partisan politics to say otherwise.   

If you want to worry about "normalizing" things, how about these (for starters):
- that we can effectively - or even half-assedly - discuss the politics of 325 million people and a $20 trillion economy in "140 characters or less"
- that we can accurately or effectively cover all the political and social ideas of 325 million people by a simple choice of "Clinton" or "Trump" (or any other rep of our two-party system).
- that our opinions matter over fact, reason or logic
- that the identity politics of a distinct minority of the population (often falling within the statistical margin of error) overwhelms and trumps the economic and legal politics of the rest of the population
- that somehow government and/or media (social or otherwise) usurps our need to do our own due diligence, and our right to have a differing opinion, even if others find that opinion "odious".
- that somehow what I think (or any one person) is somehow relevant or meaningful in the big picture.

You seem to be forgetting that Trump was not elected by a small pack of racist, misogynist bigots but rather a distinct group of cross-party people that were TIRED of the same old same old.  They were TIRED of being told what to be fearful of.  They were TIRED of being told that their jobs had to wait while we figured out what bathrooms people could use.   They were TIRED of being told that even though we're under attack by a subset of the Muslim faith, we couldn't ACTUALLY say that because it was "offensive" to some.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 03, 2017, 09:30:25 AM
but at least I've been saying this since Bill appeared in "Risky Business" sunglasses and a saxophone on Arsenio Hall.     

I voted against Bill, so my next statement has nothing to do with my side/your side.

Bringing up his appearance on a late night talk show is false equivalency at best.

1. He didn't insult anyone by doing it.
2. Playing a half-ass rendition of late 50's rock for a couple of minutes in the early 90's probably shouldn't have been controversial to anyone, unless they were making a huge reach as an excuse to get their panties into a bunch.
3. There was no political message attached to it, other than "look at me! I'm young, hip and cool!" Every candidate since the dawn of time has tried to bullshit their way into making their constituents/potential voters think that their shit doesn't stink.

At the end of the day it's none of our business who he sleeps with. However, he's fair game with how things went down with him using his office inappropriately, and him lying about it afterwards. But calling him out for wearing sunglasses, and playing a sax?

Respectfully, you're missing my point.   And this from someone who didn't vote for him at the time, but would give a finger to have him be President now (I think he will ultimately go down as one of our ten best Presidents, though time will tell). 

There are actually TWO things relevant in your post, though they are related:   

One, it wasn't bad "per se", but it did open the door to this collegial, relaxed, "I'm just a mirror for my people" way of looking at Presidents.   I'm old enough to remember when a President - or even a CANDIDATE for President - NEVER appeared on late night television.   Before Bill, there were only two active candidates to appear on late night (and if you know anything about the development of television coverage of politics, you know they are sort of an anomaly; Kennedy in '60, and Nixon in '68). Fast forward to Obama "slow-jamming the news" on Fallon.    Are recreational drugs bad?  Not in and of themselves, but they do have the potential to be abused.   

And two, YOU'RE apparently okay with what Bill did, but what if you're not?  Isn't that what all of this boils down to?   You seem to feel that what goes on in someone's pants is their bidniss and their bidniss only.  I don't disagree in the general population.    But what if that activity compromises their decision-making?   Not really for you or me to call, is it?   Since when did our own personal social politics become anything more than simply our reason for a vote?   Since when did the mores of some subset of the population now get to drive policy (the "policy" being, it is apparently okay to bang interns - illegal or at least immoral in almost any other setting due to the power differential; I can't, for example, have relations with a subordinate to me in my current company - but it's somehow not okay to reference someone's plastic surgery in a Tweet)?

My comments here are not to defend Trump - I'll say for the 100th time, didn't like him then, didn't vote for him then, don't like him now, wouldn't vote for him now - but rather to defend intellectual honesty, something that seems to be sorely lacking in most of the political discourse today (present company largely excluded). 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: PowerSlave on July 03, 2017, 09:47:20 AM
And two, YOU'RE apparently okay with what Bill did, but what if you're not?  Isn't that what all of this boils down to?   You seem to feel that what goes on in someone's pants is their bidniss and their bidniss only.  I don't disagree in the general population.    But what if that activity compromises their decision-making?

It did compromise him. No argument from that stand point. However, if he hadn't slept with an intern and then used his office to mess with the outcome, then I'd be ok with it. All those other women that he supposedly slept with? More power to him if that's how he wants to live his life. Do I think that it's ok to do that when you're married? Depends on the agreement that a person has with their SO. It's none of the general public's business until the Monica situation happened.

As to your other point, I highly doubt that those are the first examples of a President/candidate using the "I'm just like you" bullshit. There have been several in the past that were "common" people. Lincoln comes to mind ect. ect... Sure, things changed and TV is a different medium, but it's been used many times before.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 03, 2017, 09:56:23 AM
And two, YOU'RE apparently okay with what Bill did, but what if you're not?  Isn't that what all of this boils down to?   You seem to feel that what goes on in someone's pants is their bidniss and their bidniss only.  I don't disagree in the general population.    But what if that activity compromises their decision-making?

It did compromise him. No argument from that stand point. However, if he hadn't slept with an intern and then used his office to mess with the outcome, then I'd be ok with it. All those other women that he supposedly slept with? More power to him if that's how he wants to live his life. Do I think that it's ok to do that when you're married? Depends on the agreement that a person has with their SO. It's none of the general public's business until the Monica situation happened.

I posted a comparison here back during the election, pitting Trump versus Clinton, and in terms of the number of claims, severity of claims, and veracity of claims, Clinton had Trump beat up, down and sideways.  Yet, Trump is the "misogynist" and called "Grabby".  I'm talking less about the act itself (I happen to agree with you; who I sleep with and when is between me, that person, and, if I have a committed partner and it's not them, them) and the evaluation of that act and the conclusions drawn.   

I don't want to open that can of worms again, but in this context, I'm hard pressed to see how Trump saying he COULD (not DID, but COULD) grab a woman by the pussy and they let him, said to a slimy, manipulative journalist on a bus is OBJECTIVELY worse than a sitting President, luring an intern into his office, sticking a cigar in her vagina and leaving his seed on her dress for her to clean up - all things she later came to regret doing, so there can be concluded at least SOME coercion involved.     

Quote
As to your other point, I highly doubt that those are the first examples of a President/candidate using the "I'm just like you" bullshit. There have been several in the past that were "common" people. Lincoln comes to mind ect. ect... Sure, things changed and TV is a different medium, but it's been used many times before.

Well, I understand your point, and I don't disagree, but there is a cultural relevance and a cultural context to all this that we can't lose.   Put it a different way, you're talking about the medium itself, and I'm talking about the PERCEPTION of that media, and the way that media is used/abused.   TV was a force in our society WELL before President's started using it.   Walter Cronkite was a symbol of fact and objectivity.  He was the voice of reason that we allowed into our homes.  In that context, TV was more immediate, but it didn't change the message all that much.  Even with TV (which Kennedy largely missed), it was still professional, and objective.    Clinton changed the message.  He wasn't there debating the merits of his healthcare proposal, or his decision to maintain some of the Reagan tax cuts.   He was showing how "cool" he was.    When Obama slow-jammed the news, he wasn't advocating for gays in the military.  As much as I object to Twitter as a medium - and oh, Lord, I object - I think you - and Jingle - will agree that the problem with Trump is less that he is using Twitter, but HOW he is using Twitter.  Once Clinton and Obama made it clear that you didn't have to stay ON PLATFORM all the time - that you could show your irrelevant humanity - it made it clear that Trump could too.   That you (or I) don't like that he's taken it darker is sort of irrelevant, and a matter of subjectivity.    The question is, why is he even at that point?   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: XeRocks81 on July 03, 2017, 10:10:02 AM
I don't think humanity is irrelevant

edit: to clarify,  Trump's tweets give a look into who he is.  And as calculated as the sax playing and basketball playing is, it does  as well. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: PowerSlave on July 03, 2017, 01:20:36 PM
Well, I understand your point, and I don't disagree, but there is a cultural relevance and a cultural context to all this that we can't lose.   Put it a different way, you're talking about the medium itself, and I'm talking about the PERCEPTION of that media, and the way that media is used/abused.   TV was a force in our society WELL before President's started using it.   Walter Cronkite was a symbol of fact and objectivity.  He was the voice of reason that we allowed into our homes.  In that context, TV was more immediate, but it didn't change the message all that much.  Even with TV (which Kennedy largely missed), it was still professional, and objective.    Clinton changed the message.  He wasn't there debating the merits of his healthcare proposal, or his decision to maintain some of the Reagan tax cuts.   He was showing how "cool" he was.    When Obama slow-jammed the news, he wasn't advocating for gays in the military.  As much as I object to Twitter as a medium - and oh, Lord, I object - I think you - and Jingle - will agree that the problem with Trump is less that he is using Twitter, but HOW he is using Twitter.  Once Clinton and Obama made it clear that you didn't have to stay ON PLATFORM all the time - that you could show your irrelevant humanity - it made it clear that Trump could too.   That you (or I) don't like that he's taken it darker is sort of irrelevant, and a matter of subjectivity.    The question is, why is he even at that point?

Nixon went on "Laugh In" during the '68 campaign.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLjgqVQpFHg

Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 03, 2017, 02:34:53 PM
I don't think humanity is irrelevant

edit: to clarify,  Trump's tweets give a look into who he is.  And as calculated as the sax playing and basketball playing is, it does  as well.

I would argue that they all give a look into the person, but the real meaning of that look is missed by most.  Trump is the first "Republican" in a long time where the issue is about HIM personally.   Clinton (both of them), Obama, Gore, far more about the person and the legacy than their supporters think.  Clinton liked being a "ROCK STAR", and I think Obama has that too.  Bush Jr. didn't, Bush Sr. certainly didn't...  but Trump does. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: XeRocks81 on July 03, 2017, 02:47:51 PM
edit : forget it
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: KevShmev on July 03, 2017, 03:19:09 PM
I don't think that tweet is that bad; it's a joke.  I mean, it's wrestling, FFS. :lol :lol :lol

I don't know. 

I mean, yes, it's a joke, but that doesn't exactly comfort me.  All it means is that the president of the United States (a president who has declared that the media is an enemy of the American people, mind you - was that a joke, too?) thinks it's totally funny to joke about assaulting a news organization. 

What would comfort me would be to see him stop telling jokes and start taking his job seriously.  He is the president of the United States.

It's a choreographed (and not real) assault.  You know that in wrestling they aren't really punching each other, right?

That said, I agree with your last statement.  The next day he takes the job seriously will be his first.

Obama whined about Fox News a little too much, but Trump has taken it to a whole new level with CNN.  I get that he can't get over how in the tank the Clinton News Network
was for their namesake, but it's just stupid to obsess over stuff like this.

It would barely qualify as funny if he was JUST the Celebrity Apprentice "star".  As POTUS, it's just ludicrous.  This might appeal to his most hardcore supporters, but to those on the fringe that are in the 'give him tim / a chance' camp, they've got to be running low of hope/patience when he pulls shit like this.

My parents, who are both 70, are pretty darn conservative (they vote GOP no matter what).  Neither were that wild about Trump, but he was the GOP candidate, so he got their votes.  My mom has called him an embarrassment more than a few times lately, and my dad just shakes his head (ya know, that "I can't believe what an idiot he is" head shake).
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: bosk1 on July 03, 2017, 03:26:08 PM
Your implication here is that I'm picking my "standard" with the aim of still being able to rag on Grabby, and it is insulting.

Honestly, I'm at a complete loss as to how anyone could read your posts and possibly think otherwise. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: kingshmegland on July 03, 2017, 04:20:18 PM
I have Republican leanings but he should be held to a standard and as a constituent, he's let me down.

Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Jaffa on July 04, 2017, 11:58:32 PM
I don't think that tweet is that bad; it's a joke.  I mean, it's wrestling, FFS. :lol :lol :lol

I don't know. 

I mean, yes, it's a joke, but that doesn't exactly comfort me.  All it means is that the president of the United States (a president who has declared that the media is an enemy of the American people, mind you - was that a joke, too?) thinks it's totally funny to joke about assaulting a news organization. 

What would comfort me would be to see him stop telling jokes and start taking his job seriously.  He is the president of the United States.

It's a choreographed (and not real) assault.   

Sure.  And I suppose I could take that to mean that Trump is not actually enemies with CNN at all, that they in fact work for the same company and are paid to pretend to be enemies.  But I'm guessing that wasn't exactly Trump's intended message.  I'm guessing he was just saying 'heh, look at me beating up CNN!'
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on July 05, 2017, 05:14:49 AM
I guess we should also ignore the fact that the.gif originated from Reddit's supposed largest alt-right extremist forum, and the creator of it (HanAssholeSolo) is apologizing for it now that he's been identified?  Whatever the reason for the tweet, the forum (and alt-right in general) can easily interpret it as support for their views and beliefs.  This from a man who once said of the alt-right "I don’t want to energize the group, and I disavow the group, and if they are energized I want to look into it and find out why."

Tweeting their stuff = disavowing them?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 05, 2017, 08:34:55 AM
Obama whined about Fox News a little too much, but Trump has taken it to a whole new level with CNN.  I get that he can't get over how in the tank the Clinton News Network
was for their namesake, but it's just stupid to obsess over stuff like this.


Obama and Hillary blamed an entire election - involving the votes of something like 130 MILLION people, on a news outlet that would cream their jeans for something like 5 million viewers.  It makes NO sense, and reeks of playing to popular mythology.  But when Trump does it, god forbid we "NORMALIZE THE SHIT SHOW".   Mofo, please.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 05, 2017, 08:45:12 AM
I guess we should also ignore the fact that the.gif originated from Reddit's supposed largest alt-right extremist forum, and the creator of it (HanAssholeSolo) is apologizing for it now that he's been identified?  Whatever the reason for the tweet, the forum (and alt-right in general) can easily interpret it as support for their views and beliefs.  This from a man who once said of the alt-right "I don’t want to energize the group, and I disavow the group, and if they are energized I want to look into it and find out why."

Tweeting their stuff = disavowing them?

Did he know where it came from? Did he know the pedigree of the person that made the video? 

So when I listen to Ted Nugent's music (or Joan Baez's) I'm now adhering to all their beliefs too?    I just bought a Mercyful Fate record; am I now a Satanist?  (I lied about that last thing; I can't stand his voice).   I'm a pro-choice Republican; does that mean I can't voice my belief because I might be <GASP!> energizing the Democrats?   

The video was juvenile, and I would hope for more from my President (I'm vehemently anti-Twitter to begin with) but to read all this into it speaks far more about the reader, in my opinion, than the President.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on July 05, 2017, 08:49:57 AM
Obama whined about Fox News a little too much, but Trump has taken it to a whole new level with CNN.  I get that he can't get over how in the tank the Clinton News Network
was for their namesake, but it's just stupid to obsess over stuff like this.


Obama and Hillary blamed an entire election - involving the votes of something like 130 MILLION people, on a news outlet that would cream their jeans for something like 5 million viewers.  It makes NO sense, and reeks of playing to popular mythology.  But when Trump does it, god forbid we "NORMALIZE THE SHIT SHOW".   Mofo, please.
In your lifetime have you ever seen a president so hellbent to take on and belittle any media source? Or one so self-absorbed that he has to attack any outlet that dare print something he doesn't like?

And in topical news, his tweets about DPRK and the ICBM launch are a new low. Our foreign policy is represented by the inane tweets of a 13yo girl, minus the nuance and thoughtfulness.

Quote
North Korea has just launched another missile. Does this guy have anything better to do with his life? Hard to believe that South Korea and Japan will put up with this much longer. Perhaps China will put a heavy move on North Korea and end this nonsense once and for all!

Imagine if Grabby were president in 1962. "Nicky's so inadequate he has to put his missiles right next to us. I could hit him with my missile all the way from here. Such a loser."
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on July 05, 2017, 09:01:08 AM
Obama whined about Fox News a little too much, but Trump has taken it to a whole new level with CNN.  I get that he can't get over how in the tank the Clinton News Network
was for their namesake, but it's just stupid to obsess over stuff like this.


Obama and Hillary blamed an entire election - involving the votes of something like 130 MILLION people, on a news outlet that would cream their jeans for something like 5 million viewers.  It makes NO sense, and reeks of playing to popular mythology.  But when Trump does it, god forbid we "NORMALIZE THE SHIT SHOW".   Mofo, please.

Are they really comparable though? Obama made comments on Fox News from time to time when asked about it. Trump seems to have become hell bent on making the take down of CNN is #1 priority. It almost seems like it's more important to him than, you know, running the country and stuff. Maybe I have selective memory of Obama's presidency, but I don't recall him saying stuff like....

Jul 2, 2017 08:21:42 AM #FraudNewsCNN #FNN https://t.co/WYUnHjjUjg

Jul 1, 2017 05:08:37 PM I am thinking about changing the name #FakeNews CNN to #FraudNewsCNN!

Jul 1, 2017 08:12:40 AM I am extremely pleased to see that @CNN has finally been exposed as #FakeNews and garbage journalism. It's about time!

Jun 27, 2017 07:47:17 AM So they caught Fake News CNN cold, but what about NBC, CBS & ABC? What about the failing @nytimes & @washingtonpost? They are all Fake News!

Jun 27, 2017 07:30:38 AM Fake News CNN is looking at big management changes now that they got caught falsely pushing their phony Russian stories. Ratings way down!

Jun 27, 2017 05:33:42 AM Wow, CNN had to retract big story on "Russia," with 3 employees forced to resign. What about all the other phony stories they do? FAKE NEWS!

Jun 6, 2017 07:15:36 AM Sorry folks, but if I would have relied on the Fake News of CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, washpost or nytimes, I would have had ZERO chance winning WH   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on July 05, 2017, 10:44:01 AM
I guess we should also ignore the fact that the.gif originated from Reddit's supposed largest alt-right extremist forum, and the creator of it (HanAssholeSolo) is apologizing for it now that he's been identified?  Whatever the reason for the tweet, the forum (and alt-right in general) can easily interpret it as support for their views and beliefs.  This from a man who once said of the alt-right "I don’t want to energize the group, and I disavow the group, and if they are energized I want to look into it and find out why."

Tweeting their stuff = disavowing them?

Did he know where it came from? Did he know the pedigree of the person that made the video? 

So when I listen to Ted Nugent's music (or Joan Baez's) I'm now adhering to all their beliefs too?    I just bought a Mercyful Fate record; am I now a Satanist?  (I lied about that last thing; I can't stand his voice).   I'm a pro-choice Republican; does that mean I can't voice my belief because I might be <GASP!> energizing the Democrats?   

The video was juvenile, and I would hope for more from my President (I'm vehemently anti-Twitter to begin with) but to read all this into it speaks far more about the reader, in my opinion, than the President.

You're rightly entitled to think that.  I'm not sure what you're implying that it states about "the reader" (which apparently is me in this case)? There are numerous outlets 'reading into it', and questioning his intent - I'm sure as a lawyer you are acutely aware of the 'law of unintended consequences'.  First, we don't know if he knew where it came from.  Second, I don't think you have 10s of millions of followers that you influence.  Third, you're not (allegedly) the most powerful person in the country.  Do you not believe that what POTUS says and does matters and or carries influence?  The people on that Reddit forum sure did.

I agree, it was likely just a juvenile way of showing his followers that he believes he's kicking CNN's ass.  Did he know the source - jury is out... I could easily believe either answer.  But, unintended consequences and all.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on July 05, 2017, 01:46:42 PM
Let's quickly shift focus to Trump's son.

Out of curiosity, what exactly are Big Govt, opprressive taxation, anti 2A left wing socialists celebrating today?
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) July 4, 2017


He's really got the conservative buzzwords down, doesn't he? I'm amazed he managed to fit so many into a 140 characters. Why is a statement like this even necessary? Seriously. He's the son of the fucking president. Why? What good comes of this other than verifying the delusions of a few million people and getting Americans to hate each other a little further? I swear, as more and more time goes by, I'm convinced that Trump, Trump's family, and the bulk of Trump's supporters don't have a care in the world for what comes of this country. They don't seem to care about anything other than trolling and "shit posting" all over the internet.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: KevShmev on July 05, 2017, 06:02:59 PM
I guess we should also ignore the fact that the.gif originated from Reddit's supposed largest alt-right extremist forum, and the creator of it (HanAssholeSolo) is apologizing for it now that he's been identified?  Whatever the reason for the tweet, the forum (and alt-right in general) can easily interpret it as support for their views and beliefs.  This from a man who once said of the alt-right "I don’t want to energize the group, and I disavow the group, and if they are energized I want to look into it and find out why."

Tweeting their stuff = disavowing them?

Consistency is not Donald Trump's friend (or any of anyone who frantically reaches for the retweet button every time someone posts something they agree with). :lol :lol
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 06, 2017, 11:01:50 AM
Obama whined about Fox News a little too much, but Trump has taken it to a whole new level with CNN.  I get that he can't get over how in the tank the Clinton News Network
was for their namesake, but it's just stupid to obsess over stuff like this.


Obama and Hillary blamed an entire election - involving the votes of something like 130 MILLION people, on a news outlet that would cream their jeans for something like 5 million viewers.  It makes NO sense, and reeks of playing to popular mythology.  But when Trump does it, god forbid we "NORMALIZE THE SHIT SHOW".   Mofo, please.
In your lifetime have you ever seen a president so hellbent to take on and belittle any media source? Or one so self-absorbed that he has to attack any outlet that dare print something he doesn't like?

And in topical news, his tweets about DPRK and the ICBM launch are a new low. Our foreign policy is represented by the inane tweets of a 13yo girl, minus the nuance and thoughtfulness.

You're preaching to the choir.  That ANY of this is unfolding on Twitter is a crime against humanity as far as I am concerned.


Quote
Quote
North Korea has just launched another missile. Does this guy have anything better to do with his life? Hard to believe that South Korea and Japan will put up with this much longer. Perhaps China will put a heavy move on North Korea and end this nonsense once and for all!

Imagine if Grabby were president in 1962. "Nicky's so inadequate he has to put his missiles right next to us. I could hit him with my missile all the way from here. Such a loser."

Haha.  It's funny though; JFK has a fair amount of resonance for me lately (my daughter goes to a school that has ties to him) and more and more I realize that JFK is what Trump COULD be, but he seems to have no ability to rise above, and Trump is what people worried that JFK WOULD be, except that he gloriously DID rise above.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 06, 2017, 11:04:58 AM
Obama whined about Fox News a little too much, but Trump has taken it to a whole new level with CNN.  I get that he can't get over how in the tank the Clinton News Network
was for their namesake, but it's just stupid to obsess over stuff like this.


Obama and Hillary blamed an entire election - involving the votes of something like 130 MILLION people, on a news outlet that would cream their jeans for something like 5 million viewers.  It makes NO sense, and reeks of playing to popular mythology.  But when Trump does it, god forbid we "NORMALIZE THE SHIT SHOW".   Mofo, please.

Are they really comparable though? Obama made comments on Fox News from time to time when asked about it. Trump seems to have become hell bent on making the take down of CNN is #1 priority. It almost seems like it's more important to him than, you know, running the country and stuff. Maybe I have selective memory of Obama's presidency, but I don't recall him saying stuff like....

Jul 2, 2017 08:21:42 AM #FraudNewsCNN #FNN https://t.co/WYUnHjjUjg

Jul 1, 2017 05:08:37 PM I am thinking about changing the name #FakeNews CNN to #FraudNewsCNN!

Jul 1, 2017 08:12:40 AM I am extremely pleased to see that @CNN has finally been exposed as #FakeNews and garbage journalism. It's about time!

Jun 27, 2017 07:47:17 AM So they caught Fake News CNN cold, but what about NBC, CBS & ABC? What about the failing @nytimes & @washingtonpost? They are all Fake News!

Jun 27, 2017 07:30:38 AM Fake News CNN is looking at big management changes now that they got caught falsely pushing their phony Russian stories. Ratings way down!

Jun 27, 2017 05:33:42 AM Wow, CNN had to retract big story on "Russia," with 3 employees forced to resign. What about all the other phony stories they do? FAKE NEWS!

Jun 6, 2017 07:15:36 AM Sorry folks, but if I would have relied on the Fake News of CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, washpost or nytimes, I would have had ZERO chance winning WH

No, no, you're right.  I have no argument with you.  I was going slightly different in direction and saying that the idea that somehow Trump is unprecedented - and I really have a problem with the propaganda (and bullying) of the "normalizing" argment - is false.    Yeah, he's ramping it up, but it's no different than the Stones ramping it up after Elvis, and the Sex Pistols ramping it up after the Stones. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 06, 2017, 11:13:15 AM
You're rightly entitled to think that.  I'm not sure what you're implying that it states about "the reader" (which apparently is me in this case)? There are numerous outlets 'reading into it', and questioning his intent - I'm sure as a lawyer you are acutely aware of the 'law of unintended consequences'.  First, we don't know if he knew where it came from.  Second, I don't think you have 10s of millions of followers that you influence.  Third, you're not (allegedly) the most powerful person in the country.  Do you not believe that what POTUS says and does matters and or carries influence?  The people on that Reddit forum sure did.

I agree, it was likely just a juvenile way of showing his followers that he believes he's kicking CNN's ass.  Did he know the source - jury is out... I could easily believe either answer.  But, unintended consequences and all.

I don't disagree - in fact, just the opposite - with the notion of unintended consequences, and that is in some part why I am so against the notion of "Presidency by Twitter".   But while I wasn't singling you out at all, yeah, I think it speaks to the reader.   When you hear/see a statement, you automatically view it through your filter.  ALL of us, myself included, have a filter of some sort, with inherent biases.   But not all biases are equal.   

If Tom Brady says "I will do whatever it takes to win.", the Patriot fan will say "Yeah, like managing your diet to the calorie, practicing seven days a week in the off-season, and abstaining from sex with that lovely Giselle the night before games!", and the Colts fan will say "Yeah, like draining every last drop of air from the football moments before gametime".  That's on the reader.   

Like that video on the humor page. It's only a few seconds of a longer piece, but since it's "TRUMP", it's about how stupid he looked.  PERIOD.  But in the longer piece, CLEARLY the protocol was to have the President's shake, and the First Ladies shake, and then swap.  The Polish First Lady got caught behind the President of Poland and was late to her cue.  Whether he stuck his hand out to help her save face, or because he was clueless, or for some other reason is not known.  Whether she was purposefully ignoring him, or simply following the protocol, or scrambling to catch up, is not known (at least I haven't seen any official statements on the matter).    But some of us are predetermined to see TRUMP BAD in all scenarios and some of us are willing to consider the various possibilities and arrive at a likely (though likely never proven) conclusion. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 06, 2017, 11:16:48 AM
Let's quickly shift focus to Trump's son.

Out of curiosity, what exactly are Big Govt, opprressive taxation, anti 2A left wing socialists celebrating today?
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) July 4, 2017


He's really got the conservative buzzwords down, doesn't he? I'm amazed he managed to fit so many into a 140 characters. Why is a statement like this even necessary? Seriously. He's the son of the fucking president. Why? What good comes of this other than verifying the delusions of a few million people and getting Americans to hate each other a little further? I swear, as more and more time goes by, I'm convinced that Trump, Trump's family, and the bulk of Trump's supporters don't have a care in the world for what comes of this country. They don't seem to care about anything other than trolling and "shit posting" all over the internet.

He does have the lingo down.  I had to google "2A" to get Second Amendment.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on July 06, 2017, 11:42:25 AM
I don't disagree - in fact, just the opposite - with the notion of unintended consequences, and that is in some part why I am so against the notion of "Presidency by Twitter".   But while I wasn't singling you out at all, yeah, I think it speaks to the reader.   When you hear/see a statement, you automatically view it through your filter.  ALL of us, myself included, have a filter of some sort, with inherent biases.   But not all biases are equal.   

On this, we can agree.   :omg:  We all look/listen at life through our biases resulting from a lifetime of learned (taught?) behaviour.  My "bias" as it relates to Trump typically varies from contempt, to disgust, to shock, to exasperation, to annoyance.

Like that video on the humor page.  *snipped / 100% valid analysis*

Dude... it's humour.  Humour is OFTEN the result of something taken out of context.  You ever watch Three's Company?   :D
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 06, 2017, 12:52:17 PM
I don't disagree - in fact, just the opposite - with the notion of unintended consequences, and that is in some part why I am so against the notion of "Presidency by Twitter".   But while I wasn't singling you out at all, yeah, I think it speaks to the reader.   When you hear/see a statement, you automatically view it through your filter.  ALL of us, myself included, have a filter of some sort, with inherent biases.   But not all biases are equal.   

On this, we can agree.   :omg:  We all look/listen at life through our biases resulting from a lifetime of learned (taught?) behaviour.  My "bias" as it relates to Trump typically varies from contempt, to disgust, to shock, to exasperation, to annoyance.

But don't we owe to ourselves - if not others - to understand that bias, and accommodate the fact that others have theirs too?

Why does your 'contempt, disgust, shock, exasperation, annoyance' matter, and have to be accommodated, but someone's 'contempt, disgust, shock, exasperation, annoyance' for, say, a flamboyant gay man, get labeled bigotry?   


Quote
Like that video on the humor page.  *snipped / 100% valid analysis*

Dude... it's humour.  Humour is OFTEN the result of something taken out of context.  You ever watch Three's Company?   :D

Bro, I loved Three's Company.  Jack Tripper was my idol.   But I'm not a huge fan of humor that makes a specific person the butt of the joke.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Cool Chris on July 06, 2017, 01:01:38 PM
John Ritter's portrayal of Jack Tripper will always be one of the best comedic performances in the history of TV and film.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 06, 2017, 01:17:12 PM
GET THE F*** OUT.

So I went on to look at Wiki for "Jack Tripper".   And it talked about how "Three's Company" went to "Three's a Crowd".  I didn't remember that (or the girl who played his "fiancé", so for shit's and giggles, I googled her (Mary Cadorette).  Turns out, she owns an antique store here in CT, and get this:  the store is in a barn that is let by the owner of an adjoining house.  The house was recently for sale, and if you bought the house you had an option on the barn and the tenant.   My wife and I were THISCLOSE to making an offer on that exact house!   I could have been her landlord! 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on July 06, 2017, 03:30:30 PM
But don't we owe to ourselves - if not others - to understand that bias, and accommodate the fact that others have theirs too?

Why does your 'contempt, disgust, shock, exasperation, annoyance' matter, and have to be accommodated, but someone's 'contempt, disgust, shock, exasperation, annoyance' for, say, a flamboyant gay man, get labeled bigotry?   

First, I do recognize that others have a "bias", or predisposition, or preconceptions, or whatever you want to call it.  To try and understand and accommodate for all of those from everyone?  I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "accommodate", but no, I don't think I owe that to myself.

On your second point, please tell me you're not asking for an explanation on why there's a difference between my statements towards a behaviour, or particular action/statement... something that someone chooses, and similar statements towards a persons sexuality (something they don't chose... something they simply 'are').  I'm not shocked about Trump as a person, or hold contempt towards him as a person (and EVERY thing that he does/says), but am that way about MOST OF his actions/statements.  There's a difference.  Again, as a lawyer, I believe you know this.

Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Jaffa on July 07, 2017, 12:14:17 AM
But don't we owe to ourselves - if not others - to understand that bias, and accommodate the fact that others have theirs too?

Why does your 'contempt, disgust, shock, exasperation, annoyance' matter, and have to be accommodated, but someone's 'contempt, disgust, shock, exasperation, annoyance' for, say, a flamboyant gay man, get labeled bigotry?   

Not to pile on after jingle's post, but I'd like to clarify: is it your position that all biases are equally reasonable or unreasonable?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 07, 2017, 07:28:53 AM
But don't we owe to ourselves - if not others - to understand that bias, and accommodate the fact that others have theirs too?

Why does your 'contempt, disgust, shock, exasperation, annoyance' matter, and have to be accommodated, but someone's 'contempt, disgust, shock, exasperation, annoyance' for, say, a flamboyant gay man, get labeled bigotry?   

First, I do recognize that others have a "bias", or predisposition, or preconceptions, or whatever you want to call it.  To try and understand and accommodate for all of those from everyone?  I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "accommodate", but no, I don't think I owe that to myself.

HAHAHA, that is SO telling.  I don't mean "recognize others' bias" and "accommodate their bias".  I meant recognize YOUR bias and accommodate that YOUR bias may not make you right and may put you at odds with others.    Fuck my old boots; I can't IMAGINE ever being that certain about something that I was positive I was right and roughly half of the 7.4 BILLION (or 360 million, if you want to limit it to U.S. and Canada) rest of the people were perhaps wrong.

Quote
On your second point, please tell me you're not asking for an explanation on why there's a difference between my statements towards a behaviour, or particular action/statement... something that someone chooses, and similar statements towards a persons sexuality (something they don't chose... something they simply 'are').  I'm not shocked about Trump as a person, or hold contempt towards him as a person (and EVERY thing that he does/says), but am that way about MOST OF his actions/statements.  There's a difference.  Again, as a lawyer, I believe you know this.

Nice try, but no.  I didn't say "gay" man.  I said "FLAMBOYANTLY gay man".  What you wear, what you project of yourself, is absolutely choice, and if it's not then neither is what Trump projects of himself.    You can justify your form of bigotry as "nature vs. nuture" all you want, but at the end of the day, you're casting judgment (intolerance) on a person who holds different opinions than you.  If it was only about the "opinions" and not the man, you wouldn't be calling him Grabby at every turn, and claiming that blown handshakes are Carlin-esque humor.    Not saying you have to do something different, but just recognize what it is you're doing and own it.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 07, 2017, 07:37:51 AM
But don't we owe to ourselves - if not others - to understand that bias, and accommodate the fact that others have theirs too?

Why does your 'contempt, disgust, shock, exasperation, annoyance' matter, and have to be accommodated, but someone's 'contempt, disgust, shock, exasperation, annoyance' for, say, a flamboyant gay man, get labeled bigotry?   

Not to pile on after jingle's post, but I'd like to clarify: is it your position that all biases are equally reasonable or unreasonable?

No (although I imagine I have to go a lot farther to find one that is "unreasonable" than some people here), I am saying that we have an obligation to understand our own biases and account for them.   One way is to openly acknowledge them, which may be hard to do (or even impossible), or create issues ("Hey guys, I know I hate Jews, but check this out!").    But a more simple way, and a more collaborative way, is to simply recognize that I'm one of 360 million people, and not everyone thinks the way I do.  I can't assume I'm right on a given issue.  I can articulate my point as best I can, and I can amass statistics to support my case.   But at the end of the day I have to leave SOME room for the fact that others may actually be right, and since the world is an odious place, that the "odious" answer may have some element of truth in it.   Referring to people we disagree with as "Grabby" or "Obummer" doesn't do that.  Calling people that don't agree with us (and don't vote for us) "deplorable" doesn't do that.    Assuming that EVERYONE prioritizes issues the same way we do doesn't do that.

Don't make the common mistake here; I'm not talking about ACCEPTANCE, and I'm not talking about artificial constructs like the recent fad of talking about "normalization" as a rationalization to do and say whatever you want.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on July 07, 2017, 08:24:48 AM
You can justify your form of bigotry as "nature vs. nuture" all you want, but at the end of the day, you're casting judgment (intolerance) on a person who holds different opinions than you.  If it was only about the "opinions" and not the man, you wouldn't be calling him Grabby at every turn, and claiming that blown handshakes are Carlin-esque humor.    Not saying you have to do something different, but just recognize what it is you're doing and own it.   

I don't have intolerance for the man (despite your opinion that I do)... I have intolerance for his behaviour/actions given the position that he is in - I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this.  If you don't want to listen/believe, then perhaps you should recognize and accommodate your own biases?   ;). 

If he was just the Celebrity-Apprentice guy, I couldn't give two shits about his behaviour - I certainly didn't prior to him campaigning.  But what he does/says has MASSIVE repercussions and impact - yes, even to Canadian citizens.  As for calling him Grabby... I stole that from Chino (I think?), and thought it was a smarmy nickname that I found a mild level of humour in. You don't, that's fine.  I have to try and laugh at a lot of the things he says/does, because if I took it 100% serious, I'd probably want to kill myself.  Calling him 'Grabby' says nothing about me being a bigot or intolerant of HIM.  And for the record, I said nothing about the hand-shake issue yesterday - other than acknowledging you had a 100% valid analysis of it.

Last time I checked, you weren't in my head, so you're not exactly in a position to say what my opinions are vs my "form of bigotry".
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 07, 2017, 12:01:23 PM
You can justify your form of bigotry as "nature vs. nuture" all you want, but at the end of the day, you're casting judgment (intolerance) on a person who holds different opinions than you.  If it was only about the "opinions" and not the man, you wouldn't be calling him Grabby at every turn, and claiming that blown handshakes are Carlin-esque humor.    Not saying you have to do something different, but just recognize what it is you're doing and own it.   

I don't have intolerance for the man (despite your opinion that I do)... I have intolerance for his behaviour/actions given the position that he is in - I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this.  If you don't want to listen/believe, then perhaps you should recognize and accommodate your own biases?   ;). 

No, I hear your claim of distinction, but intolerance is intolerance.  You don't think every case of intolerance in the history of man had a similar "rationalization"? 

Quote
If he was just the Celebrity-Apprentice guy, I couldn't give two shits about his behaviour - I certainly didn't prior to him campaigning.  But what he does/says has MASSIVE repercussions and impact - yes, even to Canadian citizens.  As for calling him Grabby... I stole that from Chino (I think?), and thought it was a smarmy nickname that I found a mild level of humour in. You don't, that's fine.  I have to try and laugh at a lot of the things he says/does, because if I took it 100% serious, I'd probably want to kill myself.  Calling him 'Grabby' says nothing about me being a bigot or intolerant of HIM.  And for the record, I said nothing about the hand-shake issue yesterday - other than acknowledging you had a 100% valid analysis of it.

Last time I checked, you weren't in my head, so you're not exactly in a position to say what my opinions are vs my "form of bigotry".

I don't have to be in your head.  You said it.  There's no question that what the President does has massive repercussions.   That applies to every President.   But it's all relative and that's where I'm coming from; does Trump's video of a body with a CNN logo on it REALLY have more repercussions than a treaty that impacts the economics of literally every nation on earth?    Does the picture now floating around of Donald Trump's 2012 tweet that says "I've never seen a skinny person drinking a Diet Coke" and an image of him in Hamburg with a Diet Coke next to his chair have more repercussions than a terrorist organization with cells in at least 50 countries?   

And when you add to it the real distinct possibility that Trump is not a singularity at all, but rather the inevitable conclusion of the recent spate of "intolerance to intolerance" that has proliferated in the last 15 years, I think there is a lot for which all of us should be personally accountable.   As I have said often, "tend our own garden". 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: XeRocks81 on July 07, 2017, 12:05:57 PM
Quote from: Stadler

does Trump's video of a body with a CNN logo on it REALLY have more repercussions than a treaty that impacts the economics of literally every nation on earth?    Does the picture now floating around of Donald Trump's 2012 tweet that says "I've never seen a skinny person drinking a Diet Coke" and an image of him in Hamburg with a Diet Coke next to his chair have more repercussions than a terrorist organization with cells in at least 50 countries?   

Why do you insist on saying we (or whoever you're talking about, it's convientely vague) treat all these things the same?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on July 07, 2017, 12:06:42 PM
Stadler, I know you don't like Trump, but you can't compare his drinking a diet coke with a terrorist organization around the world.

I mean, I can see where you're coming from on the similarities, but I think you're pushing it a little bit with your anti-Trump agenda.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on July 07, 2017, 12:21:46 PM

I don't have to be in your head.  You said it.  There's no question that what the President does has massive repercussions.   That applies to every President.   But it's all relative and that's where I'm coming from; does Trump's video of a body with a CNN logo on it REALLY have more repercussions than a treaty that impacts the economics of literally every nation on earth?    Does the picture now floating around of Donald Trump's 2012 tweet that says "I've never seen a skinny person drinking a Diet Coke" and an image of him in Hamburg with a Diet Coke next to his chair have more repercussions than a terrorist organization with cells in at least 50 countries?   
I can only say that from my isolated perspective, the point is that the person dealing with those very serious things is the same juvenile twit evidenced by the trivial things posted here. Shouldn't the fact that he behaves like a fucking retard concern us all when global treaties and combating international terrorism are his freaking job?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 07, 2017, 01:21:27 PM
Stadler, I know you don't like Trump, but you can't compare his drinking a diet coke with a terrorist organization around the world.

I mean, I can see where you're coming from on the similarities, but I think you're pushing it a little bit with your anti-Trump agenda.

I'm not comparing HIS drinking of Diet Coke with terrorism, I'm saying that for someone who claims to be 'above the petty bullshit' (my words) there's an inordinate amount of time spent on dumb shit like Coke bottles, and CNN videos, and handshakes (real or snubbed).    And what discourse there is about the issues is limited to soundbites of "22 million!" from the CBO without any analysis as to whether those 22 million are by choice or by force, whether they are there because of economics or something else, or whether they have access elsewhere to quality healthcare.   

If it's REALLY about the politics, let's make it about the politics and leave the petty nonsense for lesser intellects (I kid on that last part).  But we all know it's not, and that's where my ultimate point lies:   Trump is not a singularity; he is an inevitable and logical conclusion of where politics has been going for well over a decade (maybe two decades).  Trump isn't the "tat" for the "tit" of how Obama was treated; since Reagan/Bush, each President has been treated in a fashion that is a reaction to the one that came before.  But increasingly, non-political things started to intrude.  Bill Clinton's sexual conquests.   George Bush's intellect.   Obama's nationality.  And increasingly, more and more emphasis has been placed on things that don't actually sway the needle, like the impact of social media, and Fox News and now Fake News.   To the point that it escalates and becomes far too tangential to the issues at hand.  Depending on how you want to look at it, Obama was akin to ELP circa Works and Yes circa Yesterdays... and we're in the Sex Pistols phase.  Hopefully, reason will take over and we'll avoid the Disco era, and go right to the NWOBHM.   

You can focus on the Sid Vicious/Johnny Rotten aspect of Trump (the CNN video, the coke bottles) all you want, but at the end of the day it's going to be the Joe Stuermers and Iggy Pops and Ramones (i.e. the substantive issues) that will carry the day.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: XeRocks81 on July 07, 2017, 01:32:58 PM

 it's going to be the Joe Stuermers .

Was that when Genesis took that very punk rock turn when they replaced Steve Hackett for live shows?  :mehlin
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: cramx3 on July 07, 2017, 01:48:03 PM
If it's REALLY about the politics, let's make it about the politics and leave the petty nonsense for lesser intellects (I kid on that last part).  But we all know it's not, and that's where my ultimate point lies:   Trump is not a singularity; he is an inevitable and logical conclusion of where politics has been going for well over a decade (maybe two decades).  Trump isn't the "tat" for the "tit" of how Obama was treated; since Reagan/Bush, each President has been treated in a fashion that is a reaction to the one that came before.  But increasingly, non-political things started to intrude.  Bill Clinton's sexual conquests.   George Bush's intellect.   Obama's nationality.  And increasingly, more and more emphasis has been placed on things that don't actually sway the needle, like the impact of social media, and Fox News and now Fake News.   To the point that it escalates and becomes far too tangential to the issues at hand.  Depending on how you want to look at it, Obama was akin to ELP circa Works and Yes circa Yesterdays... and we're in the Sex Pistols phase.  Hopefully, reason will take over and we'll avoid the Disco era, and go right to the NWOBHM.   

 :metal :metal
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Jaffa on July 08, 2017, 12:19:12 AM
Stadler, I have a few points for your consideration.  This is probably going to wind up being an obnoxiously long post, so I’ll try to TL;DR it at the end.   

First of all, I would like to say that I do agree with a lot of what you’re saying, particularly when it comes to understanding our own biases.  When it comes to intellectual discourse and social progress, I think it is crucially important for people to challenge their own perspectives and examine their own biases.  Otherwise, nothing ever changes.  Progress requires people to change their minds and be open to the possibility that they might be wrong.  When someone stubbornly clings to their opinions, they run the risk of standing in the way of that progress.  When everyone assumes that they are on the correct side of every argument, progress becomes entirely impossible. 

That being said, when it comes to examining our biases, I’m not sure we see eye to eye on what exactly constitutes bias.

As an unrelated example, I work in a managerial role, and part of my job involves catching and correcting other people’s mistakes.  Now, sometimes I will take the time to bring the mistake to the employee’s attention, but not always.  For example, if an employee has been with us for two years and I’ve never seen them make the mistake before, I’m much more likely to let it go and move on, as I can safely assume that they do know the correct procedure and simply slipped up.  On the other hand, if someone makes that same mistake frequently, I’m much more inclined to bring it up with them.

That is not bias.  It is pattern recognition.  The mistake I’m correcting might be minor enough that I don’t need to pull the employee aside and talk to him about it, but the fact that he keeps making similar mistakes means it is something I need to address and pay attention to. 

Same goes for Trump.

In a vacuum, the WWE/CNN Gif is not particularly problematic.  If a friend had shared it with me, I might have even laughed at it.  At the very worst, I would have rolled my eyes and thought it was silly.

So, why does it bother me that Trump shared it?

Because this is not a vacuum.  Trump can’t seem to go two days without taking a shot at CNN, or at the very least talking about Fake News.  He constantly insults news organizations, often referring them with nicknames designed to undermine them.  He has Tweeted that the mainstream media is an enemy of the American people.  And all the while he makes exceptions for the media outlets that do support him. 

These things add up.  And as they add up, it becomes more and more difficult for me to roll my eyes and write silly Tweets off as being just silly Tweets, because I start to see a pattern forming, and it’s a pattern I find deeply troubling.

When I see a world leader who seems intent on destroying the credibility of news organizations which are critical of him while simultaneously elevating the ones which support him, that alarms me.  That kind of behavior shouldn’t be dismissed just because it’s taking place on Twitter.

And for the record, it actually isn’t just taking place on Twitter.  Look at Sean Spicer’s press briefings.  When he gets a hard hitting question from a critical news outlet, he’s likely to stumble over his non-answer and try to move on as quickly as possible.  When he turns to Skype for a favorable question from an organization you’ve never heard of before, he thanks them for the great question and answers it in great detail.  As I recall, there was even a press briefing that several major liberal news outlets were blocked from attending at all.

Undermining trust in the media seems to be a key strategy of this White House.

And here’s the thing: the president’s attitude toward the media is a substantive issue.

Why?  Because I kind of value freedom of the press, and I worry about the direction our country might take under the guidance of a president whose idea of fair and unbiased reporting is Fox News. 


TL;DR:  There is a difference between having a bias and recognizing a pattern.  Trumps’ silly CNN Tweets are part of a pattern that I find deeply troubling, and when I react to those Tweets, I’m also reacting to the overall pattern.

/rambling
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on July 08, 2017, 02:20:51 AM
Stadler, I have a few points for your consideration.  This is probably going to wind up being an obnoxiously long post, so I’ll try to TL;DR it at the end.   

First of all, I would like to say that I do agree with a lot of what you’re saying, particularly when it comes to understanding our own biases.  When it comes to intellectual discourse and social progress, I think it is crucially important for people to challenge their own perspectives and examine their own biases.  Otherwise, nothing ever changes.  Progress requires people to change their minds and be open to the possibility that they might be wrong.  When someone stubbornly clings to their opinions, they run the risk of standing in the way of that progress.  When everyone assumes that they are on the correct side of every argument, progress becomes entirely impossible. 

That being said, when it comes to examining our biases, I’m not sure we see eye to eye on what exactly constitutes bias.

As an unrelated example, I work in a managerial role, and part of my job involves catching and correcting other people’s mistakes.  Now, sometimes I will take the time to bring the mistake to the employee’s attention, but not always.  For example, if an employee has been with us for two years and I’ve never seen them make the mistake before, I’m much more likely to let it go and move on, as I can safely assume that they do know the correct procedure and simply slipped up.  On the other hand, if someone makes that same mistake frequently, I’m much more inclined to bring it up with them.

That is not bias.  It is pattern recognition.  The mistake I’m correcting might be minor enough that I don’t need to pull the employee aside and talk to him about it, but the fact that he keeps making similar mistakes means it is something I need to address and pay attention to. 

Same goes for Trump.

In a vacuum, the WWE/CNN Gif is not particularly problematic.  If a friend had shared it with me, I might have even laughed at it.  At the very worst, I would have rolled my eyes and thought it was silly.

So, why does it bother me that Trump shared it?

Because this is not a vacuum.  Trump can’t seem to go two days without taking a shot at CNN, or at the very least talking about Fake News.  He constantly insults news organizations, often referring them with nicknames designed to undermine them.  He has Tweeted that the mainstream media is an enemy of the American people.  And all the while he makes exceptions for the media outlets that do support him. 

These things add up.  And as they add up, it becomes more and more difficult for me to roll my eyes and write silly Tweets off as being just silly Tweets, because I start to see a pattern forming, and it’s a pattern I find deeply troubling.

When I see a world leader who seems intent on destroying the credibility of news organizations which are critical of him while simultaneously elevating the ones which support him, that alarms me.  That kind of behavior shouldn’t be dismissed just because it’s taking place on Twitter.

And for the record, it actually isn’t just taking place on Twitter.  Look at Sean Spicer’s press briefings.  When he gets a hard hitting question from a critical news outlet, he’s likely to stumble over his non-answer and try to move on as quickly as possible.  When he turns to Skype for a favorable question from an organization you’ve never heard of before, he thanks them for the great question and answers it in great detail.  As I recall, there was even a press briefing that several major liberal news outlets were blocked from attending at all.

Undermining trust in the media seems to be a key strategy of this White House.

And here’s the thing: the president’s attitude toward the media is a substantive issue.

Why?  Because I kind of value freedom of the press, and I worry about the direction our country might take under the guidance of a president whose idea of fair and unbiased reporting is Fox News. 


TL;DR:  There is a difference between having a bias and recognizing a pattern.  Trumps’ silly CNN Tweets are part of a pattern that I find deeply troubling, and when I react to those Tweets, I’m also reacting to the overall pattern.

/rambling
:tup
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on July 08, 2017, 04:43:54 AM
If it's REALLY about the politics, let's make it about the politics and leave the petty nonsense for lesser intellects (I kid on that last part).  But we all know it's not, and that's where my ultimate point lies:   Trump is not a singularity; he is an inevitable and logical conclusion of where politics has been going for well over a decade (maybe two decades).  Trump isn't the "tat" for the "tit" of how Obama was treated; since Reagan/Bush, each President has been treated in a fashion that is a reaction to the one that came before.  But increasingly, non-political things started to intrude.  Bill Clinton's sexual conquests.   George Bush's intellect.   Obama's nationality.  And increasingly, more and more emphasis has been placed on things that don't actually sway the needle, like the impact of social media, and Fox News and now Fake News.   To the point that it escalates and becomes far too tangential to the issues at hand.

Great points here Stadler, and yes, I do see how "Trump" is the culmination of the last 25-ish years of US politics.  The difference I see between him and past POTUS' is that HE is the one that is (on purpose; ignorance;  indifference??) forcing the attention on meaningless/petty nonsense (which, according your statement, implies that Trump is a "lesser intellect").  Granted, Twitter didn't exist pre-Obama, but we certainly didn't see Clinton bragging about how which interns have a gag reflex and which don't (ironic you would bring up the Birther issue).  The end result is that Trump's actions/behaviour (largely on Twitter, but not always limited to his tweets) show his constituents - and the rest of the world - that politics/policy/governing/etc... is not what he is primarily focused on.  And, as the leader of the US, it is ergo not what the US is focused on.

I've read a few articles recently (non-US, thus non-"partisan") talking about how other countries are taking leadership positions where the US clearly doesn't want to lead anymore, as well as governments going around Trump in order to productively work with the US.  Whether his supporters simply can't see it because they can't step outside of their biases/echo chamber, or are burying their heads in the sand, the US's position in the global arena is weakening on a regular basis because of Trump.

@ Jaffa... great post - I agree with all of it.  I'd been looking for the way to articulate the difference between what I thought Stadler was saying about bias, and how I felt it, and particularly towards Trump.  You nailed it.  In a way, Trump has been the creator of my bias towards him - because of his consistent patterns of behaviour, and because of the position he is in.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: ariich on July 10, 2017, 10:03:22 AM
Jaffa for President!
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 10, 2017, 10:13:39 AM
As an unrelated example, I work in a managerial role, and part of my job involves catching and correcting other people’s mistakes.  Now, sometimes I will take the time to bring the mistake to the employee’s attention, but not always.  For example, if an employee has been with us for two years and I’ve never seen them make the mistake before, I’m much more likely to let it go and move on, as I can safely assume that they do know the correct procedure and simply slipped up.  On the other hand, if someone makes that same mistake frequently, I’m much more inclined to bring it up with them.

That is not bias.  It is pattern recognition.  The mistake I’m correcting might be minor enough that I don’t need to pull the employee aside and talk to him about it, but the fact that he keeps making similar mistakes means it is something I need to address and pay attention to. 

Same goes for Trump.

Thank you for the kind words. Much appreciated.

To your example, which is a good one, the bias comes in when the second or third "mistakes" are deemed mistakes, even in part, because of the previous mistakes.   I'm all for pattern recognition (more than you know) but here, in large part, the subsequent mistakes aren't mistakes at all EXCEPT for the bias.   Honestly, even with 1000 tweets behind him, I'm not sure I agree that a "Diet Coke" is a sign of anything.  (Well, except bias). 

Quote
When I see a world leader who seems intent on destroying the credibility of news organizations which are critical of him while simultaneously elevating the ones which support him, that alarms me.  That kind of behavior shouldn’t be dismissed just because it’s taking place on Twitter.

And for the record, it actually isn’t just taking place on Twitter.  Look at Sean Spicer’s press briefings.  When he gets a hard hitting question from a critical news outlet, he’s likely to stumble over his non-answer and try to move on as quickly as possible.  When he turns to Skype for a favorable question from an organization you’ve never heard of before, he thanks them for the great question and answers it in great detail.  As I recall, there was even a press briefing that several major liberal news outlets were blocked from attending at all.

Undermining trust in the media seems to be a key strategy of this White House.

And here’s the thing: the president’s attitude toward the media is a substantive issue.

Why?  Because I kind of value freedom of the press, and I worry about the direction our country might take under the guidance of a president whose idea of fair and unbiased reporting is Fox News. 

I value a free press as well, again, more than you know, but that's why I wrote what I wrote before: TRUMP IS NOT A SINGULARITY.  This has been going on for decades.  Sean Hannity didn't just get a show last November.  He's been on since 2009. 

I was at Emory University back in 2000-2002 getting my MBA, and (along with several classmates) I was lucky enough to have lunch with a Senior Producer of CNN (located in Atlanta).  One of the conversations started jokingly with one student (not me) asking about CNN standing for "Communist News Network", and she freely copped to the idea that ratings were now a part of having a full network dedicated to news.  NBC could fund their news desk with Seinfeld and Wheel of Fortune reruns.   CNN doesn't have that luxury.  So what takes the place of the "entertainment" is the news version of "entertainment".  How many people - who are watching a station to hear ideas that jibe with their world view - understand that they are being sold?    Sean Hannity is NOT delivering HARD NEWS and it just so happens that YOU (who agree with him) are therefore right in your world view.   You are being sold a bill of goods (and lest this be a Conservative, Fox News attack, you can put Rachel Maddow here as well).   

I'm old enough to know that Walter Cronkite was the Voice of America.   It is since been proven apochryphal, but LBJ was thought to have said "If I've lost Walter Cronkite, I've lost Middle America".    When he retired, and ended his broadcast time, and "came out" as a pretty hard core Liberal (though he was very much for a smaller, limited government, which is a tenet of classic conservatism) it SHOCKED people.   He was literally the most trusted man in America for decades and the vast majority of people had no idea where he stood on the political spectrum.  Do you have any doubt where Anderson Cooper, Sean Hannity, Rachel Maddow or Meghan Kelly sit?   Of COURSE not.  And that is a travesty.  He's doing it all wrong (I mean 100% wrong, and he's using it for his own personal gain) but Trump is not wrong in premise for calling these assholes out for fake news.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 10, 2017, 10:26:13 AM
Great points here Stadler, and yes, I do see how "Trump" is the culmination of the last 25-ish years of US politics.  The difference I see between him and past POTUS' is that HE is the one that is (on purpose; ignorance;  indifference??) forcing the attention on meaningless/petty nonsense (which, according your statement, implies that Trump is a "lesser intellect").

One, I was kidding about that.  Two, I'm not sticking up for Trump as any grand genius, but the reverse DOESN'T work.  He may or may not be focusing on the trivial, but it doesn't reflect on his intellect.  He may well be a magician in the sense of a Penn Gillette, who relies on the human nature of his audience to be successful.   Again, I'm not here to argue Trump's intellect - I have no fucking idea, though I do think his daughter is way WAY smarter than she gets credit for.)

Quote
  Granted, Twitter didn't exist pre-Obama, but we certainly didn't see Clinton bragging about how which interns have a gag reflex and which don't (ironic you would bring up the Birther issue).  The end result is that Trump's actions/behaviour (largely on Twitter, but not always limited to his tweets) show his constituents - and the rest of the world - that politics/policy/governing/etc... is not what he is primarily focused on.  And, as the leader of the US, it is ergo not what the US is focused on.

I'm not familiar with any Trump reference to gag-reflexes, especially while President, but what's the difference?  Zeppelin is widely regarded as the gold standard for rock star decadence.  Is banging a groupie with a red snapper any less appalling because there isn't a Snap chat of it?  If anything, it's WORSE. 

But for the record, I'm not arguing your last point.  No doubt, if Trump is tweeting about Mika Brzezinski's facial surgery, he's not solving more pressing issues.  You will get no push back on that from me.  But then again, where do you draw the line?  Is Trump's tweeting better or worse than Obama's "impromptu" (NOTHING POTUS does is "impromptu") basketball shootarounds?   Do you think Bill was simultaneously negotiating NAFTA while nutting on Monica's dress?   If it's an issue now, then it was an issue then.  Anything else is the bias I have been discussing for two pages now. 

Quote
I've read a few articles recently (non-US, thus non-"partisan")

NOT accurate.  There is no correlation; some of the most partisan statements I have ever heard were in publications I read while traveling Europe.   

Quote
talking about how other countries are taking leadership positions where the US clearly doesn't want to lead anymore, as well as governments going around Trump in order to productively work with the US.  Whether his supporters simply can't see it because they can't step outside of their biases/echo chamber, or are burying their heads in the sand, the US's position in the global arena is weakening on a regular basis because of Trump.

Maybe, maybe not.  I'm open to this discussion.  At least it's about substance, and not whether Lady Duda blew her cue or whether there was some sinister world plot to make Trump look stupid one handshake at a time.

Quote
@ Jaffa... great post - I agree with all of it.  I'd been looking for the way to articulate the difference between what I thought Stadler was saying about bias, and how I felt it, and particularly towards Trump.  You nailed it.  In a way, Trump has been the creator of my bias towards him - because of his consistent patterns of behaviour, and because of the position he is in.

And that's why I'm on you (I hope you know, in a friendly way; none of this is personal, at least not with me).  Blaming Trump for your bias is just passing the buck.  It's STILL a bias.   In fact, your statement proves my counter to Jaffa (who did give us a great post, no doubt).  It's only pattern recognition - and not bias - when you'd get the same answer regardless of who the actor is, and you've just conceded that you DON'T.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 10, 2017, 10:27:11 AM
Jaffa for President!

Wasn't he born in Nairobi, though?

I'M KIDDING! I'M KIDDING!
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Jaffa on July 10, 2017, 11:21:14 AM
To your example, which is a good one, the bias comes in when the second or third "mistakes" are deemed mistakes, even in part, because of the previous mistakes.   I'm all for pattern recognition (more than you know) but here, in large part, the subsequent mistakes aren't mistakes at all EXCEPT for the bias.   

This is an interesting point.  My previous example is a bit flawed, because when it comes to my employees' mistakes at work, there are clear protocols and mistakes are easily defined.  Whereas in the Trump case, the protocol is a bit muddier, and therefore the 'mistakes' are more subjective.  However, rather than focusing on the specifics of Trump, I'm more interested in examining the nature of bias in general.  So, I propose another example, one that you might find more interesting.

Let's say that two of my friends each drink a glass of wine.  For one of them, this is an extreme rarity, and they are only partaking now because a friend bought them a bottle of wine as a birthday gift.  The other friend is a recovering alcoholic who has not had a drink in years.

Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with drinking a glass of wine.  However, for my recovering alcoholic friend, I do consider it a mistake, based exclusively on the previous events of his life.

Is that bias?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on July 10, 2017, 12:48:39 PM
And that's why I'm on you (I hope you know, in a friendly way; none of this is personal, at least not with me). 

It's all good.  These discussions (though frustrating at times - as I'm sure on from your perspective as well) wouldn't be nearly as engaging or thought-provoking if everyone just saw things my way.   :D ;)
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 10, 2017, 03:33:09 PM
To your example, which is a good one, the bias comes in when the second or third "mistakes" are deemed mistakes, even in part, because of the previous mistakes.   I'm all for pattern recognition (more than you know) but here, in large part, the subsequent mistakes aren't mistakes at all EXCEPT for the bias.   

This is an interesting point.  My previous example is a bit flawed, because when it comes to my employees' mistakes at work, there are clear protocols and mistakes are easily defined.  Whereas in the Trump case, the protocol is a bit muddier, and therefore the 'mistakes' are more subjective.  However, rather than focusing on the specifics of Trump, I'm more interested in examining the nature of bias in general.  So, I propose another example, one that you might find more interesting.

Let's say that two of my friends each drink a glass of wine.  For one of them, this is an extreme rarity, and they are only partaking now because a friend bought them a bottle of wine as a birthday gift.  The other friend is a recovering alcoholic who has not had a drink in years.

Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with drinking a glass of wine.  However, for my recovering alcoholic friend, I do consider it a mistake, based exclusively on the previous events of his life.

Is that bias?

Well, it's not black and white, because to an extent it depends on the standard you're using to determine "mistake".   It also matters that it's not an objective thing.  It's your opinion.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Jaffa on July 10, 2017, 11:58:14 PM
That's fair.  For what it's worth, it wasn't my intent to imply that I was in some way objectively correct about my 'friend,' or about Trump for that matter.  My only point was that the two friends have very different histories, and it therefore makes sense for me to react differently to them.  From my perspective, that doesn't really qualify as bias.  I was just hoping to clarify my understanding of your perspective. 

Earlier, you explained that in order to be unbiased, you have to give the same answer regardless of who the actor is.  My counterpoint is that sometimes it is irrational to give the same answer regardless of who the actor is. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on July 11, 2017, 04:57:48 AM
Earlier, you explained that in order to be unbiased, you have to give the same answer regardless of who the actor is.  My counterpoint is that sometimes it is irrational to give the same answer regardless of who the actor is.

I couldn't agree more... it's what I was referencing earlier.  Trump the reality star/hotel developer doesn't really mean much with these tweets; Trump as POTUS... much different story.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 11, 2017, 09:52:22 AM
Earlier, you explained that in order to be unbiased, you have to give the same answer regardless of who the actor is.  My counterpoint is that sometimes it is irrational to give the same answer regardless of who the actor is.

Earlier, you explained that in order to be unbiased, you have to give the same answer regardless of who the actor is.  My counterpoint is that sometimes it is irrational to give the same answer regardless of who the actor is.

I couldn't agree more... it's what I was referencing earlier.  Trump the reality star/hotel developer doesn't really mean much with these tweets; Trump as POTUS... much different story.

Well, let's unpack this a little bit.   First, "irrational" is a strong word, but beyond that...  I think there are distinctions here that are important and dangerous.   I think above all - and I am doing this on the fly, so reserve the right to amend this if it doesn't come out right - is the idea that "bias" is somehow inherently bad.   I don't think it is.    I know for me, I knowingly and willingly cop to certain biases that - hopefully - are considered benign and frivolous.  I am aware of them and if there is a situation where it may not be benign, I try to accommodate that.   I hold doors. I'm a door holder.   If we go into a bar together, I guarantee you I'm holding the door for you.   I will stand there for minutes, if the people behind me are female, elderly, or perhaps handicapped in some way.  I am far more likely to give a smile and a nod, then walk through the door if the next group has a male figure.  That's bias (by the way, all that is true).   If I held the door for 15 people (male, female, old, young) then gave the smile or nod and walked through because the next person was a black male, that's not the same thing.   

I think what we have to be very careful is understand our place in history.   150 years ago, many people felt that blacks were dumber than whites and acted accordingly.  They were biased, but felt they could justify it.   When Jingle talks about his predilections against Trump, my Spider-sense tingles, because ALL prejudice in history has been explained by the bigot in some form or fashion.   As with the black example, it might have had some justification (in the sense that black people in the U.S. circa 1860 were less likely to be educated and therefore more likely to APPEAR less smart, even if their capabilities were equal to those of whites, which we now know they are) but it doesn't make it right.

What I mean by "treat the same people the same way" is really to be overly sensitive - internally - to why we might NOT do that, and weigh our bias against outside standards as opposed to inside standards.   We ALL think we're right 100% of the time; we have to stop ACTING like it's the 100%.   Because we are, after all, humans and so we are right maybe 50% of the time.   This is hard stuff.  Thirsty work, as Bruce Dickinson says in "Holy Smoke".   I know for me, it sometimes takes conscious effort.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: cramx3 on July 11, 2017, 03:20:55 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/trump-twitter-users-lawsuit.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/trump-twitter-users-lawsuit.html)

This is interesting since Trump uses twitter as his preferred way of communicating with the public as POTUS, can he legally bar people from seeing those tweets? 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Jaffa on July 11, 2017, 11:11:17 PM
Well, let's unpack this a little bit.   First, "irrational" is a strong word, but beyond that...  I think there are distinctions here that are important and dangerous.   I think above all - and I am doing this on the fly, so reserve the right to amend this if it doesn't come out right - is the idea that "bias" is somehow inherently bad.   I don't think it is.   

Ah.  Fair enough!  I’m glad you clarified that.

You’re right, of course.  The word ‘bias’ tends to have negative connotations, especially in political discussions dealing with biased politicians and biased media, but that negativity is not necessarily inherent to its definition.  If you did not intend to include those negative connotations, that resolves much of my confusion about your perspective.

Now that I’m a little clearer on the semantics, I’ll try to refocus on the subject at hand.

So.  Twitter.

In principle, I have no problem with the president being active on Twitter.  Social media is an incredibly powerful platform, and it makes sense for a modern president to utilize that platform to better communicate with his constituents.  I certainly can’t fault Trump for taking advantage of it.

However, that being said, I do think that his Tweet should be taken seriously.  When a president makes a public speech or holds a press conference, their words are analyzed and scrutinized.  There is no reason why we shouldn’t hold their Tweets to that same standard.  As I said before, if the president posts a controversial Tweet, its substance shouldn’t be dismissed as insignificant just because it was said on Twitter. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on July 12, 2017, 07:48:48 AM
@RealDonaldTrump
Jul 12, 2017 05:19:32 AM - My son Donald did a good job last night. He was open, transparent and innocent. This is the greatest Witch Hunt in political history. Sad!


I wonder if he would have been as open and transparent had he not known the NYT had copies of his emails.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on July 12, 2017, 09:40:48 AM
@RealDonaldTrump
Jul 12, 2017 05:19:32 AM - My son Donald did a good job last night. He was open, transparent and innocent. This is the greatest Witch Hunt in political history. Sad!


I wonder if he would have been as open and transparent had he not known the NYT had copies of his emails.

Or when he was saying there was nothing going on with Russia?  "Allow me to be transparent... when I've been backed into a corner and someone's about to reveal a truth that I haven't disclosed for almost a year"
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on July 17, 2017, 08:51:29 AM
Jul 17, 2017 09:07:55 AM - Most politicians would have gone to a meeting like the one Don jr attended in order to get info on an opponent. That's politics!

Why deny it for weeks and then continue to lie about it as information slowly trickled out?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 17, 2017, 10:44:22 AM
Jul 17, 2017 09:07:55 AM - Most politicians would have gone to a meeting like the one Don jr attended in order to get info on an opponent. That's politics!

Why deny it for weeks and then continue to lie about it as information slowly trickled out?

I'm not saying I agree with this or that I like it (I do not; I abhor it, actually) but it's the way that these crises are handled nowadays.  When you add that to the idea that the news is fake*, it makes a perfect sort of twisted sense.   

*  And the media is complicit in this; by blurring the lines between journalism and editorialism, they have asked for this argument.  Someone this weekend, on another (related) site tried to pitch me "evidence" from the LA Times; the article was headlined like news, but was actually an op-ed piece that was so poorly written (from a journalism standpoint; it was an excellent column, even though I disagreed with it's premise) as to be ridiculous.   Again, more evidence of my belief that Trump is not a singularity but rather an inevitable conclusion to the way the partisan politics of our country have been moving for the better part of two decades.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on July 17, 2017, 06:56:59 PM
*  And the media is complicit in this; by blurring the lines between journalism and editorialism, they have asked for this argument.  Someone this weekend, on another (related) site tried to pitch me "evidence" from the LA Times; the article was headlined like news, but was actually an op-ed piece that was so poorly written (from a journalism standpoint; it was an excellent column, even though I disagreed with it's premise) as to be ridiculous.   Again, more evidence of my belief that Trump is not a singularity but rather an inevitable conclusion to the way the partisan politics of our country have been moving for the better part of two decades.
See my post in the chat thread. It's fascinating the forms journalistic bias can take.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on July 18, 2017, 08:25:22 AM
Jul 18, 2017 08:26:47 AM - The Senate must go to a 51 vote majority instead of current 60 votes. Even parts of full Repeal need 60. 8 Dems control Senate. Crazy!

Stupid checks and balances!!
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on July 18, 2017, 01:34:38 PM
Feb 9, 2016 05:15:34 PM We will immediately repeal and replace ObamaCare - and nobody can do that like me. We will save $'s and have much better healthcare!


Derp
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on July 18, 2017, 01:38:51 PM
Feb 9, 2016 05:15:34 PM We will immediately repeal and replace ObamaCare - and nobody can do that like me. We will save $'s and have much better healthcare!


Derp

Yea, but all politicians break promises. So he's allowed to without criticism.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on July 18, 2017, 02:49:37 PM
If he'd just give us what he promised us in the first place none of this would matter. That plan he had up his sleeve where everybody was covered, premiums went down and taxes were cut sounded awesome. I don't see why he won't just sign off on that.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 19, 2017, 09:43:08 AM
I think what bugs me most is his equivocation on the matter.   He's got to do more than sit there and quip before meeting that "it's gonna be great!".  Get a committee.  Get Jared to lead a team.  Put something on paper, and put it in front of McConnell and Schumer and say "GET IT DONE".   

I read something interesting yesterday, about "why are certain Republicans essentially sand bagging him?" and most dime-store pundits are opting for the standard (but wrong) "they're bailing on a sinking ship".  That doesn't make sense, because if they pass the bill, the ship is no longer sinking (it's putting the cart before the horse).  But one take I thought was pretty insightful:   they're not putting in the effort because TRUMP isn't putting in the effort.   For better or worse, Obama stumped HARD across the U.S. for his namesake bill (yes I know it wasn't namesake at the time, started as an epithet then was coopted, got it) and he gave massive air cover to the Dems that pushed the bill through.    Trump is doing NONE of that.   He's playing benevolent dictator on this issue and it's pissing people off.   In politics, you don't ever want to put someone in the line of fire without giving them the choice first (or at least the illusion of choice).   Trump isn't doing that.   

In my opinion, neither McConnell nor Ryan are going to take a bullet for Trump on healthcare.  And if they won't take the bullet, neither are any of the other Senators (especially those who are facing an election in 16 months).
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on July 19, 2017, 09:59:33 AM
I read something interesting yesterday, about "why are certain Republicans essentially sand bagging him?" and most dime-store pundits are opting for the standard (but wrong) "they're bailing on a sinking ship".  That doesn't make sense, because if they pass the bill, the ship is no longer sinking (it's putting the cart before the horse).  But one take I thought was pretty insightful:   they're not putting in the effort because TRUMP isn't putting in the effort.   For better or worse, Obama stumped HARD across the U.S. for his namesake bill (yes I know it wasn't namesake at the time, started as an epithet then was coopted, got it) and he gave massive air cover to the Dems that pushed the bill through.    Trump is doing NONE of that.   He's playing benevolent dictator on this issue and it's pissing people off.   In politics, you don't ever want to put someone in the line of fire without giving them the choice first (or at least the illusion of choice).   Trump isn't doing that.   
\

Trump has given me no reason to believe he know's anything about the ACA or what was in the bill to replace it. All we've heard is "Obamacare is in a death spiral!" and "The replacement bill is going to be beautiful". I haven't heard the guy speak to the new bill in any capacity outside of the fact it will kill the failing Obamacare. It's clear that all he is doing is giving McConnell and Ryan free reign to do whatever they want, so long as he can sign something that allows him to hold his tiny fist up high and proclaim the ACA officially dead (while taking all the credit). The guy is clueless about this topic, and him tweeting something like "As I have always said, let ObamaCare fail" is a really shitty thing to do. He's throwing in the towel and thinking he's wiped his hands clean of this mess. He hasn't lead at all. At best, he's shouted a couple of his expectations. For someone who has claimed to be a master negotiator, and has said publicly "We will immediately repeal and replace ObamaCare - and nobody can do that like me", it's coming off as if he hasn't the slightest clue what he's  doing.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 19, 2017, 10:01:43 AM
You'll note - Jingle! this is for you! - that you're not getting a ton of push back from me on that sentiment.   Less than impressive (though I don't go along with the standard tropes with this).   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on July 19, 2017, 10:14:28 AM
Part of it is that he has no clue about specifics. Part of it is that he doesn't want to as they don't matter. I honestly believe that Trump couldn't care less about success or fail, right or wrong, good or bad, by any standards, including his own. He only cares about being able to pronounce himself the winner. In this case, he wants any bill. No matter what congress gives him, he'll pronounce it GREAT and pat himself on the back. Maybe it's a good bill and maybe it's shit. Doesn't matter. If it can be spun to a WIN for Trump he'll love it.

And people rag on Obama for caring too much about his legacy.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: axeman90210 on July 19, 2017, 10:21:04 AM
Yeah, I was just about to post an an op-ed on Bloomberg today (from a writer with admittedly clear anti-Trump bias, he was unsuccessfully sued by Trump for libel a few years ago) basically saying the same thing, that Trump cares about looking good rather than doing good.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on July 19, 2017, 10:59:57 AM
Part of it is that he has no clue about specifics. Part of it is that he doesn't want to as they don't matter. I honestly believe that Trump couldn't care less about success or fail, right or wrong, good or bad, by any standards, including his own. He only cares about being able to pronounce himself the winner. In this case, he wants any bill. No matter what congress gives him, he'll pronounce it GREAT and pat himself on the back. Maybe it's a good bill and maybe it's shit. Doesn't matter. If it can be spun to a WIN for Trump he'll love it.

And people rag on Obama for caring too much about his legacy.

Winner winner, chicken dinner.  I was going to post exactly this.

insert "wall" where you have "bill" in this sentence, and that works too.

He only cares about being able to pronounce himself the winner. In this case, he wants any WALL. No matter what congress gives him, he'll pronounce it GREAT and pat himself on the back. Maybe it's a good WALL and maybe it's shit. Doesn't matter. If it can be spun to a WIN for Trump he'll love it.

Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: ariich on July 20, 2017, 03:24:44 AM
That has surely been obvious for months now? Certainly in Europe most people seem to see that.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 20, 2017, 06:53:52 AM
I don't think there's any argument on that.   I certainly don't disagree with that assessment. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on July 20, 2017, 06:55:37 AM
I don't think there's any argument on that.   I certainly don't disagree with that assessment.

Who are you, and what have you done with Stadler?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: ariich on July 20, 2017, 07:38:59 AM
This is definitely an area where I have massive respect for Trudeau (and to some extent Obama). He really makes an effort to understand what he's working on/dealing with. Doesn't mean he doesn't get things wrong, of course, plus there will always be a hefty element of ideology for any politician, but he seems to make more effort to try to balance ideology with evidence. Trump is the worst world leader I can think of in that regard, but most senior politicians in the UK (across parties) aren't much better.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on July 20, 2017, 07:54:22 AM
I don't think there's any argument on that.   I certainly don't disagree with that assessment.

Who are you, and what have you done with Stadler?

#FakeBills #AlternateStadler #MAGA!!
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 20, 2017, 10:12:44 AM
I don't think there's any argument on that.   I certainly don't disagree with that assessment.

Who are you, and what have you done with Stadler?

#FakeBills #AlternateStadler #MAGA!!

 :tup
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: lonestar on July 20, 2017, 10:18:11 PM
 :lol
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on July 24, 2017, 07:21:57 AM
Jul 23, 2017 03:14:32 PM - It's very sad that Republicans, even some that were carried over the line on my back, do very little to protect their President.

It's very sad that the president thinks he's above the constitution that he's sworn to uphold and protect.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: antigoon on July 25, 2017, 06:45:26 AM
(https://puu.sh/wSDpi/a745e2c9ce.png)

ok then!
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 25, 2017, 11:02:04 AM
I'm a huge fan of the Bill Parcells management style:   you treat Phil Simms like Phil needs to be treated in order for him to succeed (i.e., riding his ass every minute until he hates you and performs well almost out of spite, and it takes 15 years for him to realize that you were doing that to make him better) and you treat Lawrence Taylor like LT needs to be treated in order for him to succeed (i.e. letting him do basically whatever he wants - including hookers and blow the night before a game).

Trump hasn't learned that, to his great detriment. 

I remember being on a conference call with Jack Welch once, and a manager who had lost money - but about half of what he SHOULD have lost, given the market, the product, and the resources behind him - presented his numbers, followed by a guy who made money - but about a third of what he SHOULD have made, given the market, the product and the resources invested in that product.   And the second guy was all proud about "being in the black!"   Welch complimented the first guy and the second said again, "but we made money!" and Welch ripped him a new asshole up, down and sideways for underperforming in his space.  I feel like that with Trump sometimes.   Yeah, he's a billionaire, worth $5B or whatever, but I sometimes feel with him that there is a LOT left on the table.  Like he SHOULD be doing so much better. 

Tweets like that reinforce the feeling for me.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on July 26, 2017, 12:33:58 PM
Jul 26, 2017 12:21:19 PM - IN AMERICA WE DON'T WORSHIP GOVERNMENT - WE WORSHIP GOD!

This dude is either A) Trolling B) Desperately trying to keep the core of his base intact and on his side. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on July 26, 2017, 12:53:45 PM
Jul 26, 2017 12:21:19 PM - IN AMERICA WE DON'T WORSHIP GOVERNMENT - WE WORSHIP GOD!

This dude is either A) Trolling B) Desperately trying to keep the core of his base intact and on his side.
Tweet back Allahu akbar and watch the hilarity ensue.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: cramx3 on July 26, 2017, 01:02:38 PM
 :rollin
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on July 26, 2017, 01:03:44 PM
Jul 26, 2017 12:21:19 PM - IN AMERICA WE DON'T WORSHIP GOVERNMENT - WE WORSHIP GOD!

This dude is either A) Trolling B) Desperately trying to keep the core of his base intact and on his side.
Tweet back Allahu akbar and watch the hilarity ensue.

I might reactivate my Twitter just to do this  :lol
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on July 26, 2017, 02:32:08 PM
Jul 26, 2017 12:21:19 PM - IN AMERICA WE DON'T WORSHIP GOVERNMENT - WE WORSHIP GOD!

This dude is either A) Trolling B) Desperately trying to keep the core of his base intact and on his side.
Tweet back Allahu akbar and watch the hilarity ensue.

:itsatrap:
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on August 09, 2017, 10:30:13 AM
Aug 8, 2017 06:11:49 AM I will be holding a major briefing on the Opioid crisis, a major problem for our country, today at 3:00 P.M. in Bedminster, N.J.

Trump's solution;
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/trumps-solution-to-opioid-crisis-tell-kids-drugs-are-bad.html

“If they don’t start, they won’t have a problem. If they do start, it’s awfully tough to get off. So if we can keep them from going on and maybe by talking to youth and telling them: ‘No good, really bad for you in every way”


and

“Strong law enforcement is absolutely vital to having a drug-free society”


Cool.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on August 09, 2017, 10:33:37 AM
Tell kids that drugs are bad?




Mmmkay.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on August 09, 2017, 10:40:20 AM
Drug abuse education has been counterproductive in the past, but that doesn't bother me much. As expected, he used it to double down on the antiquated efforts of his throwback AG, which is really just pandering to the LE community. More money for cops. More money for prisons. That's what really matters here.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Dave_Manchester on August 27, 2017, 08:44:27 AM
Usually I can roughly figure out what's going on in his head when he tweets out certain things, but I'm drawing a blank on why he's been excitedly bigging up how huge this storm is and comparing it to the storms of previous presidents. Today alone: "Many people are now saying this is the biggest storm they've ever seen", and then a few minutes later: "Wow - Now experts are calling Harvey a once in 500 year flood!" Is he trying to take credit for the size of a storm now? He realises the immensity of a hurricane isn't actually something to be proud of, right?

The simple explanation, which many are suggesting, is he's trying to draw attention away from the transgender ban and the pardoning of Arpaio, but I don't think he cares too much about doing that. To me it looks like he's setting himself up for taking credit for rescuing people from a flood of Biblical proportions. By relentlessly reminding people of how many died under previous presidents' storms, he'll paint himself as a hero and saviour of millions.

edit: as I was writing this, yet another one: "Even experts have said they've never seen one like this!" Oh the Freudian opportunities going on here.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: antigoon on August 27, 2017, 08:50:03 AM
I think that Trump still just sees himself as a passive commentator of events than someone who is actually in charge of leading the country.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Dave_Manchester on August 27, 2017, 09:23:34 AM
I think that Trump still just sees himself as a passive commentator of events than someone who is actually in charge of leading the country.

That's definitely a part of it, but his behaviour is also another page from the Tinpot Dictator Playbook he sometimes like to consult. He's trying to drill into people's minds that this is the biggest, most destructive, devastating, terrifying storm since Noah set sail. Even the "experts" (how he loves to use that word when it suits him, and then deride other "experts" when it doesn't) are dumb-founded and petrified, he wants us to believe. And between these tweets, he's posting other ones about how he's "monitoring everything" from Camp David. Tweet after tweet about how he's co-ordinating rescue efforts, giving instructions, chairing meetings, and so on. This way, when the final casualty tally is in and it's relatvely low, he can claim it's because of him and his iron-nerved leadership, and remind everyone of how many lives were lost during previous storms under previous weak and indecisive presidents.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: RuRoRul on August 27, 2017, 10:48:35 AM
Usually I can roughly figure out what's going on in his head when he tweets out certain things, but I'm drawing a blank on why he's been excitedly bigging up how huge this storm is and comparing it to the storms of previous presidents. Today alone: "Many people are now saying this is the biggest storm they've ever seen", and then a few minutes later: "Wow - Now experts are calling Harvey a once in 500 year flood!" Is he trying to take credit for the size of a storm now? He realises the immensity of a hurricane isn't actually something to be proud of right?

The simple explanation, which many are suggesting, is he's trying to draw attention away from the transgender ban and the pardoning of Arpaio, but I don't think he cares too much about doing that. To me it looks like he's setting himself up for taking credit for rescuing people from a flood of Biblical proportions. By relentlessly reminding people of how many died under previous presidents' storms, he'll paint himself as a hero and saviour of millions.

edit: as I was writing this, yet another one: "Even experts have said they've never seen one like this!" Oh the Freudian opportunities going on here.
Yeah, I would guess the reason for bigging it up that if he says the hurricane is so huge, and then the damage isn't as bad as, say, Katrina, he can hold it up as an example of how amazing his administration handled it. If a crisis is coming that's not your fault (natural disaster), then making it out to be as disastrous as possible has no downside as you can't be blamed for a very bad hurricane, and however bad the damage is you can more easlily claim that it was nowhere near as bad as it could have been.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: portnoy311 on September 12, 2017, 02:01:34 PM
 I'm not sure where else to put this, but Ted Cruz liked a random porn video. Of course blamed on a staffer. The crazy part is like covfefe - how long it stayed up.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on September 12, 2017, 02:34:25 PM
I'm not sure where else to put this, but Ted Cruz liked a random porn video. Of course blamed on a staffer. The crazy part is like covfefe - how long it stayed up.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if he dug him some porn, but my understanding is that it was fairly pedestrian. That leads me to believe it was a staffer. I'd expect something more fetishistic from him, honestly. Though I suppose that plain ole old person sex might actually be oddball enough for him. Who knows.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: BlobVanDam on September 13, 2017, 06:06:38 AM
I'm not sure where else to put this, but Ted Cruz liked a random porn video. Of course blamed on a staffer. The crazy part is like covfefe - how long it stayed up.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if he dug him some porn, but my understanding is that it was fairly pedestrian. That leads me to believe it was a staffer. I'd expect something more fetishistic from him, honestly. Though I suppose that plain ole old person sex might actually be oddball enough for him. Who knows.

I get the feeling that searching for sex on twitter, watching a plain as shit 2 minute video then frantically trying to close it but accidentally hitting like is the most exciting and crazy thing he could ever hope to aspire to. I think he's probably too repressed for anything more oddball than that.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on October 04, 2017, 06:36:23 AM
Oct 4, 2017 06:29:43 AM - Wow, so many Fake News stories today. No matter what I do or say, they will not write or speak truth. The Fake News Media is out of control!

Oct 4, 2017 05:25:58 AM - A great day in Puerto Rico yesterday. While some of the news coverage is Fake, most showed great warmth and friendship.


Why can't Trump, I don't know, maybe sit down on FB live or Youtube and actually spell out what specifically is the fake news?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: The King in Crimson on October 10, 2017, 10:11:23 PM
Why can't Trump, I don't know, maybe sit down on FB live or Youtube and actually spell out what specifically is the fake news?
That would require Trump to get into specifics and we all know he is physically incapable of doing that.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Dave_Manchester on October 12, 2017, 02:49:51 PM
"Texas & Louisiana: we are w/ you today, we will be w/ you tomorrow, & we will be w/ you EVERY SINGLE DAY AFTER, to restore, recover, & REBUILD!"

Donald Trump - August 30th, 2017


"We cannot keep FEMA, the Military & the First Responders, who have been amazing (under the most difficult circumstances) in Puerto Rico forever!"

Donald Trump - October 12th, 2017
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on October 12, 2017, 03:13:13 PM
Texas and LA are red-country, and there are lots of votes there.

Puerto Rico... no votes, ergo nothing to be gained, there.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on October 13, 2017, 12:20:29 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/CrtCMcU.png)(https://i.imgur.com/lOZBU4Z.png)

Interestingly, network news outlets are protected by the first amendment. Trump, as a garden variety American retard, is also protected. President of the United States Trump loses much of that protection, though, and these tweets could certainly be construed as violating the free speech of the organizations he's implicitly threatening. Numerous court decisions are pretty clear about that.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on October 13, 2017, 12:55:14 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/CrtCMcU.png)(https://i.imgur.com/lOZBU4Z.png)

Interestingly, network news outlets are protected by the first amendment. Trump, as a garden variety American retard, is also protected. President of the United States Trump loses much of that protection, though, and these tweets could certainly be construed as violating the free speech of the organizations he's implicitly threatening. Numerous court decisions are pretty clear about that.

Free speech notwithstanding, neither get to state falsehoods that may wrongly disparage the reputation of the other. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on October 13, 2017, 01:01:19 PM
Then file a lawsuit for defamation.  Waste your time and money. That's what the courts are for. Don't make threats that chill the speech of others. A real president (or even a moderately educated adult) would understand these things.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on October 13, 2017, 01:02:52 PM
Then file a lawsuit for defamation.  Waste your time and money. That's what the courts are for. Don't make threats that chill the speech of others. A real president (or even a moderately educated adult) would understand these things.

No argument.  None.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on October 18, 2017, 08:15:52 AM
Oct 18, 2017 06:25:24 AM - Democrat Congresswoman totally fabricated what I said to the wife of a soldier who died in action (and I have proof). Sad!


Again. This is 2017. Why not just post the proof to Youtube and Tweet that out instead?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on October 18, 2017, 09:10:32 AM
Oct 18, 2017 06:25:24 AM - Democrat Congresswoman totally fabricated what I said to the wife of a soldier who died in action (and I have proof). Sad!


Again. This is 2017. Why not just post the proof to Youtube and Tweet that out instead?

Honestly, though?  If what he said was truly "he knew what he signed up for", I don't actually get the outrage.   That to me is the supreme compliment, a testament to the courage and selflessness of the soldier.   He KNEW he could die at any moment in protecting his country, and he did it anyway.  I don't have that courage, I can tell you that.

If any of you haven't heard it yet, listen to the Howard Stern interview with Robert O'Neill, the guy that took the shot (well, three of them) that killed Osama bin Laden. All fascinating, but the one part that gave me pause - and made me pause the satellite radio to contemplate, I shit you not - was when he recounted the part where the guy in front of him went in the room, and threw himself onto two women sitting on the floor (because radical Islam has a tendency to arm their women with explosives as a form of protection and deception) in order to cushion a potential explosion. Howard asked him something to the effect of "but that meant he wouldn't come home?" and O'Neill said, without hesitation, apology or regret, that "none of us planned on coming home". They went in with the mindset of it being a suicide mission, albeit one that had to be done. And the part that gave me pause was when he recounted having dinner with his family - wife AND kids - the day before leaving and knowing that a) he couldn't tell them what he was going to be doing, and b) that he very likely would never see them again.

Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on October 18, 2017, 09:17:20 AM
Would St. Reagan have said that? Sometimes there are true, factual things you want to say, and opt not to because it's just not the right time or place.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on October 18, 2017, 09:20:08 AM
Would St. Reagan have said that? Sometimes there are true, factual things you want to say, and opt not to because it's just not the right time or place.

I don't know if he would have or not; I do feel - strongly - that had he said it, it wouldn't have created the uproar it has here.  Because, well, Trump.  Trump could have said simply "Your son is a true hero" and there would have been backlash of some kind, be it a restatement of a tweet from 1869 that Trump made about heroes, or some snarky meme about Trump's military service, or maybe just a simple crack that "Melania was a hero too!" for her wifely duties. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on October 18, 2017, 09:21:23 AM
Oct 18, 2017 06:25:24 AM - Democrat Congresswoman totally fabricated what I said to the wife of a soldier who died in action (and I have proof). Sad!


Again. This is 2017. Why not just post the proof to Youtube and Tweet that out instead?

Honestly, though?  If what he said was truly "he knew what he signed up for", I don't actually get the outrage.   That to me is the supreme compliment, a testament to the courage and selflessness of the soldier.   He KNEW he could die at any moment in protecting his country, and he did it anyway.  I don't have that courage, I can tell you that.

I don't have a problem with what he said, I'm sure he meant something along the lines of "He knew of the dangers and was still willing to risk his life for his country". Though, part of me is greatly bothered by the fact that a the man with access to 6,800 nuclear weapons doesn't have the mental capacity to form complete and rational thought.

I'm more irritated by the stupid game he plays. The "I have the proof to disprove everything, but I'm not going to show it to you. You're going to have to take my word for it. Trust me though. I have it. I swear" game.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on October 18, 2017, 09:26:10 AM
Would St. Reagan have said that? Sometimes there are true, factual things you want to say, and opt not to because it's just not the right time or place.

I don't know if he would have or not; I do feel - strongly - that had he said it, it wouldn't have created the uproar it has here.  Because, well, Trump.  Trump could have said simply "Your son is a true hero" and there would have been backlash of some kind, be it a restatement of a tweet from 1869 that Trump made about heroes, or some snarky meme about Trump's military service, or maybe just a simple crack that "Melania was a hero too!" for her wifely duties.
While I don't argue the second point, I doubt Reagan would have said that. At least not so soon. The one thing I admire about him is that he knew very well how to communicate what needed to be communicated, and in the capacity of Consoler in Chief he simply needed to offer support and comfort. Moreover, even though he was an actor, there was always a sincerity in what he said. Has anybody ever referred to Trump and sincerity in the same sentence?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on October 18, 2017, 09:40:28 AM
No, and you bring up a good point; we talk a lot about what we WANT from politicians and, to quote Michael Stipe, "what we want and what we need has been confused, been confused".   We WANT straight talk from our politicians, but it seems we NEED a "Consoler in Chief".  I don't argue with that one bit, frankly, and it's why not everyone can be CEO or leader of the band.   GE was as great as it was for so long because Welch as CEO had Larry Bossidy as COO, and when Bossidy took over Allied Signal it wasn't the same (at both places) and Welch would have made a shitty No. 2.  We all have our roles, and Trump isn't' really cut out temperamentally for the Number One job, even if people THINK that's how it ought to be done. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on October 18, 2017, 09:49:48 AM
*IF* this is what he said, it's yet another demonstration of a complete lack of empathy - this time for the family of those that have given the ultimate sacrifice for love of their country.  And the statement is tantamount to victim blaming.  No one signs up for the military with the intent of getting killed.  You don't say to any of Weinstein's conquests "they knew what they were getting in to".

No, he doesn't need to be "consoler in chief", just demonstrate even a modicum of empathy.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: RuRoRul on October 18, 2017, 10:04:26 AM
Oct 18, 2017 06:25:24 AM - Democrat Congresswoman totally fabricated what I said to the wife of a soldier who died in action (and I have proof). Sad!


Again. This is 2017. Why not just post the proof to Youtube and Tweet that out instead?

Honestly, though?  If what he said was truly "he knew what he signed up for", I don't actually get the outrage.   That to me is the supreme compliment, a testament to the courage and selflessness of the soldier.   He KNEW he could die at any moment in protecting his country, and he did it anyway.  I don't have that courage, I can tell you that.
I thought this when I saw that quote as well. Seems like the type of thing that could be perfectly suitable. Maybe you could accuse it of being worded in a way that might risk sounding a bit bad if taken out of context. But if Donald was hitting that standard he'd be doing far better than usual.

However, I think it basically depends on the context, and the tone of the whole conversation. "He knew what he signed up for" or words similar to that could, depending on delivery, come across as akin to:
Quote
a testament to the courage and selflessness of the soldier.   He KNEW he could die at any moment in protecting his country, and he did it anyway.  I don't have that courage, I can tell you that.

On the other end of the spectrum, it might come across more like:
Quote
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

So it's more just a question of how the overall effort went, rather than whether the words "he knew what he signed up for" were used (which I agree wouldn't necessarily be a problem). Considering this quote (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-us-soldier-widow-sick-man-frederica-wilson-myesha-johnson-a8006916.html):
Quote
After Mr Trump said Ms Wilson’s claims were a fabrication, the congresswoman doubled down and provided more information about the call.

“When she hung up the phone she turned to me and said ‘He did not even know his name’,” she said. “That was the worst part.

It sounds as though her account definitely is that Donnie came off as uncaring and extremely flippant about it.

Edit: I see the mother have already said they consider the congresswoman's description to be accurate.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/355997-mother-of-fallen-soldier-trump-did-disrespect-my-family
Quote
"President Trump did disrespect my son and my daughter and also me and my husband," Johnson's mother, Cowanda Jones-Johnson, told The Washington Post.

The Post asked Jones-Johnson, who was also in the car, if Wilson's description of the conversation was accurate.

"Yes," she said.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on October 18, 2017, 11:44:15 AM
It sounds as though her account definitely is that Donnie came off as uncaring and extremely flippant about it.

That seems so unlike him!
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on October 18, 2017, 11:48:43 AM
So there are two ways this thing could play out. The presidential way: "I'm very sorry that she misinterpreted my remarks. She's going through a terrible time right now and the best thing I can do is to once again offer sympathy and any support she needs." Or the Grabby Way, which is go to war with her and spend the next month belittling her on Twitter. Anybody want to bet on the former?
 
Within a week FOX will run an article raising some question about the woman or her son, deflecting some of her inherent sympathy. I guarantee it.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: cramx3 on October 18, 2017, 11:51:40 AM
I've always thought Trump being sympathetic during tragedies would be something he'd struggle with.  I was surprised that he hanled Vegas fairly well, but then he does this?  I don't care if he is right or wrong here, just stop.  If he was someone truly about "winning" he would know starting this battle of words about soldiers dying is never a winning situation for anyone.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Dave_Manchester on October 24, 2017, 01:23:50 PM
Melania Trump launched her anti-bullying campaign today and gave a rousing speech about the need to clamp down on immature and hurtful name-calling in our society.

In separate news, American President Donald Trump continued to hone his Twitter nicknames for political rivals, such as Liddle Bob Corker, Wacky Congresswoman Wilson, Little Marco, Little George Stephanopoulos, Lyin' Ted, Low Energy Jeb Bush, Cryin' Chuck Schumer, Crooked Hillary, Crazy Bernie, Pocahontas Elizabeth Warren, Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd, Crazy Joe Scarborough, and Dumb As A Rock Mika Brzezinksi.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on October 24, 2017, 01:47:30 PM
So there are two ways this thing could play out. The presidential way: "I'm very sorry that she misinterpreted my remarks. She's going through a terrible time right now and the best thing I can do is to once again offer sympathy and any support she needs." Or the Grabby Way, which is go to war with her and spend the next month belittling her on Twitter. Anybody want to bet on the former?
 
Within a week FOX will run an article raising some question about the woman or her son, deflecting some of her inherent sympathy. I guarantee it.

Wasn't his body found a mile from the ambush site?  Just sayin'...
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on October 24, 2017, 02:03:11 PM
So there are two ways this thing could play out. The presidential way: "I'm very sorry that she misinterpreted my remarks. She's going through a terrible time right now and the best thing I can do is to once again offer sympathy and any support she needs." Or the Grabby Way, which is go to war with her and spend the next month belittling her on Twitter. Anybody want to bet on the former?
 
Within a week FOX will run an article raising some question about the woman or her son, deflecting some of her inherent sympathy. I guarantee it.

Wasn't his body found a mile from the ambush site?  Just sayin'...

The wife wasn't even allowed to see his body. T'was probably mutilated beyond recognition. Still though, if she wants to see it she should be allowed to.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: eric42434224 on October 24, 2017, 02:43:42 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/check-trump-promised-slain-soldier-095528481.html

Check dated the day family publicly spoke out.  LOL
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on October 24, 2017, 03:08:11 PM
So there are two ways this thing could play out. The presidential way: "I'm very sorry that she misinterpreted my remarks. She's going through a terrible time right now and the best thing I can do is to once again offer sympathy and any support she needs." Or the Grabby Way, which is go to war with her and spend the next month belittling her on Twitter. Anybody want to bet on the former?
 
Within a week FOX will run an article raising some question about the woman or her son, deflecting some of her inherent sympathy. I guarantee it.

Wasn't his body found a mile from the ambush site?  Just sayin'...

The wife wasn't even allowed to see his body. T'was probably mutilated beyond recognition. Still though, if she wants to see it she should be allowed to.

Oh, I agree, no question.  I was just throwing that out there as possible starting point for the assault on the family (and no, not condoning that at all; there are 100 reasons why his body was where it was, and we don't know nearly enough to parse it down finer than that at this point.  "Implications" and "innuendo" are not sufficient here.)
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on November 02, 2017, 06:35:39 AM
Nov 2, 2017 06:50:46 AM - Would love to send the NYC terrorist to Guantanamo but statistically that process takes much longer than going through the Federal system...

Nov 2, 2017 06:54:36 AM - ...There is also something appropriate about keeping him in the home of the horrible crime he committed. Should move fast. DEATH PENALTY!


Wouldn't killing the guy make him a martyr? It's exactly what the guy wants. Keep that fucker locked in a cage controlled by the people of the country he pulled this stunt in. Let him sit in his isolated 7'x7' until his brain rots.

Also, it's kind of disturbing to me to hear this kind of rhetoric from the POTUS. I'm not at all sympathizing with the terrorist, but it still seems so out of place. It's what I'd expect to hear Duterte, Assad, Un, or Putin say. It doesn't make the US look "tough" or convince other countries to "respect" us. In my eyes, it makes us look like savages that are no better than the other dictator-controlled regions of the world.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: antigoon on November 02, 2017, 06:53:52 AM
Isn't it a little insulting to our justice system that all these people like McCain are suggesting it can't handle some asshole with a truck and a bb gun?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on November 02, 2017, 08:03:23 AM
It can handle the guy. It just can't guarantee the outcome they want. Some of us would call that its strength.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on November 02, 2017, 09:15:57 AM
It can handle the guy. It just can't guarantee the outcome they want. Some of us would call that its strength.

"Some of us" = Stadler.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on November 02, 2017, 11:58:43 AM
Part of "handling" somebody in the CJ system is making sure defendants get all of the protections the law affords them, and this applies to a murderous permanent resident just the same as a citizen. What's left of due process in this country very definitely applies to him. This is the part that will piss off all of those gung-ho to see him burn. What's striking to me is that the very first point I see this guy making is that President Manboy is sabotaging his ability to get a fair trial. That oughtta go over real well with the hawks, and could lead to a wonderful tantrump© when the time comes.

Honestly, I don't see this guy appealing shit, though. He'll go out of his way to make sure they mainline him in Terre Haute. His trial could be quite the spectacle.

And if you really want to do fuckall for due process, it seems to me the cool move would be to charge him with possessing a pellet gun without a license, and then use that conviction to revoke his resident status and send him back to Uzbekistan with the understanding that things do not go well for him upon his repatriation.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: cramx3 on November 02, 2017, 12:01:45 PM
Seems like it'll all go down like the Boston marathon bomber.  It'll be awhile before he gets convicted as the courts do their thing and people will move on with their lives.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on November 02, 2017, 12:13:43 PM
Maybe, but I figure this guy does everything he can to expedite the process.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: cramx3 on November 02, 2017, 12:49:33 PM
Yea but still by then there will be another 30 celebrity sexual assaults to have taken the average american mind off this, and I won't lie, including myself most likely.  Sadly this stuff is becoming too normal and even though these things are happening close to me, it really doesn't have the impact they used to have on daily life.  Although my morning commute been miserable since West St has been shut down the last couple days leaving the pile of cars getting into NYC backed up throughout NJ.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Dave_Manchester on November 02, 2017, 01:35:32 PM
Also, it's kind of disturbing to me to hear this kind of rhetoric from the POTUS. I'm not at all sympathizing with the terrorist, but it still seems so out of place. It's what I'd expect to hear Duterte, Assad, Un, or Putin say.

Debated all day whether to respond to this at length but decided to just give the most basic gist of my thoughts.

There is no reason for Putin to be on your list there, Chino. In line with most of the civilized world (minus the USA), Russia does not use the death penalty, and hasn't since 1999. Which, incidentally, is the year Vladimir Putin became President. And even if we did use it, the decision of who it applies to on a case by case basis is nowhere close to being Putin's concern. His responsibilities as President are on a completely different level. No Russian leader would ever spend their time writing all-caps tweets about how someone should be executed before they've had a trial.

I had a huge post typed up but decided I'm not well known enough on this forum yet to start in on my usual themes (known to the MP Forum gang here, Barto, Stadler, et al) of American hypocrisy and propaganda about Russia, so I'll ease my way into it slowly. But please, consider what it was that made you lump those 4 leaders into one group. Was it actual knowledge and information about them, or was it just a vague impression successfully left by your American media that they are 'dictators" who "kill their critics"? Point me in the direction of a single instance where Vladimir Putin has offered his thoughts on whether or not someone standing trial in a Russian court should be executed. Because I'm not aware of one, yet you said you'd "expect" it of him. Why? On what information is this expectation based?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on November 02, 2017, 02:12:12 PM
A lack of a court ordered death penalty doesn't mean a ruler can't call for the execution of someone.

http://www.businessinsider.com/list-of-people-putin-is-suspected-of-assassinating-2016-3
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Dave_Manchester on November 02, 2017, 02:26:28 PM
A lack of a court ordered death penalty doesn't mean a ruler can't call for the execution of someone.

http://www.businessinsider.com/list-of-people-putin-is-suspected-of-assassinating-2016-3

That list (or one similar to it - the same names appeared in any case) was posted before on here (by that lawyer guy who got banned, jrf or something was his name) and I went through it then. This will sound combative, and I don't mean it to, but I think you don't know who the people on that list are, do you? Beyond the short and selective bios in the article, I mean. Because the suggestion that Putin ordered the executions of Politkovskaya and Nemtsov (as the two most prominent examples) is absolutely absurd to anybody who knows the first thing about who is who in the Russian political structure. And Berezovsky?? Berezovsky being alive was a gift for Edinaya Rossiya, as long as he was over there in London giving his speeches it was beautiful for Putin.

I don't really have the energy now to go through each case, because it would require first explaining who is who, the structure and mechanism of Russian politics (not to mention a brief history of how quickly avowed American enemies - Nemtsov - so quickly become 'liberal heroes' once they turn up dead). I offer only advice, you can take it or leave it: base your opinion of foreign politicians on something more substantial than a wafer-thin and unsubstantiated list of "people Putin is suspected to have killed" printed by a news company owned by Axel Springer.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Dave_Manchester on November 02, 2017, 02:53:25 PM
For the record, and for anyone actually interested in this theme, the only name on that list which the Russian state ordered killed, almost certainly on the direct instruction of Putin (or less likely Medvedev), is Alexander Litvinienko. The others are simply a collection of so-called 'Putin opponents' who have died, and so they all get conveniently lumped together on the understanding that most people won't actually research the list, they'll just assume that if there are a lot of names on it, it must be true  (which is as academically responsible as someone lumping together every suspicious death of anyone who ever happened to criticize Obama and pinning them on him).

I have personally asked this question of Western newspaper editors and received only idiotic shrugs in reply: for what reason would Putin order the death of (at that time) an absolute political non-entity like Boris Nemtsov, yet he doesn't order the death of, say, Alexey Navalny? What did Putin (both personally and as a political entity) gain by killing him? Can anybody actually answer that question, or can they only say "He was a critic of Putin, so Putin must have killed him!" Does Putin honestly strike anyone as so thin-skinned that he kills utter political nobodies for such trivial reasons?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on November 11, 2017, 10:01:22 PM
Quote
Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me “old” when I would NEVER call him “short and fat?” Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend - and maybe someday that will happen!

This is amazing.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on November 12, 2017, 06:42:45 AM
"I try so hard to be his friend"
 :rollin
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on November 12, 2017, 07:11:52 AM
Are we seriously going to be subjected to 240 characters from him now?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Progmetty on November 12, 2017, 07:37:08 AM
Quote
Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me “old” when I would NEVER call him “short and fat?” Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend - and maybe someday that will happen!

This is amazing.

I honestly thought the screenshot on shared on fb was fake and had to open twitter to double check  :lol
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: KevShmev on November 12, 2017, 09:09:21 AM
Quote
Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me “old” when I would NEVER call him “short and fat?” Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend - and maybe someday that will happen!

This is amazing.

 :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: antigoon on November 12, 2017, 11:08:37 AM
honestly, that's very funny
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on November 12, 2017, 11:27:35 AM
If it was anyone other than POTUS (the title, not this specific President) I would agree.  He's normalize the Presidency as nothing more than a reality show.  This is the kind of tweet you'd expect from a Big Brother contestant.  Is he trolling?  If not trolling, then he's what?  Delusional? 

And this is now viewed as funny.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: antigoon on November 12, 2017, 11:55:08 AM
If it was anyone other than POTUS (the title, not this specific President) I would agree.  He's normalize the Presidency as nothing more than a reality show.  This is the kind of tweet you'd expect from a Big Brother contestant.  Is he trolling?  If not trolling, then he's what?  Delusional? 

And this is now viewed as funny.


i mean, you're not wrong. but i gotta laugh at the absurdity of it all sometimes to stay sane
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on November 12, 2017, 02:39:29 PM
I hear ya... better to laugh, otherwise you might want to slit your wrists
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: ReaperKK on November 12, 2017, 06:17:56 PM
Quote
Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me “old” when I would NEVER call him “short and fat?” Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend - and maybe someday that will happen!

This is amazing.

Even after all this time I still had to check if this was ripped from SNL only to sadly realize this is an actual tweet :(
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: SwedishGoose on November 12, 2017, 11:17:12 PM
Quote
Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me “old” when I would NEVER call him “short and fat?” Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend - and maybe someday that will happen!

This is amazing.

Even after all this time I still had to check if this was ripped from SNL only to sadly realize this is an actual tweet :(

One funny thing about this is that the statement was calling Trump "lunatic old man".
I guess in Trumps mind it's worse being old than a lunatic....
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on November 13, 2017, 05:56:42 AM


Indeed, for Mr. Trump, it all seems to have been too much.

He threatened to sue. He unleashed a verbal fusillade on “Entertainment Tonight,” calling Ms. O’Donnell “disgusting” and “a slob” with “a fat, ugly face.” He said he wanted to take her to court so he could “take some money out of her fat-ass pockets” and wondered aloud why anyone would choose to be in a romantic relationship with her.

“We’re all a little chubby, but Rosie is just worse than most of us,” he said. “But it’s not the chubbiness. Rosie is a very unattractive person, both inside and out.”

Mr. Trump went on “Late Show With David Letterman” to talk about his dislike for Ms. O’Donnell and to announce that Ms. Conner, then 21, had gone into rehab. He called Ms. O’Donnell, who had recently come out as a lesbian, “a degenerate.”


https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/us/donald-trump-keeps-insulting-rosie-odonnell-heres-how-their-feud-started.html?_r=0

Keep it classy, Potus.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on November 17, 2017, 08:39:11 AM
Quote

@realDonaldTrump

The Al Frankenstien picture is really bad, speaks a thousand words. Where do his hands go in pictures 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 while she sleeps? .....
9:06 PM - Nov 16, 2017
Christ, how stupid do you have to be? Or perhaps more to the point, how much confidence in your follower's idiocy do you need to have?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on November 17, 2017, 09:32:07 AM
Quote

@realDonaldTrump

The Al Frankenstien picture is really bad, speaks a thousand words. Where do his hands go in pictures 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 while she sleeps? .....
9:06 PM - Nov 16, 2017
Christ, how stupid do you have to be? Or perhaps more to the point, how much confidence in your follower's idiocy do you need to have?

If pictures 2,3,4,5, & 6 existed, wouldn't they have been released with #1?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on November 17, 2017, 09:44:28 AM
What about picture 7? Apparently it's so bad that even Trump is nervous to mention it.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on November 17, 2017, 11:28:41 AM
Pictures?  Google "Joe Biden Creepy"
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: chknptpie on November 17, 2017, 11:51:05 AM
7! 7! 7!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdK6LVDI3kg
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on November 21, 2017, 08:01:04 AM
@RealDonaldTrump Nov 19, 2017 08:29:02 PM - Border Patrol Officer killed at Southern Border, another badly hurt. We will seek out and bring to justice those responsible. We will, and must, build the Wall!


Nov 21,2017

AP source: Authorities believe border agent may have fallen

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/21/ap-source-authorities-believe-border-agent-may-have-fallen.html

Quote
DALLAS –  A U.S. official with knowledge of the investigation into the death of a border patrol agent in South Texas says the surviving agent who radioed for help doesn't remember what happened.

The official, who was briefed on the investigation but is not authorized to speak publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Monday that investigators believe agent Rogelio Martinez may have fallen into a 14-foot culvert. Martinez died early Sunday.

The FBI says autopsy results are pending. Martinez's partner remains hospitalized.


When it came to a nazi running down a protestor, Trump said;

"you don't make statements that direct unless you know the facts. It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don't know the facts.

"And it's a very, very important process to me. And it's a very important statement. So I don't want to go quickly and just make a statement for the sake of making a political statement. I want to know the facts.”
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: vtgrad on November 21, 2017, 09:12:28 AM
7! 7! 7!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdK6LVDI3kg

Might have to go back and watch Friends now...

Edit: Because that is actually funny is what I mean.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Harmony on November 27, 2017, 06:29:44 PM
Imagine publicly and repeatedly calling a coworker of yours "Pocahontas" and NOT getting fired on the spot. Can you? I can't.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on November 28, 2017, 08:51:10 AM
Imagine publicly and repeatedly calling a coworker of yours "Pocahontas" and NOT getting fired on the spot. Can you? I can't.

Depends. What is my co-worker's name?   

(I'm kidding; injecting a little - very little - humor.)

On a serious note, though, this sort of begs the question of whether context matters, or whether some things are objectively bad.   I get it, I think, but when something moves from contextual to absolute, I get very skittish.   It smacks of the "zero tolerance policies" that were all the rage a couple years ago.   NO DRUGS AT SCHOOL; and you read about a kid that got a two-day suspension for having her allergy medicine with her.   NO KNIVES OF ANY KIND; and you read about a kid that got a vacation for having a nail-clipper in his backpack.    I'm not at all suggesting Trump is "right" for what he's doing (even if I do think that Elizabeth Warren is a lying, opportunist publicity whore who sees herself as a "Hillary Clinton for the 2020's") but does the context matter? 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on November 28, 2017, 08:56:41 AM
Yes, context matters. And yes, I get that you're trying to look at the big picture, but I think right now you're doing that thing where you make the picture SO big that it becomes irrelevant to what happened. You moved from what actually happened to something about being suspended for allergy medication.

How about we just focus on Trump calling a political rival, not a good friend, Pocahontas?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on November 28, 2017, 08:58:02 AM
Imagine publicly and repeatedly calling a coworker of yours "Pocahontas" and NOT getting fired on the spot. Can you? I can't.

Depends. What is my co-worker's name?   

(I'm kidding; injecting a little - very little - humor.)

On a serious note, though, this sort of begs the question of whether context matters, or whether some things are objectively bad.   I get it, I think, but when something moves from contextual to absolute, I get very skittish.   It smacks of the "zero tolerance policies" that were all the rage a couple years ago.   NO DRUGS AT SCHOOL; and you read about a kid that got a two-day suspension for having her allergy medicine with her.   NO KNIVES OF ANY KIND; and you read about a kid that got a vacation for having a nail-clipper in his backpack.    I'm not at all suggesting Trump is "right" for what he's doing (even if I do think that Elizabeth Warren is a lying, opportunist publicity whore who sees herself as a "Hillary Clinton for the 2020's") but does the context matter?

I was thinking about this on my way to work today. I think no matter how you slice it, this was offensive. Trump wanted to take a shot at Warren, and tried slipping it in any way he could. That was disrespectful to those that were being honored regardless of context, IMO. He turned a ceremony about them into another weak attempt at discrediting an adversary. I also didn't think calling her Pocahontas was offensive, initially, and instead just thought it was a shitty attempt at being an ass, but I'm starting to lean toward it being offensive. It'd be no different than Trump referring to a black woman as "Shaniqua" or calling a random Latino guy "Jose" simply because of their ethnicity.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 28, 2017, 09:20:48 AM
Yes, context matters. And yes, I get that you're trying to look at the big picture, but I think right now you're doing that thing where you make the picture SO big that it becomes irrelevant to what happened. You moved from what actually happened to something about being suspended for allergy medication.

How about we just focus on Trump calling a political rival, not a good friend, Pocahontas?

Yes,  thank you
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on November 28, 2017, 09:26:57 AM
A: It wasn't offensive in and of itself. It was just indicative of him being a fucking child.

B: What was offensive, and which few noticed, was that he framed the whole thing in front of a portrait of Andrew "Fuck The Indians" Jackson.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 28, 2017, 09:37:48 AM

B: What was offensive, and which few noticed, was that he framed the whole thing in front of a portrait of Andrew "Fuck The Indians" Jackson.

I did notice that. That can't be just Trump, it's like his entire WH staff can't get out of their own way.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on November 28, 2017, 11:46:44 AM
Yes, context matters. And yes, I get that you're trying to look at the big picture, but I think right now you're doing that thing where you make the picture SO big that it becomes irrelevant to what happened. You moved from what actually happened to something about being suspended for allergy medication.

How about we just focus on Trump calling a political rival, not a good friend, Pocahontas?

You mean before or after she (falsely) used native American heritage for her own political gain?   How can you be offended when someone else doesn't take you seriously, if you don't either?   

Look, I get it; two wrongs don't make a right.  And I do think there are 1,000 ways trump can make his point without treading in these waters.   Totally get that.   But let's not blow this out of proportion the other way.   If she doesn't take it seriously, she can't really bitch when others don't either. 

I am dreading 2020, when I know we'll be subjected to Hillary, Jr. in the presidential election.  Go Bernie!
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on November 28, 2017, 11:52:12 AM
Imagine publicly and repeatedly calling a coworker of yours "Pocahontas" and NOT getting fired on the spot. Can you? I can't.

Depends. What is my co-worker's name?   

(I'm kidding; injecting a little - very little - humor.)

On a serious note, though, this sort of begs the question of whether context matters, or whether some things are objectively bad.   I get it, I think, but when something moves from contextual to absolute, I get very skittish.   It smacks of the "zero tolerance policies" that were all the rage a couple years ago.   NO DRUGS AT SCHOOL; and you read about a kid that got a two-day suspension for having her allergy medicine with her.   NO KNIVES OF ANY KIND; and you read about a kid that got a vacation for having a nail-clipper in his backpack.    I'm not at all suggesting Trump is "right" for what he's doing (even if I do think that Elizabeth Warren is a lying, opportunist publicity whore who sees herself as a "Hillary Clinton for the 2020's") but does the context matter?

I was thinking about this on my way to work today. I think no matter how you slice it, this was offensive. Trump wanted to take a shot at Warren, and tried slipping it in any way he could. That was disrespectful to those that were being honored regardless of context, IMO. He turned a ceremony about them into another weak attempt at discrediting an adversary. I also didn't think calling her Pocahontas was offensive, initially, and instead just thought it was a shitty attempt at being an ass, but I'm starting to lean toward it being offensive. It'd be no different than Trump referring to a black woman as "Shaniqua" or calling a random Latino guy "Jose" simply because of their ethnicity.

What about calling Rachel Dolezal "Shaniqua"?  Or Jeb Bush "Jose"?  Is it the same?   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on November 28, 2017, 11:56:08 AM
Who, here, is blowing this out of proportion? Is any criticism blowing things out of proportion?

I honestly don’t get your argument outside but of needing to provide a counterpoint to any thing critical of Trump.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on November 28, 2017, 11:59:57 AM
Imagine publicly and repeatedly calling a coworker of yours "Pocahontas" and NOT getting fired on the spot. Can you? I can't.

Depends. What is my co-worker's name?   

(I'm kidding; injecting a little - very little - humor.)

On a serious note, though, this sort of begs the question of whether context matters, or whether some things are objectively bad.   I get it, I think, but when something moves from contextual to absolute, I get very skittish.   It smacks of the "zero tolerance policies" that were all the rage a couple years ago.   NO DRUGS AT SCHOOL; and you read about a kid that got a two-day suspension for having her allergy medicine with her.   NO KNIVES OF ANY KIND; and you read about a kid that got a vacation for having a nail-clipper in his backpack.    I'm not at all suggesting Trump is "right" for what he's doing (even if I do think that Elizabeth Warren is a lying, opportunist publicity whore who sees herself as a "Hillary Clinton for the 2020's") but does the context matter?

I was thinking about this on my way to work today. I think no matter how you slice it, this was offensive. Trump wanted to take a shot at Warren, and tried slipping it in any way he could. That was disrespectful to those that were being honored regardless of context, IMO. He turned a ceremony about them into another weak attempt at discrediting an adversary. I also didn't think calling her Pocahontas was offensive, initially, and instead just thought it was a shitty attempt at being an ass, but I'm starting to lean toward it being offensive. It'd be no different than Trump referring to a black woman as "Shaniqua" or calling a random Latino guy "Jose" simply because of their ethnicity.

What about calling Rachel Dolezal "Shaniqua"?  Or Jeb Bush "Jose"?  Is it the same?

I wouldn't think so. Though, admittedly I don't know who Rachel is. That to me just seems like a poorly thought out joke/insult that fails to deliver regardless what you were trying to accomplish.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on November 28, 2017, 12:21:35 PM
Yes, context matters. And yes, I get that you're trying to look at the big picture, but I think right now you're doing that thing where you make the picture SO big that it becomes irrelevant to what happened. You moved from what actually happened to something about being suspended for allergy medication.

How about we just focus on Trump calling a political rival, not a good friend, Pocahontas?

You mean before or after she (falsely) used native American heritage for her own political gain?   How can you be offended when someone else doesn't take you seriously, if you don't either?
Hell, I'll defend Grabby's right to be insulting to her, tough I'd prefer he act like an adult for once, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with Warren. It has to do with his insulting behavior towards the Indians he was supposedly honoring. In fact, isn't the level of offensiveness directly related her own contemptibility?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on November 28, 2017, 12:28:49 PM
Who, here, is blowing this out of proportion? Is any criticism blowing things out of proportion?

I honestly don’t get your argument outside but of needing to provide a counterpoint to any thing critical of Trump.

I'm pushing back on the notion that any reference to "Pocahontas" is de facto wrong.  And not really "pushing back" as much as "asking the question".   Maybe Trump IS being offensive; I don't know (I really don't know; I think I'm missing the "offense gene", because outside of the obvious stuff most of this stuff is lost on me) but the way some are talking, "Trump called her Pocahontas!" is all anyone needs to know, and I don't see it that way. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on November 28, 2017, 12:31:21 PM
Imagine publicly and repeatedly calling a coworker of yours "Pocahontas" and NOT getting fired on the spot. Can you? I can't.

Depends. What is my co-worker's name?   

(I'm kidding; injecting a little - very little - humor.)

On a serious note, though, this sort of begs the question of whether context matters, or whether some things are objectively bad.   I get it, I think, but when something moves from contextual to absolute, I get very skittish.   It smacks of the "zero tolerance policies" that were all the rage a couple years ago.   NO DRUGS AT SCHOOL; and you read about a kid that got a two-day suspension for having her allergy medicine with her.   NO KNIVES OF ANY KIND; and you read about a kid that got a vacation for having a nail-clipper in his backpack.    I'm not at all suggesting Trump is "right" for what he's doing (even if I do think that Elizabeth Warren is a lying, opportunist publicity whore who sees herself as a "Hillary Clinton for the 2020's") but does the context matter?

I was thinking about this on my way to work today. I think no matter how you slice it, this was offensive. Trump wanted to take a shot at Warren, and tried slipping it in any way he could. That was disrespectful to those that were being honored regardless of context, IMO. He turned a ceremony about them into another weak attempt at discrediting an adversary. I also didn't think calling her Pocahontas was offensive, initially, and instead just thought it was a shitty attempt at being an ass, but I'm starting to lean toward it being offensive. It'd be no different than Trump referring to a black woman as "Shaniqua" or calling a random Latino guy "Jose" simply because of their ethnicity.

What about calling Rachel Dolezal "Shaniqua"?  Or Jeb Bush "Jose"?  Is it the same?

I wouldn't think so. Though, admittedly I don't know who Rachel is. That to me just seems like a poorly thought out joke/insult that fails to deliver regardless what you were trying to accomplish.


Rachel Dolezal is worth a quick google from you, my friend.  In short, she's a white woman that posed as a black woman for years, some might say to take advantage of some of the perks of being a minority (I believe some have alleged it's how she got her job).   The Jeb reference was to how some claimed he was taking advantage of the fact that he married a Latina woman and tried to parlay that into votes from the Latino community. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on November 28, 2017, 12:33:46 PM
Who, here, is blowing this out of proportion? Is any criticism blowing things out of proportion?

I honestly don’t get your argument outside but of needing to provide a counterpoint to any thing critical of Trump.

I'm pushing back on the notion that any reference to "Pocahontas" is de facto wrong.  And not really "pushing back" as much as "asking the question".   Maybe Trump IS being offensive; I don't know (I really don't know; I think I'm missing the "offense gene", because outside of the obvious stuff most of this stuff is lost on me) but the way some are talking, "Trump called her Pocahontas!" is all anyone needs to know, and I don't see it that way.

But that's not what being is being discussed. This specific situation is. So let's just focus on this specific situation. I wasn't offended, but why would I be? Doesn't mean it wasn't offensive.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on November 28, 2017, 12:40:26 PM
Who, here, is blowing this out of proportion? Is any criticism blowing things out of proportion?

I honestly don’t get your argument outside but of needing to provide a counterpoint to any thing critical of Trump.

I'm pushing back on the notion that any reference to "Pocahontas" is de facto wrong.  And not really "pushing back" as much as "asking the question".   Maybe Trump IS being offensive; I don't know (I really don't know; I think I'm missing the "offense gene", because outside of the obvious stuff most of this stuff is lost on me) but the way some are talking, "Trump called her Pocahontas!" is all anyone needs to know, and I don't see it that way.

But that's not what being is being discussed. This specific situation is. So let's just focus on this specific situation. I wasn't offended, but why would I be? Doesn't mean it wasn't offensive.

Adami, what do you want from me?  We WERE discussing this situation.  And I asked a very relevant question to this situation:  Does context matter?   I don't see any dialogue about Warren here, and that's very relevant to whether his comment was offensive, in my opinion.   Warren wrongly hid behind being Native American for her own political gain.   That's offensive in that it belittles the struggles and obstacles that real Native Americans have endured through history.   I don't see how the use of a name of a prominent Indian is in an of itself offensive.  Trump isn't mocking Pocahontas, he's mocking Warren.  If I'm Native American, I'm far more offended by Warren than Trump.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on November 28, 2017, 12:44:06 PM
He's mocking something Native American, AT a Native American event. That's what's offensive.

If he called that one Rachel chick Shaniqua at a black history month rally, that would be important.

Yes, context matters. We established that. But in creating a bunch of other hypothetical cases just isn't relevant at all and only diverts from the actual situation. Then we're just arguing abstract principles.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on November 28, 2017, 01:01:16 PM
Who, here, is blowing this out of proportion? Is any criticism blowing things out of proportion?

I honestly don’t get your argument outside but of needing to provide a counterpoint to any thing critical of Trump.

I'm pushing back on the notion that any reference to "Pocahontas" is de facto wrong.  And not really "pushing back" as much as "asking the question".   Maybe Trump IS being offensive; I don't know (I really don't know; I think I'm missing the "offense gene", because outside of the obvious stuff most of this stuff is lost on me) but the way some are talking, "Trump called her Pocahontas!" is all anyone needs to know, and I don't see it that way.

But that's not what being is being discussed. This specific situation is. So let's just focus on this specific situation. I wasn't offended, but why would I be? Doesn't mean it wasn't offensive.

Adami, what do you want from me?  We WERE discussing this situation.  And I asked a very relevant question to this situation:  Does context matter?   I don't see any dialogue about Warren here, and that's very relevant to whether his comment was offensive, in my opinion.   Warren wrongly hid behind being Native American for her own political gain.   That's offensive in that it belittles the struggles and obstacles that real Native Americans have endured through history.   I don't see how the use of a name of a prominent Indian is in an of itself offensive.  Trump isn't mocking Pocahontas, he's mocking Warren.  If I'm Native American, I'm far more offended by Warren than Trump.
Warren wasn't there, didn't try to be there, had nothing whatsoever to do with the event. I don't see how her behavior is a factor in this discussion at all. She's only part of the context because you're making her so.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on November 28, 2017, 02:05:58 PM
It's all relevant.  I'm not saying she was there.  I'm just explaining that calling her "Pocahontas" isn't, in and of itself, offensive.   Where, when, why are all important.  It's a summation of all the relevant facts.  It's EXTREMELY relevant that she's NOT a Native American.  That's kind of what, in my mind, makes it NOT offensive.

To Adami, no, I don't think he's mocking something that's Native American.  He's mocking Elizabeth Warren, who's NOT Native American, but tried to say she was.  If anything it's implicitly pro-Native American.  My friend lost three fingers in a fireworks accident.  We call him "Fingers".   We're not mocking the disabled, we're mocking my friend, who will gladly tell you himself that he's a fucking idiot (or at least was at that point in time).   

None of this is to say it's classy, or adult, or effective.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: portnoy311 on November 28, 2017, 03:10:56 PM
McCain's response sums up my feelings.

Our nation owes a debt of gratitude to the Navajo Code Talkers, whose bravery, skill & tenacity helped secure our decisive victory over tyranny & oppression during WWII. Politicizing these genuine American heroes is an insult to their sacrifice.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: bosk1 on November 28, 2017, 03:59:42 PM
McCain's response sums up my feelings.

Our nation owes a debt of gratitude to the Navajo Code Talkers, whose bravery, skill & tenacity helped secure our decisive victory over tyranny & oppression during WWII. Politicizing these genuine American heroes is an insult to their sacrifice.

Yeah, pretty much this.  Beyond that, is it offensive?  Maybe.  Not on the same level as using a racial slur.  But then again, it doesn't have to necessarily reach that level to be offensive, does it?  I get that context is important.  But there isn't really any context here that actually occurred that makes the comments okay.  Yeah, I get that he was taking a dig at Warren, not Indians, and that the dig at Warren may have been deserved.  But that really adds little to the context of what he said and when/where he said it.  It was a stupid, random thing to say, and it's offensive simply because it had nothing to do with this event, which was meant to honor these men, and it instead distracted and politicized it.  THAT is what makes it offensive.

He's mocking something Native American, AT a Native American event. That's what's offensive.

Wait, what?  What Indian did he mock?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Harmony on November 28, 2017, 04:27:16 PM
It's EXTREMELY relevant that she's NOT a Native American.

I'm sorry, I'm not up on this "scandal" but when were her DNA records made public?  How do you know she has zero Native American blood?

Let's say for arguments sake, she doesn't have one drop of Native American blood in her.  Did she "lie" or was she told family lore? Many people do not know their actual ancestry and only go by stories they've been told. Someone close to me was told he was a descendant of the Cherokee nation.  He was told this since he was a small child.  He recently got his Ancestry DNA checked and guess what?  No indication of any native blood.  Yet a whole swath of Irish in him he had ZERO idea about.  He's in his 60s.  How could he not know?  Right??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyaEQEmt5ls
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on November 28, 2017, 04:51:49 PM
He's mocking something Native American, AT a Native American event. That's what's offensive.

Wait, what?  What Indian did he mock?
Honest question here. If I were to start mocking somebody I truly hated by referring to "Jesus Christ over there" would that bother you? Obviously the intent is to ridicule my enemy, but by using somebody inherently good and revered to do so don't I demean them both?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: bosk1 on November 28, 2017, 04:56:48 PM
He's mocking something Native American, AT a Native American event. That's what's offensive.

Wait, what?  What Indian did he mock?
Honest question here. If I were to start mocking somebody I truly hated by referring to "Jesus Christ over there" would that bother you? Obviously the intent is to ridicule my enemy, but by using somebody inherently good and revered to do so don't I demean them both?

I'm trying to come up with a context where I would consider it demeaning, but am struggling.  Personally, I don't see it as demeaning toward the latter.  But if that's basically what Adami is saying and you feel that is potentially legit, that's fine.  I just didn't get it, so that's why I was asking.  I'm not going to draw a line in the sand on that.  It's not as black and white as, say, shopping cart morality.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on November 28, 2017, 05:08:08 PM
Yea, sorry, busy day so I don’t have a ton of time to post, but El Barto was close enough to what I was getting at.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Harmony on November 28, 2017, 05:09:38 PM
As far as I know, I'm a white woman.  I can't possibly fully understand how Trump's comments impact Native Americans.  But I can read what they have to say about it.  And I can learn from them, as the issue is one they know better than this white woman does.

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. (AP) — Families of Navajo war veterans who were honored Monday at the White House say they were dumbfounded that President Donald Trump used the event to take a political jab at a Massachusetts senator, demeaning their work with an unbreakable code that helped the U.S. win World War II.

Trump turned to a nickname he often deployed for Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren during the 2016 presidential campaign: Pocahontas. He then told the three Navajo Code Talkers on stage that he had affection for them that he doesn't have for Warren.

"It was uncalled for," said Marty Thompson, whose great uncle was a Navajo Code Talker. "He can say what he wants when he's out doing his presidential business among his people, but when it comes to honoring veterans or any kind of people, he needs to grow up and quit saying things like that."

Pocahontas is a well-known historical figure who bridged her own Pamunkey Tribe in present-day Virginia with the British in the 1600s. But the National Congress of American Indians says Trump wrongly has flipped the name into a derogatory term, and the comment drew swift criticism from American Indians and politicians.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders, asked about criticism of Trump's remarks, said a racial slur "was certainly not the president's intent."

Trump made the comment as he stood near a portrait of President Andrew Jackson, which he hung in the Oval Office in January. Trump admires Jackson's populism. But Jackson is an unpopular figure in Indian Country because his policies led to the forced removal of American Indians out of their southern homelands.

The Navajo Nation suggested Trump's remark Monday was an example of "cultural insensitivity" and resolved to stay out of the "ongoing feud between the senator and President Trump."

"All tribal nations still battle insensitive references to our people. The prejudice that Native American people face is an unfortunate historical legacy," Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye said in a statement.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on November 28, 2017, 05:25:47 PM
He's mocking something Native American, AT a Native American event. That's what's offensive.

Wait, what?  What Indian did he mock?
Honest question here. If I were to start mocking somebody I truly hated by referring to "Jesus Christ over there" would that bother you? Obviously the intent is to ridicule my enemy, but by using somebody inherently good and revered to do so don't I demean them both?

I'm trying to come up with a context where I would consider it demeaning, but am struggling.  Personally, I don't see it as demeaning toward the latter.  But if that's basically what Adami is saying and you feel that is potentially legit, that's fine.  I just didn't get it, so that's why I was asking.  I'm not going to draw a line in the sand on that.  It's not as black and white as, say, shopping cart morality.
"Potentially legit" sounds just about right. Honestly, I don't really see much there, either. I'm far more concerned with the fact that the president is such an emotional basket case, as this thing further demonstrated.  I'm just pushing back against "there's nothing offensive about it!" and "what about Elizabeth Warren?"

I do still think there's a direct correlation between offense and the awfulness of the subject. If he'd cited Pocahontas while referring to "my darling wife" we're not having this conversation.

And there's still that problem with Andrew Fucking Jackson. There's no way that's unintentional. Even from this inept White House. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: bosk1 on November 28, 2017, 05:26:22 PM
Interesting, Harmony.  The earlier comments seem to be more along the lines of what I was getting at in my post, whereas the comments at the end in the last two paragraphs seem to be more along the lines of what Barto and Adami were referencing.  I still think any offense along those lines is probably a bit misplaced, but that's their prerogative.  And maybe the following observations aren't worth a whole heck of a lot.  But that said, for what little it is worth, here are a couple of observations:  (1) The people mentioned who seem to be the most "offended" (for lack of a better term) are essentially political figures, rather than just common lay people of that particular ethnicity; and (2) I've noticed that leaders from a handful of the bigger, eastern-based tribes seem to MUCH more easily offended than most of us out west.  For instance, those are basically the same folks that initially pushed for y'all to refer to all of us as "Native Americans," before realizing that that term was offensive, and moving on to another equally ridiculous term, and then rinse/repeat, whereas most of us not only don't mind being referred to as "Indians," but actually embrace and prefer that term.  Just an example.  But, again, those are just some passing observations and probably don't mean much in the grand scheme of things.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: bosk1 on November 28, 2017, 05:28:12 PM
I'm far more concerned with the fact that the president is such an emotional basket case, as this thing further demonstrated.  I'm just pushing back against "there's nothing offensive about it!" and "what about Elizabeth Warren?"

Yeah, I think I'm basically with you on that.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on November 29, 2017, 08:57:04 AM
I'm with el Barto on the grander implications of this. 

But I have to note, I'm tired and frustrated that in many of these cases, "groups" feel the need to make statements that inflame and pile on more than they seem to comfort and heal.    The group is not the arbiter of this, especially if they have motives for the comment to be offensive (for whatever reason). 

I don't think the comment was smart, but I also don't think the comment was offensive.  I just don't.  This isn't the same as saying "That's gay!" and implying that the very state of being gay is a bad thing.   This comment really has nothing at all to do with Indians/Native Americans/Pocahontas, but everything about the veracity, integrity and motivations of an up-and-coming political rival.   If what Trump said is "offensive", and context isn't the driving factor, then we're basically saying that any use of the name "Pocahontas" is offensive.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: portnoy311 on November 29, 2017, 09:59:23 AM
Does his retweeting today of (fake) anti Muslim videos from a foreign hate group offend you?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on November 29, 2017, 10:39:40 AM
Does his retweeting today of (fake) anti Muslim videos from a foreign hate group offend you?

"Offend me"?  No.  Make me shake my head?  Of course.   But you know me; he could be retweeting football scores and it would make my head spin.    "Twitter" is the public equivalent of texting a woman who isn't your wife after a couple of beers.  There's no good that can possibly come of it, and it's best to just let it alone.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 29, 2017, 10:44:31 AM
edit: nevermind, Bosk actually took the time to explain it and my post was needlessly accusatory
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: bosk1 on November 29, 2017, 11:00:55 AM
Stadler, I think it is offensive, and pretty clearly so.  But just not in the way you are saying.  You seem to be loosely equating "offensive" with "racist" in this context.  I don't think it was racist, or racially insensitive, or racially offensive, or whatever.  He wasn't using a racial slur, at least not in this context (notwithstanding that a small minority of people may, IMO incorrectly, take it that way).  But it is offensive in at least two respects that I can see:

1.  It was inappropriate to bring up in that context.  There was no reason for him to bring a political rival into the discussion at an event meant to honor that group.  Doing so is so clearly inappropriate that I cannot blame folks for being offended at that aspect of it.  It just had no place at all at that event.  It's not so different than if there was an event honoring Susan B. Anthony, and he randomly brought up something about how bad Hillary is, and ham-handedly thinking that is somehow relevant because Hillary is a rival who, at least in his mind, is a horrible example to set for women.  Yeah, maybe going after Hillary for being a bad example and a hypocrite is valid.  But that wouldn't be the venue to do it, and doing so in that venue devalues what the celebration is supposed to be about.  Hence, it is offensive for him to do so.

2.  The link that he made shows such an unawareness of how to interact with others that that is, to a lesser degree, also offensive.  It's like, "Oh, you guys are Indians.  Er...or is it 'Native Americans?'  I'm not sure.  Honestly, who cares.  But, hey, I know something about Indians!  'Pocahantas!'  See, I'm cool with Indians, because I know about Pocahantas.  Aren't I cool?  And I nicknamed a political rival Pocahantas, but she's a fake Indian.  Pocahantas, woot!"  Just... :facepalm:  That is the context that makes his use of Pocahantas inappropriate and borderline offensive in and of itself.  To go back to the Hillary/Susan B. Anthony example, it's like him saying, "Hey, we're here to honor women.  And, come to think of it, I know something about women.  Let me tell you about this one historic broad that I remember studying in school.  And let me also tell you about Hillary Clinton and how bad an example she is for women!" 

It may not offend you.  But I think a strong case can be made that it is potentially offensive.  Not because of use of "Pocahantas" in a vacuum.  But use of her name in this context and setting.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on November 29, 2017, 11:22:38 AM
Fair enough.  I disagree*, but I clearly understand the argument.

"I disagree that "inappropriate" or "insensitive" - which these comments clearly are - rise to the level of "offense".  It seems to me that this is more about "hey, he stole my/our thunder!  It's my/our moment!" and that to me shouldn't rise to the level of offense.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on November 29, 2017, 11:49:32 AM
perhaps in this situation the lines between "offensive" and "insulting" and "disrespectful" are blurring?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: eric42434224 on November 29, 2017, 12:39:15 PM
perhaps in this situation the lines between "offensive" and "insulting" and "disrespectful" are blurring?

The definition of offensive if far more simple, and is entirely aporopriate in this context
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: bosk1 on November 29, 2017, 12:43:01 PM
perhaps in this situation the lines between "offensive" and "insulting" and "disrespectful" are blurring?
Maybe not blurring as much as overlapping in this particular case.  I basically agree with Eric.  But I also don't see the need to belabor the point, so I'll drop it.  It's one more instance of Trump acting in a way that just makes me shake my head.  No need to struggle to put the correct label on it or make it into something bigger than it is.  It just bugs me (and others), that's all.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on November 29, 2017, 02:01:20 PM
It's one more instance of Trump acting in a way that just makes me shake my head.  No need to struggle to put the correct label on it or make it into something bigger than it is.  It just bugs me (and others), that's all.

If it helps, or matters, I agree with this almost completely.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: bosk1 on November 29, 2017, 02:05:17 PM
It's one more instance of Trump acting in a way that just makes me shake my head.  No need to struggle to put the correct label on it or make it into something bigger than it is.  It just bugs me (and others), that's all.

If it helps, or matters, I agree with this almost completely.

Yeah, I kinda figured.  I don't think we're really that far apart on this.  I just wanted to offer my perspective on where I think the focus should be.  But at the end of the day, I think most reasonable minds would agree that what he said was stupid for a number of reasons, but that none of this really makes him look much worse than anything else he has said/done.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on November 29, 2017, 02:54:51 PM
I agree with you both.  But the fact that there is even a debate on whether this is "offensive" or not - or something else - goes to show how low the bar of normalcy has fallen in the last 12 months.  Can anyone envision Carter/Reagan/Bush/Clinton/GWB/Obama dropping any kind of comment like that in month 13 of their Presidency, and the country demonstrating some level of flabergastation (that's the best word I could come up with)?

Imagine if Obama had referred to Eric Cantor as "that Hymie" during a Holocaust observance?

It's like stepping on a nail.  You step on one, and it's going right through your foot.  Trump commentary is a bed of nails - we're now immune to the effects to a certain extent.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: lonestar on November 29, 2017, 07:40:36 PM
But he keeps doubling down on it without any repurcussions, to the point where the county is punch drunk with this idiocy. We're gonna forget about the Pocahontas crack because of the retweet of the anti-muslim crap today, and that'll be pushed under the rug by whatever dumb shit he drops tomorrow. Any one of these would've been a major scandal for any previous president in the perspective of the other side.

In a year from now, what level of shit is he going to be dropping with the country just shrugging its shoulders with the reasoning of "it's just Trump"....
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Dave_Manchester on November 30, 2017, 07:26:53 AM
^^ I agree with that, and I think those latest retweets from the fascist girl (no, FOXNews, she's not an "English politician"; you don't suddenly become a "politician" by registering your crackpot movement as a party) form part of the pattern of Trump's tactic of pushing the etiquette for his office so low that he can finally feel comfortable in the role.

That said, those retweets were something new for me. Maybe this isn't widely known outside Britain, but that 'party' he gave a platform to is notorious. They are an off-shoot of the British National Party, a neo-Nazi organisation with a very dark history of racially-motivated violence. And 'Britain First' (the group Trump retweeted) broke away from them because they felt the BNP were TOO moderate. Their equivalent in the US would be the White Aryan Resistance. Their few members are inarticulate, ill-educated, uninformed fear-mongers who, in common with all extremist groups, seize on the consequences of complex economic problems by boiling their station down to a common enemy. In their case: Muslims.

And the American president retweeted the spirit of their message.

Theresa May denounced his decision to do this (Trump, as he always does when women answer him back, then went on the attack), the Dutch Embassy put out a statement that "facts matter" and said the video did not show an "immigrant" (Sarah Sanders' response was that it doesn't matter if the videos are real, what matters is the President started a dialogue about immigration. Kind of like when Mel Gibson contributed to the field of Holocaust studies by drunkenly ranting that the fucking Jews started every war, right Sarah?). The London mayor Sadique Khan put out an eloquent and important statement rebuking Trump's action. Trump, as with women, does not take kindly to Muslims answering him back, and will no doubt lash out at Khan soon. He has done it several times before with him, he has a long history with Khan.

Obviously his die-hard fans will applaud what he did, not because, as Sanders says, they think he's helped begin a dialogue ("mind your own business, closest ally Prime Minister May!" - great dialogue, eh Sarah?), but because all they care about is: has this thing that Trump has said or done pissed off liberals? That is all they really care about, they elected a troll-in-chief. Trump could start a global nuclear war and the response would be "LOL, I can't WAIT to see how libtards cry over this!"

I was one of the few in the thread on MP's forum who was willing to give Trump a fair chance to show he can grow into the role. He hasn't done it. He's a disgrace of a global leader, a pathetic, whiny, petulent child. Shame on him and shame on Sarah Sanders. I almost never comment on the stupid shit Trump writes on his Twitter (simply because there's so much of it), but for this I make an exception. I'm not sure the non-Brits in this thread can fully understand the implications of Trump acknowledging Britain First. If you knew the history of that group you would see how sinister it is that he did that; if you grew up around the football stadia and underclass pubs of northern England, you'd know what a nasty collection of violent and hate-spewing Nazis they are. And Trump, as president, has a responsibility to know their history before he propagates their ignorant bile.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on November 30, 2017, 07:55:38 AM
Sander's response to the whole thing legitimately filled me with rage. I know these words get thrown around a lot, but that kind of talk is really freaking dangerous. It gives Trump, his goons, and the "news sources" that follow him the green light to post whatever the fuck they want as long as "the threat is real". This is no different than Russia using Call of Duty aerial thermal footage and saying it's proof of US military actions in Syria.

Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Dave_Manchester on November 30, 2017, 08:02:36 AM
Sanders ought to be ashamed of herself for just how far she's willing to bend to justify what Trump says. "The president was looking to open a dialogue about immigration", Christ almighty...

Trump: "Europe is overrun by immigrants and Islamic fundamentalism"
British, Dutch, German and French foreign offices: "That's inappropriate and false, sir"
Trump: "Stick to your own affairs, Europe, and stay out of ours!"

Yeah, I say again: that's a great "dialogue" he's looking to engage in, Sarah. Trashes Europe, Europe  politely replies, he tells them to mind their own business. This is "dialogue", is it?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: bosk1 on November 30, 2017, 09:03:45 AM
But he keeps doubling down on it without any repurcussions, to the point where the county is punch drunk with this idiocy. We're gonna forget about the Pocahontas crack because of the retweet of the anti-muslim crap today, and that'll be pushed under the rug by whatever dumb shit he drops tomorrow. Any one of these would've been a major scandal for any previous president in the perspective of the other side.

In a year from now, what level of shit is he going to be dropping with the country just shrugging its shoulders with the reasoning of "it's just Trump"....

Okay, but:

(1)  Do what, exactly?  Unless what he is doing rises to the level that he can not only be impeached, but that there are also grounds from removal if impeachment is successful, the only remedy is to vote for someone else three years from now.  "The president does stupid crap every day that makes me embarrassed to be an American" isn't grounds to actually DO something.  So what are we not doing that we should be doing?

(2)  Still mostly agreeing with your general sentiment, the problem is that neither the Dems nor Republicans produced anybody better to run against him.  So where does the problem REALLY lie?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on November 30, 2017, 09:11:01 AM
Sanders ought to be ashamed of herself for just how far she's willing to bend to justify what Trump says. "The president was looking to open a dialogue about immigration", Christ almighty...

Trump: "Europe is overrun by immigrants and Islamic fundamentalism"
British, Dutch, German and French foreign offices: "That's inappropriate and false, sir"
Trump: "Stick to your own affairs, Europe, and stay out of ours!"

Yeah, I say again: that's a great "dialogue" he's looking to engage in, Sarah. Trashes Europe, Europe  politely replies, he tells them to mind their own business. This is "dialogue", is it?

And for a gal whose father has said "We cannot survive as a republic if we do not become a god-centered nation that understands that our laws do not come from man, they come from god", she sure doesn't seem to mind shitting on the 9th commandment.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on November 30, 2017, 09:21:50 AM
I agree with you both.  But the fact that there is even a debate on whether this is "offensive" or not - or something else - goes to show how low the bar of normalcy has fallen in the last 12 months.  Can anyone envision Carter/Reagan/Bush/Clinton/GWB/Obama dropping any kind of comment like that in month 13 of their Presidency, and the country demonstrating some level of flabergastation (that's the best word I could come up with)?

Imagine if Obama had referred to Eric Cantor as "that Hymie" during a Holocaust observance?

It's like stepping on a nail.  You step on one, and it's going right through your foot.  Trump commentary is a bed of nails - we're now immune to the effects to a certain extent.

I'm sorry to start this back up again, but the standard of "offensive" is not whether Carter/Reagan/Bush/Clinton/GWB/Obama would have said it.   

First "hymie" is more like "n*****r" in that it is bad in and of itself.  "Pocahontas" is not.   If you remember the episode of the Sopranos where Christopher decides to get into music, and the musician isn't toeing the line, and he takes the guitar and says ""Hey Paul Fucking McCartney!" and breaks the guitar over his head. 

Second, and I thought we were past this, but we're still using inaccurate parallels here, he's NOT calling Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas" because being called "Pocahontas" is a slur.  It's actually the opposite.  He's saying "You, Elizabeth Warren, are a lying conniving politico and you're not worthy of the Pocahontas name, and you don't get to claim it falsely in the name of advancing your political career." 

If he called Warren "Redskin" or whatever the derogatory term is for a Native American, I'd be in full agreement, 1000%.   But given that it was an inappropriate forum, given that it wasn't the right time or the right audience, I'm still baffled how calling her Pocahontas - to CLEARLY point out that she is NOT worthy of the name - is offensive, any more than Christopher on the Sopranos mocking that musician by calling him "Paul Fucking McCartney". 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: eric42434224 on November 30, 2017, 09:43:04 AM
To be clear, the "standard" of something being offensive is simply if it causes someone to be deeply hurt, upset, or angry.  It is subjective.  Trying to apply an objective standard to it is futile and not constructive, and completely misses the point.
If what Trump said does not offend you, fine.....but that doesnt make what he said not completely and validly offensive to someone else.
Debating if it is or isn't is kind of silly.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on November 30, 2017, 09:43:54 AM
(2)  Still mostly agreeing with your general sentiment, the problem is that neither the Dems nor Republicans produced anybody better to run against him.  So where does the problem REALLY lie?

Beautiful.  Absolutely beautiful (I say with no sarcasm, no irony, only absolute agreement).   Here and at MP.com, I have been saying since Trump secured the nomination that he is NOT an aberration, he is not a product of a "racist America", he is the inevitable consequence of the politics of the last 25 years.  From Clinton blowing sax on Arsenio Hall, to the rock star populism of Obama (and not to ignore Bush in between, because as we have seen, the pendulum swings.  Oh boy, does it swing!), this was next.   And God HELP us if the pendulum doesn't find itself in some form of moderation in 2020, or we're going to be inaugurating President West and we'll have to endure FLOTUS Kardashian.   We'll also have our first MILOTUS!   Mother-In-Law Of The United States.  And SFNMILOTUS!   Step-Father-Now-Mother-In-Law-Of-The-United States!  You think we're a joke NOW? 

I don't at all think Hillary was better, but honestly, to give her her fair due, do we really know?   We didn't decide 2016 on the relative merits of the candidates; we adjudicated it like a round on Survivor or Chopped!, where it was about EMAILS! and RUSSIA! and DEPLORABLE!    You're not telling me that of the 17 Republican and 5 Democrat candidates as of June of 2016, that not ONE of them - politics aside - has a better temperament to be President?   Of course they do. 

But as long as we're willing to play party politics, to use Twitter as a political debate tool, and reduce things to quips, soundbites, and witticisms, we're destined to repeat this again and again.   We earned Donald Trump, and we deserve him, in my humble opinion. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on November 30, 2017, 09:48:45 AM
I think the republicans had several candidates better than Trump. Their problem was that they started the campaign with 17 people. If that whole process started with only Jeb, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, and Trump in the running, he wouldn't have gotten anywhere, IMO.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 30, 2017, 09:49:33 AM
(2)  Still mostly agreeing with your general sentiment, the problem is that neither the Dems nor Republicans produced anybody better to run against him.  So where does the problem REALLY lie?

Beautiful.  Absolutely beautiful (I say with no sarcasm, no irony, only absolute agreement).   Here and at MP.com, I have been saying since Trump secured the nomination that he is NOT an aberration, he is not a product of a "racist America", he is the inevitable consequence of the politics of the last 25 years.  From Clinton blowing sax on Arsenio Hall, to the rock star populism of Obama (and not to ignore Bush in between, because as we have seen, the pendulum swings.  Oh boy, does it swing!), this was next.   And God HELP us if the pendulum doesn't find itself in some form of moderation in 2020, or we're going to be inaugurating President West and we'll have to endure FLOTUS Kardashian.   We'll also have our first MILOTUS!   Mother-In-Law Of The United States.  And SFNMILOTUS!   Step-Father-Now-Mother-In-Law-Of-The-United States!  You think we're a joke NOW? 

I don't at all think Hillary was better, but honestly, to give her her fair due, do we really know?   We didn't decide 2016 on the relative merits of the candidates; we adjudicated it like a round on Survivor or Chopped!, where it was about EMAILS! and RUSSIA! and DEPLORABLE!    You're not telling me that of the 17 Republican and 5 Democrat candidates as of June of 2016, that not ONE of them - politics aside - has a better temperament to be President?   Of course they do. 

But as long as we're willing to play party politics, to use Twitter as a political debate tool, and reduce things to quips, soundbites, and witticisms, we're destined to repeat this again and again.   We earned Donald Trump, and we deserve him, in my humble opinion.

there's good arguments in there but I still, even after all this time, can't make heads or tails of this position of yours.  You're essentially blaming everything on media? On culture?

edit: It's impossible to form any kind of response,  everything is much too muddled and all over the place
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: portnoy311 on November 30, 2017, 10:05:58 AM
But he keeps doubling down on it without any repurcussions, to the point where the county is punch drunk with this idiocy. We're gonna forget about the Pocahontas crack because of the retweet of the anti-muslim crap today, and that'll be pushed under the rug by whatever dumb shit he drops tomorrow. Any one of these would've been a major scandal for any previous president in the perspective of the other side.

In a year from now, what level of shit is he going to be dropping with the country just shrugging its shoulders with the reasoning of "it's just Trump"....

Okay, but:

(1)  Do what, exactly?  Unless what he is doing rises to the level that he can not only be impeached, but that there are also grounds from removal if impeachment is successful, the only remedy is to vote for someone else three years from now.  "The president does stupid crap every day that makes me embarrassed to be an American" isn't grounds to actually DO something.  So what are we not doing that we should be doing?

(2)  Still mostly agreeing with your general sentiment, the problem is that neither the Dems nor Republicans produced anybody better to run against him.  So where does the problem REALLY lie?

Well, we're less than a year away from the midterms, many of us just had local elections, and public influence has weighed on congressional action on at least a couple topics. I would think people should be educated and stop assuming none of it matters, or their vote doesn't count, etc. There's plenty people should know about and be active regarding, and looking ahead to 3 years from now is definitely not the takeaway.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on November 30, 2017, 12:09:20 PM
(2)  Still mostly agreeing with your general sentiment, the problem is that neither the Dems nor Republicans produced anybody better to run against him.  So where does the problem REALLY lie?

Beautiful.  Absolutely beautiful (I say with no sarcasm, no irony, only absolute agreement).   Here and at MP.com, I have been saying since Trump secured the nomination that he is NOT an aberration, he is not a product of a "racist America", he is the inevitable consequence of the politics of the last 25 years.  From Clinton blowing sax on Arsenio Hall, to the rock star populism of Obama (and not to ignore Bush in between, because as we have seen, the pendulum swings.  Oh boy, does it swing!), this was next.   And God HELP us if the pendulum doesn't find itself in some form of moderation in 2020, or we're going to be inaugurating President West and we'll have to endure FLOTUS Kardashian.   We'll also have our first MILOTUS!   Mother-In-Law Of The United States.  And SFNMILOTUS!   Step-Father-Now-Mother-In-Law-Of-The-United States!  You think we're a joke NOW? 

I don't at all think Hillary was better, but honestly, to give her her fair due, do we really know?   We didn't decide 2016 on the relative merits of the candidates; we adjudicated it like a round on Survivor or Chopped!, where it was about EMAILS! and RUSSIA! and DEPLORABLE!    You're not telling me that of the 17 Republican and 5 Democrat candidates as of June of 2016, that not ONE of them - politics aside - has a better temperament to be President?   Of course they do. 

But as long as we're willing to play party politics, to use Twitter as a political debate tool, and reduce things to quips, soundbites, and witticisms, we're destined to repeat this again and again.   We earned Donald Trump, and we deserve him, in my humble opinion.

there's good arguments in there but I still, even after all this time, can't make heads or tails of this position of yours.  You're essentially blaming everything on media? On culture?

edit: It's impossible to form any kind of response,  everything is much too muddled and all over the place

A confluence of things that rewards instant gratification, digestion by smartphone, and image over substance.   Twitter has taught us that we need not be factually correct; that it is our opinion, and passionately held, makes it indefensible.   That has translated to our voting.    How many people voted for Trump because of "change"?   Because of "something new"?   I have something new growing on my lip, that doesn't make it good, desirable, or long-term effective.   This is why I use the stylized "RUSSIA!" and "TERRIFIED!", even though it irks some people.  Not because the underlying arguments are invalid, but that most of the arguments are vapid, and we've gotten to the point where you need not even be able to articulate the argument, only hold the position.   

Go to Trump's retweet of the anti-Muslim footage.  Now look at the comments to each of them.  THAT'S THE STATE OF DEBATE IN OUR COUNTRY.  Snark, half-truths, sarcasm, vitriol, non sequitors.    It's embarrassing. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on November 30, 2017, 12:24:34 PM

He could just be a morning Tweeter

(https://i.redditmedia.com/61g16BFRoZLCnz2vtNajUhKjIiIRay5i8EWKvDt_csY.png?w=1024&s=2ac0f9b0d121d4eae4be6d12c2dc21ed)
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 30, 2017, 01:03:58 PM
(2)  Still mostly agreeing with your general sentiment, the problem is that neither the Dems nor Republicans produced anybody better to run against him.  So where does the problem REALLY lie?

Beautiful.  Absolutely beautiful (I say with no sarcasm, no irony, only absolute agreement).   Here and at MP.com, I have been saying since Trump secured the nomination that he is NOT an aberration, he is not a product of a "racist America", he is the inevitable consequence of the politics of the last 25 years.  From Clinton blowing sax on Arsenio Hall, to the rock star populism of Obama (and not to ignore Bush in between, because as we have seen, the pendulum swings.  Oh boy, does it swing!), this was next.   And God HELP us if the pendulum doesn't find itself in some form of moderation in 2020, or we're going to be inaugurating President West and we'll have to endure FLOTUS Kardashian.   We'll also have our first MILOTUS!   Mother-In-Law Of The United States.  And SFNMILOTUS!   Step-Father-Now-Mother-In-Law-Of-The-United States!  You think we're a joke NOW? 

I don't at all think Hillary was better, but honestly, to give her her fair due, do we really know?   We didn't decide 2016 on the relative merits of the candidates; we adjudicated it like a round on Survivor or Chopped!, where it was about EMAILS! and RUSSIA! and DEPLORABLE!    You're not telling me that of the 17 Republican and 5 Democrat candidates as of June of 2016, that not ONE of them - politics aside - has a better temperament to be President?   Of course they do. 

But as long as we're willing to play party politics, to use Twitter as a political debate tool, and reduce things to quips, soundbites, and witticisms, we're destined to repeat this again and again.   We earned Donald Trump, and we deserve him, in my humble opinion.

there's good arguments in there but I still, even after all this time, can't make heads or tails of this position of yours.  You're essentially blaming everything on media? On culture?

edit: It's impossible to form any kind of response,  everything is much too muddled and all over the place

A confluence of things that rewards instant gratification, digestion by smartphone, and image over substance.   Twitter has taught us that we need not be factually correct; that it is our opinion, and passionately held, makes it indefensible.   That has translated to our voting.    How many people voted for Trump because of "change"?   Because of "something new"?   I have something new growing on my lip, that doesn't make it good, desirable, or long-term effective.   This is why I use the stylized "RUSSIA!" and "TERRIFIED!", even though it irks some people.  Not because the underlying arguments are invalid, but that most of the arguments are vapid, and we've gotten to the point where you need not even be able to articulate the argument, only hold the position.   

Go to Trump's retweet of the anti-Muslim footage.  Now look at the comments to each of them.  THAT'S THE STATE OF DEBATE IN OUR COUNTRY.  Snark, half-truths, sarcasm, vitriol, non sequitors.    It's embarrassing.

Okay, but do you include youself in that?  If not then you can't be the only sane person left in the world.  So if there's more than one, that means there's a lot who can still think and your whole thing falls apart, it relies on sweeping generalizations
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Kattelox on November 30, 2017, 01:13:08 PM
Look at that, more Twitter blame. Yes, people only started believing adamantly in their own opinions as facts once Twitter arrived on the scene, it's not like that's been a problem for god knows how long.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on November 30, 2017, 01:25:29 PM
Look at that, more Twitter blame. Yes, people only started believing adamantly in their own opinions as facts once Twitter arrived on the scene, it's not like that's been a problem for god knows how long.
Yeah, you just proved his point.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Harmony on November 30, 2017, 01:50:22 PM

He could just be a morning Tweeter

(https://i.redditmedia.com/61g16BFRoZLCnz2vtNajUhKjIiIRay5i8EWKvDt_csY.png?w=1024&s=2ac0f9b0d121d4eae4be6d12c2dc21ed)

I think he just does his best work on the throne.  At least in his opinion.   :D
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Dave_Manchester on November 30, 2017, 01:51:43 PM
The question of what can be done about Trump's behaviour has no simple answer but I'd like to see a boycott of Sanders' "press briefings" (it's a joke to call them that) by the media organisations Trump keeps attacking. I watch almost all of them, and I honestly see no point in them now. Sure, it's the job of the Press Secretary to protect the boss, and to spin things, and to practice the various deflective tricks of the trade from time to time, but ultimately the purpose of a press briefing is for the president (through his press secretary) to answer to the people via the free press.

But Sarah Sanders doesn't do that. She doesn't answer anything. Since day one the Trump tactic has been to delegitimize the media through relentless attacks on it. This has been coupled with a deliberately disorienting strategy of spewing out an endless series of unconnected Tweets about every subject under the sun, so that no one thing has a chance to stick and be properly analysed for what it is. This Nazi propaganda (because that's what it is) he retweeted is scandalous, but it won't be given the attention it deserves, because I guarantee that tomorrow he'll throw out something else, equally stupid and intentionally provocative. This is his method. He knows exactly what he is doing. 

Sarah's only 'defence' of him is always the same: "The president was simply looking to begin a discussion". I've lost track of how many times she's said that. And yet whenever the media try to then take part in that discussion by asking her questions, she shuts them down and says "No, I answered your question, we're moving on". Topic after topic after topic, she does exactly the same thing.

Media guy: "Why did Trump tweet at 6am that there will be no more transgender people in the military, yet the department of defence immediately contradicted him?"
Sanders: "Look, the president was simply trying to begin a discussion about our military"
Media guy: "Ok, fine, then let's have that discussion now. Why is the president tweeting out policy change at 6 in the morn...
Sanders: "I've answered your question. Next..."

Media guy: "Trump's claim that we're the highest taxed nation in the world is a provable lie"
Sanders: "Look, the president is simply trying to start a discussion about our unfair tax system"
Media guy: "Ok, fine, so let's have that discussion now. Why did he lie about..."
Sanders: "I answered your question. Next..."

Media guy: "The Dutch Embassy has shown evidence that the Nazi propaganda video he retweeted wasn't what he said it was"
Sanders: "Look, the president is simply trying to start a discussion about immigration"
Media guy: "Ok, fine, so let's have that discussion now. Why did the president retweet a Neo-Nazi prop...
Sanders: "I've answered your question. Next..."

This is what having a 'discussion' looks like? This is 'dialogue'? No, this is propaganda promulgated through fascist techniques. Make a false statement and then shut down every attempt to call its falsehood to task. And it happens in case after case, topic after topic. If there is one thing in this world Donald Trump has zero interest in, it's a discussion. It's not something he sees the point of. Remember how he dismissed the reporter from the Oval Office with a flick of the hand because he dared to ask him a question he didn't like? Trump doesn't like sustained questioning. He doesn't like voices other than his own. For Sarah Sanders to say, day after day, that "the president is simply trying to start a discussion", while then going on to shut down any attempt to take part in that discussion, is borderline offensive. It's not doing her job. It's contributing to the breakdown in presidential accountability which Trump has been trying to bring about since his first day in office. It's a tried-and-tested fascist tactic. Systematically erode the ways and means you can be called to account for what you say and do.

So I don't know if it would change much, but if I were the non-FOX press, I'd just boycott Sanders until she starts doing her job properly. Because nothing whatsoever is coming out of those press briefings anymore, they are just opportunities for her to stand on the podium and condescend to the press (and by extension the people) even more. That's where I would begin the difficult process of holding Trump answerable for his behaviour. Start with Sanders. Tell her that until she starts properly engaging in the process as her job demands, then she can speak to an empty room (or almost empty - FOX will of course be there).
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on November 30, 2017, 04:09:37 PM
(2)  Still mostly agreeing with your general sentiment, the problem is that neither the Dems nor Republicans produced anybody better to run against him.  So where does the problem REALLY lie?

Beautiful.  Absolutely beautiful (I say with no sarcasm, no irony, only absolute agreement).   Here and at MP.com, I have been saying since Trump secured the nomination that he is NOT an aberration, he is not a product of a "racist America", he is the inevitable consequence of the politics of the last 25 years.  From Clinton blowing sax on Arsenio Hall, to the rock star populism of Obama (and not to ignore Bush in between, because as we have seen, the pendulum swings.  Oh boy, does it swing!), this was next.   And God HELP us if the pendulum doesn't find itself in some form of moderation in 2020, or we're going to be inaugurating President West and we'll have to endure FLOTUS Kardashian.   We'll also have our first MILOTUS!   Mother-In-Law Of The United States.  And SFNMILOTUS!   Step-Father-Now-Mother-In-Law-Of-The-United States!  You think we're a joke NOW? 

I don't at all think Hillary was better, but honestly, to give her her fair due, do we really know?   We didn't decide 2016 on the relative merits of the candidates; we adjudicated it like a round on Survivor or Chopped!, where it was about EMAILS! and RUSSIA! and DEPLORABLE!    You're not telling me that of the 17 Republican and 5 Democrat candidates as of June of 2016, that not ONE of them - politics aside - has a better temperament to be President?   Of course they do. 

But as long as we're willing to play party politics, to use Twitter as a political debate tool, and reduce things to quips, soundbites, and witticisms, we're destined to repeat this again and again.   We earned Donald Trump, and we deserve him, in my humble opinion.

there's good arguments in there but I still, even after all this time, can't make heads or tails of this position of yours.  You're essentially blaming everything on media? On culture?

edit: It's impossible to form any kind of response,  everything is much too muddled and all over the place

A confluence of things that rewards instant gratification, digestion by smartphone, and image over substance.   Twitter has taught us that we need not be factually correct; that it is our opinion, and passionately held, makes it indefensible.   That has translated to our voting.    How many people voted for Trump because of "change"?   Because of "something new"?   I have something new growing on my lip, that doesn't make it good, desirable, or long-term effective.   This is why I use the stylized "RUSSIA!" and "TERRIFIED!", even though it irks some people.  Not because the underlying arguments are invalid, but that most of the arguments are vapid, and we've gotten to the point where you need not even be able to articulate the argument, only hold the position.   

Go to Trump's retweet of the anti-Muslim footage.  Now look at the comments to each of them.  THAT'S THE STATE OF DEBATE IN OUR COUNTRY.  Snark, half-truths, sarcasm, vitriol, non sequitors.    It's embarrassing.

Okay, but do you include youself in that?  If not then you can't be the only sane person left in the world.  So if there's more than one, that means there's a lot who can still think and your whole thing falls apart, it relies on sweeping generalizations

Include myself in what? The Twitter level of debate?  No, I don't.   But that's not a badge of honor, and besides, your subsequent logic falls apart.    That there's one, or two, or even 100, doesn't mean that the preponderance of people aren't putting in half efforts.   This happens almost every single day.  And I'm not talking about "policy differences" or "party politics".  I'm talking basic facts.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on November 30, 2017, 04:36:10 PM
The question of what can be done about Trump's behaviour has no simple answer but I'd like to see a boycott of Sanders' "press briefings" (it's a joke to call them that) by the media organisations Trump keeps attacking. I watch almost all of them, and I honestly see no point in them now. Sure, it's the job of the Press Secretary to protect the boss, and to spin things, and to practice the various deflective tricks of the trade from time to time, but ultimately the purpose of a press briefing is for the president (through his press secretary) to answer to the people via the free press.

But Sarah Sanders doesn't do that. She doesn't answer anything. Since day one the Trump tactic has been to delegitimize the media through relentless attacks on it. This has been coupled with a deliberately disorienting strategy of spewing out an endless series of unconnected Tweets about every subject under the sun, so that no one thing has a chance to stick and be properly analysed for what it is. This Nazi propaganda (because that's what it is) he retweeted is scandalous, but it won't be given the attention it deserves, because I guarantee that tomorrow he'll throw out something else, equally stupid and intentionally provocative. This is his method. He knows exactly what he is doing. 

Sarah's only 'defence' of him is always the same: "The president was simply looking to begin a discussion". I've lost track of how many times she's said that. And yet whenever the media try to then take part in that discussion by asking her questions, she shuts them down and says "No, I answered your question, we're moving on". Topic after topic after topic, she does exactly the same thing.

Media guy: "Why did Trump tweet at 6am that there will be no more transgender people in the military, yet the department of defence immediately contradicted him?"
Sanders: "Look, the president was simply trying to begin a discussion about our military"
Media guy: "Ok, fine, then let's have that discussion now. Why is the president tweeting out policy change at 6 in the morn...
Sanders: "I've answered your question. Next..."

Media guy: "Trump's claim that we're the highest taxed nation in the world is a provable lie"
Sanders: "Look, the president is simply trying to start a discussion about our unfair tax system"
Media guy: "Ok, fine, so let's have that discussion now. Why did he lie about..."
Sanders: "I answered your question. Next..."

Media guy: "The Dutch Embassy has shown evidence that the Nazi propaganda video he retweeted wasn't what he said it was"
Sanders: "Look, the president is simply trying to start a discussion about immigration"
Media guy: "Ok, fine, so let's have that discussion now. Why did the president retweet a Neo-Nazi prop...
Sanders: "I've answered your question. Next..."

This is what having a 'discussion' looks like? This is 'dialogue'? No, this is propaganda promulgated through fascist techniques. Make a false statement and then shut down every attempt to call its falsehood to task. And it happens in case after case, topic after topic. If there is one thing in this world Donald Trump has zero interest in, it's a discussion. It's not something he sees the point of. Remember how he dismissed the reporter from the Oval Office with a flick of the hand because he dared to ask him a question he didn't like? Trump doesn't like sustained questioning. He doesn't like voices other than his own. For Sarah Sanders to say, day after day, that "the president is simply trying to start a discussion", while then going on to shut down any attempt to take part in that discussion, is borderline offensive. It's not doing her job. It's contributing to the breakdown in presidential accountability which Trump has been trying to bring about since his first day in office. It's a tried-and-tested fascist tactic. Systematically erode the ways and means you can be called to account for what you say and do.

So I don't know if it would change much, but if I were the non-FOX press, I'd just boycott Sanders until she starts doing her job properly. Because nothing whatsoever is coming out of those press briefings anymore, they are just opportunities for her to stand on the podium and condescend to the press (and by extension the people) even more. That's where I would begin the difficult process of holding Trump answerable for his behaviour. Start with Sanders. Tell her that until she starts properly engaging in the process as her job demands, then she can speak to an empty room (or almost empty - FOX will of course be there).

Well, I happen to agree with you on that, and I don't watch every one, but a fair amount of them and those transcriptions are pretty spot on. 

I don't think we're far off here; I think we agree that the problem is how it's snowballed, and how the media has sort of colluded inadvertently in fanning the fires.  If the media was clean, this would be a different situation.  I understand the difference between "op-ed" and fact, but CNN, Fox, the NY Times, they're all blurring that with every installment of news.   When you've got major, respected news sources engaging in the same sort of sandlot nonsense, it perpetuates itself.   When you've got major, respected news sources taking sides, this is going to remain an issue.  "Fox" isn't the problem here; it's those outlets that still seem to think they can beat Trump at his own game.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Harmony on December 03, 2017, 12:32:18 PM
Wouldn't it be poetic justice if one of Trump's own tweets became the cause of his removal from office?

So yesterday he twatted evidence that he obstructed justice when he knew about Flynn's lies to the FBI at the time of his firing and yet he had asked Comey to 'go easy' on him.

Today, we are led to believe that Trump actually didn't make that tweet, his attorney did.  http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-lawyer-wrote-presidents-sloppy-tweet-flynns-dismissal/story?id=51541650

If that is true, is Trump doing any of his tweets?  Who to believe?  Who?  Hmmm.....
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Kattelox on December 03, 2017, 01:37:44 PM
And even if Trump's lawyer did make the tweet, it goes to show what an incompetent lawyer he is. There's no explanation for it that makes it look better unless you're ignorant or blinded with Trump loyalty.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: ? on December 03, 2017, 02:39:05 PM
If Trump's tweets are "official statements" (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-s-tweets-official-statements-spicer-says-n768931), maybe he/the White House should be more careful about what gets posted and by whom. :P
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on December 04, 2017, 10:56:47 AM
Wouldn't it be poetic justice if one of Trump's own tweets became the cause of his removal from office?

So yesterday he twatted evidence that he obstructed justice when he knew about Flynn's lies to the FBI at the time of his firing and yet he had asked Comey to 'go easy' on him.

Today, we are led to believe that Trump actually didn't make that tweet, his attorney did.  http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-lawyer-wrote-presidents-sloppy-tweet-flynns-dismissal/story?id=51541650

If that is true, is Trump doing any of his tweets?  Who to believe?  Who?  Hmmm.....

This the part that fascinates me about all of this.  It's almost impossible to keep all this straight, because, in part, it's almost impossible to keep the standards straight.   You can't really call trump a liar, then pick and choose the statements to believe just because they fit your agenda.   

I think where this will go is the most interesting:  I think Trump will survive the tweets, and the cries of "Fake News!".  I think he will survive the recent tweet about Flynn lying (I understand the argument, and I think it's always possible, but I disagree with the "slam dunk" nature of some of the analysis.  The tweet does NOT serve as an admission of obstruction, but it certainly does make it harder to say you didn't by essentially shifting the burden of proof).

What he won't survive is if and when people under him start to save their own skin.  There are a LOT of rumblings that morale is bad in the various divisions of the Executive Branch, and his "GE Corporate" management style doesn't work in politics; that has been proven time and time and time and time again.   People in government are a different breed than those in Corporate America, and we're seeing that now.  If a critical mass of people - bureaucrats in the Executive branch - decide they're not going down with the ship, then this is going to get interesting very quickly.     
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on December 04, 2017, 10:57:54 AM
If Trump's tweets are "official statements" (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-s-tweets-official-statements-spicer-says-n768931), maybe he/the White House should be more careful about what gets posted and by whom. :P

Well, I've been saying since about early 2016 that the twatting has to stop.  It's a joke in and of itself, and while I don't think it will ultimately be his downfall, I share in Harmony's observation about poetic justice.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on December 04, 2017, 12:10:07 PM
(http://addictinginfo.addictinginfoent.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Screen-Shot-2017-07-22-at-10.55.32-AM.png)
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on December 07, 2017, 09:47:12 AM
I think it's pretty evident Trump hasn't been in control of his Twitter for at least 2, maybe 3 days now.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: ReaperKK on December 08, 2017, 06:52:46 AM
I think it's pretty evident Trump hasn't been in control of his Twitter for at least 2, maybe 3 days now.

Just looked it up and yea, it doesn't seem like he is control of it. SAD!
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on December 08, 2017, 07:41:04 AM
Or in control of the connection between his lips and tongue.  Did he have a stroke?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Dave_Manchester on December 11, 2017, 04:49:04 AM
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/708045086135881728

Needless to say the above gem of a tweet was from the primary trail, when FOX were not supportive of him, hence they were "biased and disgusting". Once he won the nomination they started fellating him on a daily basis and so they became "great reporters" and "the only reliable news source around".
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on January 02, 2018, 08:43:27 PM
(http://az705044.vo.msecnd.net/20180103/trump-nuclear-button-tweet.png)

replace "nuclear button" with "tiny penis", and it's actually quite funny.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: lonestar on January 02, 2018, 09:25:51 PM
I'm struggling to find anything funny about that one. God I hope they changed the nuclear codes behind his back..
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Cool Chris on January 02, 2018, 09:59:03 PM
I don't actually mind my president having this sentiment. But I would concede I wish he kept it between himself and the guys in the war room.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on January 02, 2018, 10:04:01 PM
I'm struggling to find anything funny about that one. God I hope they changed the nuclear codes behind his back..
Perhaps not funny, but fascinating. He took a little time to compose that one. While retarded as all get-out, it's pretty well crafted for a Trump tweet. This was something that really mattered to him.

He's got a Damn The Torpedo Capitalization Style. If you want it Capitalized, capitalize the Mother Fucker. It's deliberate but reckless.

Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on January 03, 2018, 04:03:32 AM
Jesus fucking Christ... I really fucking hate this man. I seriously can't wrap my head around anyone that is still truly in support of him. How can you look at that man with that kind of rhetoric and think to yourself "yes, this is improving America's position in the world"?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: portnoy311 on January 03, 2018, 06:06:05 AM
Jesus fucking Christ... I really fucking hate this man. I seriously can't wrap my head around anyone that is still truly in support of him. How can you look at that man with that kind of rhetoric and think to yourself "yes, this is improving America's position in the world"?

I know a handful of Trump supporters. To them the economy is the only thing that matters,  and since ours is in good shape then Trump is doing great. Lots of talk about consumer confidence, jobs, unemployment rate, deregulation. I fundamentally disagree that Trump's administration should be taking credit for the lion's share, but that's the argument they make. I've seen and read many economists predicting a downturn in 2019 (everything is cyclical, after all), which predictably will be blamed on the the 2018 midterms going to the Dems, no doubt.

Everything else ranges from irrelevant to, "As long as it pisses off liberals" in my conversations with them.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Dave_Manchester on January 03, 2018, 06:07:46 AM
But I would concede I wish he kept it between himself and the guys in the war room.

That'll never happen, because it would defeat the purpose of expressing that sentiment in the first place, which is to offer a short sharp injection of naive flag-waving jingoism to his base. If Trump said those words to the guys in the war room they'd inwardly wonder how someone of his age can think at that level, and in that kind of boneheaded Hollywood blockbuster language, whereas write it on Twitter and he gets 300,000 FUCK YEAHs from people whose understanding of geopolitics and history is at the level of a toddler. The word is that when the DPRK made moves to communicate with the South last week (and it looks like today they actually spoke by phone), it pissed Trump off, hence his outburst yesterday. The idea of a potential resolution to this situation (temporary though it would surely be) done via peaceful diplomatic means and (crucially) without Trump isn't to be entertained. Nothing in this world must ever happen until Trump can worm his way into the photo (yesterday he took credit for there being no commercial air crashes in 2017) and cast it as his having personally prevented a global catastrophe. It's the oldest political trick in the book: foster in people a general fear and suspicion of humanity (and in my opinion and experience America has a fear culture), create a series of enemies (real or imagined, it doesn't matter), convince people that one of those enemies is 45 minutes away from attacking you (I choose that number deliberately - in 2002 Tony Blair said Saddam could launch nukes at Britain in 45 minutes, a claim later proven to have been made up, but it didn't matter, he got his war), and you're good to go. Every so often placate the proles, Mussolini-like, with a declaration that my nuclear button is the biggest button, huge, the best button, believe me, it's a tremendous button, and you create the only kind of system in which someone like Trump could ever hope to thrive. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on January 03, 2018, 06:12:57 AM
Jesus fucking Christ... I really fucking hate this man. I seriously can't wrap my head around anyone that is still truly in support of him. How can you look at that man with that kind of rhetoric and think to yourself "yes, this is improving America's position in the world"?

I know a handful of Trump supporters. To them the economy is the only thing that matters,  and since ours is in good shape then Trump is doing great. Lots of talk about consumer confidence, jobs, unemployment rate, deregulation. I fundamentally disagree that Trump's administration should be taking credit for the lion's share, but that's the argument they make.

Everything else ranges from irrelevant to, "As long as it pisses off liberals" in my conversations with them.

That's the thing that pisses me off though. The economy is very important, yes, but it's not something that just lives in the moment. The economy might be booming right now, which is great, but there's going to be an economy next year, and ten years from now, and a century after we're all dead. It drives me mad that very few seem to give a shit about where we might be in a generation or two. China just announced that they're banning 553 vehicles due to smog issues, and their solar industry is growing at an incredible rate. Meanwhile, Captain Asshat is publically calling for more global warming because it's cold in New England, like it some sort of huge fucking joke. It's stupid. The majority of his voters are stupid. These people are praising the stock market, and I bet the bulk of them don't have a dime in it. You want to talk economy? We're going to get buried in the years to come because no one in this administration, or its voting base, seems to have the ability to think beyond the money that's currently in their pockets. Have fun marketing our surplus of coal 100 years from now.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on January 03, 2018, 06:52:54 AM
News alert - the GLOBAL economy is doing well.  Canada, Japan, many EU nations are all experiencing the same favorable statistics in GDP, unemployment, stock markets etc... that the US is.

Thanks Trump.   ::)
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Kattelox on January 03, 2018, 08:27:10 AM
Ya'll are gonna give Stadler a coronary with your rhetoric about the fat guy in the White House.  :)
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: SwedishGoose on January 03, 2018, 08:30:33 AM
Ya'll are gonna give Stadler a coronary with your rhetoric about the fat guy in the White House.  :)

Stadler is not pro Trump.... he is just anti-anti Trump
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Kattelox on January 03, 2018, 08:57:56 AM
Ya'll are gonna give Stadler a coronary with your rhetoric about the fat guy in the White House.  :)

Stadler is not pro Trump.... he is just anti-anti Trump

I know! He's going to come in here and try to balance out all the ad hominem attacks and hurt himself in the process!
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Dave_Manchester on January 03, 2018, 09:42:53 AM
Personally I don't necessarily have a problem with ad hominem attacks if the hominem in question is in fact a dolt, and if what's being attacked is the personality itself. That nuclear button tweet is not policy, it's not a political statement, there's nothing to discuss in it. It's not an argument being put forth, it's just a silly old cartoon manchild frustrated that the world has been given the holiday period off and he hasn't been allowed to flood the internet with his dumb threats of fire and brimstone and nuclear holocausts. The last week or so must have killed him, to not be able to rile everyone up with the business of internet nuclear brinkmanship. The dry and complicated business of diplomacy doesn't resonate with his base, he can't make that stuff about him, and he gets restless when a few days have gone by without an opportunity to tell the world he has a huge weapon. That's why, just when Tillerson had reportedly worked straight weeks of 16-hour days to bring the Koreans, China and Russia to the table, Trump lashed out at him in public and told him to stop wasting his time, the North "understands only one thing!" When he does things like that, he does it not for political reasons, but because of his immature and attention-craving character, so that's what I will 'attack' on that occasion. We're probably a week or two away from Trump announcing that Not one American has died this year by tripping on a Ming vase and impaling themselves on a carelessly discarded paperclip. You are welcome!", and when he does, it'll be his character that deserves mockery.

All of which has been a long-winded way of saying that when it comes to Donald Trump, sometimes (not always, but sometimes) the ad hominem approach is perfectly justified to me, because he is offering no coherent argument for discussion and it's his character that deserves the disdain.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Kattelox on January 03, 2018, 10:07:32 AM
You'll get no argument out of me against any of that.   :lol
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 03, 2018, 10:14:23 AM
Jesus fucking Christ... I really fucking hate this man. I seriously can't wrap my head around anyone that is still truly in support of him. How can you look at that man with that kind of rhetoric and think to yourself "yes, this is improving America's position in the world"?

I know a handful of Trump supporters. To them the economy is the only thing that matters,  and since ours is in good shape then Trump is doing great. Lots of talk about consumer confidence, jobs, unemployment rate, deregulation. I fundamentally disagree that Trump's administration should be taking credit for the lion's share, but that's the argument they make. I've seen and read many economists predicting a downturn in 2019 (everything is cyclical, after all), which predictably will be blamed on the the 2018 midterms going to the Dems, no doubt.

Everything else ranges from irrelevant to, "As long as it pisses off liberals" in my conversations with them.

But how do you draw the line when it comes to "taking credit for economics"?  It's not one or the other when it comes to that.   Frankly, I think other than consumer confidence - meaning, the idea that those with money are willing to spend it, knowing that they aren't going to be blindsided by a costly, inefficient tax* of some kind - the President does little to impact the economy.   But if Trump ISN'T responsible, then NO President is responsible, and vice versa.  I think he DOES get some credit for jumpstarting this.   It was evident literally on a minute to minute basis on election night as the results came in.   

As for the last thing, well, there's enough of that to go around on  both sides, isn't there?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 03, 2018, 10:21:48 AM
Ya'll are gonna give Stadler a coronary with your rhetoric about the fat guy in the White House.  :)

Not at all.   The only thing that gives me a coronary is the same thing that gives Chino a headache.  Idiots.  And there are enough of those on both sides that it's almost like potato chips.  I know it's bad for me, but I can't resist...

I actively dislike Trump.   I can't stand the guy.  I don't like the methods, I don't like the ideas (for the most part), I don't like the implementation, I don't like the disrespect to the process, I don't like the disrespect to the system...  about the nicest thing I can say about him is that his wife is very attractive, but even she isn't the be all and end all (she's no Margot Robbie).   

Having said that, I don't go in for ad hominem attacks, and I detest this notion that "he's insane" when it more often than not boils down to "he's not doing what I would want him to do".    We in the States have a very black and white way of looking at things, and it's what got us to this point.  I don't at all view Trump as an anomaly or an aberration.  He is the logical and inevitable conclusion to what we've  been leading up to over the past 20-odd years (since Bill was in office).   He's our President, and while I don't like most of what he's doing, I didn't like most of what Obama did, either, and so for me there's no "shock" here.  There's no "hangover" from eight years of "my way!" to recover from, and no "wow, FINALLY I got my turn!" that so many Republicans are wallowing in.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 03, 2018, 10:24:56 AM
All of which has been a long-winded way of saying that when it comes to Donald Trump, sometimes (not always, but sometimes) the ad hominem approach is perfectly justified to me, because he is offering no coherent argument for discussion and it's his character that deserves the disdain.

Well done and well said.  I don't agree, necessarily, but certainly well said.

Let me ask you this, though:  under what OBJECTIVE standard - and that's important - do you - or we, since it ought to be replicable - get to decide that "this" is justified?   Many people thought that it was "justified" under Obama, under Bush, under Clinton (in my view, when it started in earnest).   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on January 03, 2018, 10:31:16 AM
We don't need an objective standard. This isn't science, nor should criticism necessarily be.

If it is for you, cool, but not everyone works the same way.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 03, 2018, 10:55:27 AM
We don't need an objective standard. This isn't science, nor should criticism necessarily be.

If it is for you, cool, but not everyone works the same way.

Then where does it end?  You've just advocated for a huge, national, political game of "I know you are, but what am I?" if we're all allowed to at our own pace and own discretion "RESIST!" anyone we just don't like.   That's not what the system was designed for.   That's not what John Adams and Tom Jefferson - two guys that were not all that politically alike, I remind you - bargained for.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Dave_Manchester on January 03, 2018, 11:17:36 AM
All of which has been a long-winded way of saying that when it comes to Donald Trump, sometimes (not always, but sometimes) the ad hominem approach is perfectly justified to me, because he is offering no coherent argument for discussion and it's his character that deserves the disdain.

Well done and well said.  I don't agree, necessarily, but certainly well said.

Let me ask you this, though:  under what OBJECTIVE standard - and that's important - do you - or we, since it ought to be replicable - get to decide that "this" is justified?   Many people thought that it was "justified" under Obama, under Bush, under Clinton (in my view, when it started in earnest).

My answer is the same as Adami's - there is no objective standard, and can't be, because human behaviour doesn't have 'objective' rights and wrongs (beyond perhaps a few very fundamental tenets, though the philosophers would argue even that). When I decide to make an ad hominem argument, my consideration is whether I - personally I and nobody else - consider the person in question to be an idiot on that occasion by my own standard.

But to the point of 'replicable', I think there are occasions when idiocy is beyond the reasonable debate of intelligent people. The best example I can come up with now is the one I mentioned earlier - a President (Trump) tweeting to the world that his Secretary of State is "wasting your time, Rex!" by doing the very job he is employed to do, as America's top diplomat. That is, to me, and to use political lingo, an utterly fucking stupid thing to do. When I discussed that tweet with my colleagues, a murmur of agreement went around the room that it was, indeed, an utterly fucking stupid thing for him to do. Chatting online with people over at MP's place, there was consensus among both the anti-Trump and the ambivalent-to-Trump crowds that it was an utterly fucking stupid thing to do. On a flight to Rome recently I was sitting next to an elderly Catholic nun and when I asked her what she thought of that tweet, she said "Truly my child, that was an utterly fucking stupid thing to do". My wife's 4 year old niece is currently learning to read and when I spent an hour walking her through each letter of Trump's tweet, the little tot looked up at me with those beautiful wide innocent eyes and said "Well that's just an utterly fucking stupid thing to do, isn't it?" Objective standards are rarely achievable, so we trust in the 'natural' sense that intelligent and sensitive humans have developed for what is stupid and reckless.

Look at it this way. Imagine your daughter comes home from school and says this to you:

Daughter: "Dad, you remember that older boy in the class below me, the one with the weirdly large head who eats chalk and writes with crayons? Today he unleashed a torrent of abuse in my direction"

You: "How do you feel about that?"

Daughter: "Meh, fuck him, he's an idiot. I'm gonna go crank some tunes before dinner..."

In this scenario would you call her back and say "Now then young lady, can you OBJECTIVELY prove that he's an idiot?" Because in my opinion, it isn't necessary. Sometimes 'stupid' is like the famous definition of porn: I know it when I see it.

None of that excuses dismissing an argument in favour of an ad hominem attack. That is always wrong. What I'm saying is that in the absence of a sensible argument, and when the person is saying what he is saying because of his idiotic (or in Trump's case, immature) character, then expressing disdain for that character is fair game to me.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on January 03, 2018, 11:28:36 AM
We don't need an objective standard. This isn't science, nor should criticism necessarily be.

If it is for you, cool, but not everyone works the same way.

Then where does it end?  You've just advocated for a huge, national, political game of "I know you are, but what am I?" if we're all allowed to at our own pace and own discretion "RESIST!" anyone we just don't like.   That's not what the system was designed for.   That's not what John Adams and Tom Jefferson - two guys that were not all that politically alike, I remind you - bargained for.

The world isn't black and white. It's not an all or nothing thing, even though you keep presenting things that way.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on January 03, 2018, 11:47:56 AM
Seems to me that everybody here agrees that Trump is a fucking idiot. Hell, if I started this thread I'd change the name to "Trump is a fucking idiot." None of us have any qualms or misgivings about that ad hominem attack and there's no need for it to be objective. However, if my response to a question about his presidency is "because he's a fucking idiot" then I've accomplished nothing other than to dumb down the debate. Objectivity is important there, and Stadler would be correct in calling it out.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on January 03, 2018, 11:52:44 AM
Seems to me that everybody here agrees that Trump is a fucking idiot. Hell, if I started this thread I'd change the name to "Trump is a fucking idiot." None of us have any qualms or misgivings about that ad hominem attack and there's no need for it to be objective. However, if my response to a question about his presidency is "because he's a fucking idiot" then I've accomplished nothing other than to dumb down the debate. Objectivity is important there, and Stadler would be correct in calling it out.

That would be in violation of rule #7

Quote
7. Offensive language/profanity in thread titles is prohibited.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Cool Chris on January 03, 2018, 11:55:27 AM
Hell, if I started this thread I'd change the name to "Trump is a fucking idiot."

I would report the thread as a hijacked account because the real El Barto calls him Grabby, not Trump.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on January 03, 2018, 11:56:08 AM
Seems to me that everybody here agrees that Trump is a fucking idiot. Hell, if I started this thread I'd change the name to "Trump is a fucking idiot." None of us have any qualms or misgivings about that ad hominem attack and there's no need for it to be objective. However, if my response to a question about his presidency is "because he's a fucking idiot" then I've accomplished nothing other than to dumb down the debate. Objectivity is important there, and Stadler would be correct in calling it out.

True, but maybe I'm not reading enough of the thread, but is that happening? It seems like Stads is calling for the objective standard for talking about him in general. Saying that all we can say is "don't like him" which means everybody we don't like is equal in it. Which I very much disagree because it makes it completely binary and meaningless.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Dave_Manchester on January 03, 2018, 12:02:18 PM
Seems to me that everybody here agrees that Trump is a fucking idiot. Hell, if I started this thread I'd change the name to "Trump is a fucking idiot." None of us have any qualms or misgivings about that ad hominem attack and there's no need for it to be objective. However, if my response to a question about his presidency is "because he's a fucking idiot" then I've accomplished nothing other than to dumb down the debate. Objectivity is important there, and Stadler would be correct in calling it out.

Generally that is true, but what to do when variations of "Because he's a fucking idiot" is in fact the answer, and there's nothing more to be said on that particular issue? If somebody asks you "Why did the American president stand up in the United Nations General Assembly and refer to the North Korean leader as Rocket Man?", what would you answer? Because my answer would be that it's because of a feature of his infantile character which consistently and indiscriminately deals in insult, caricature and name-calling. If I wanted to be brief, I'd simply say "Because sometimes he's an immature dipshit". How have I dumbed down the debate there? To me, I have merely given the correct answer to a question which required no deeper analysis than that. It doesn't mean that saying "Trump is an idiot" is the answer to every question concerning him. But that is sometimes the answer to questions concerning him. Knowing the difference between the two scenarios is something which, to return to Potter Stewart's porn definition, I would hope is obvious to intelligent and aware adults. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Kattelox on January 03, 2018, 12:14:20 PM
I think Dave knocked it out of the park with that longer post on why he's okay with calling Trump an idiot sometimes.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on January 03, 2018, 12:19:19 PM
He's just a fucking idiot.

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/uDFmIDPzCo4znxgzKlT0_jgv4CqHkarUrQ005ED_HbclD4Ex32hmOHsAn95kbFc_WZMiOQ1BMlRj4Fu-vDLyOgnT3syuxfWFY8KxoEWpqd9gxcPzZnQUM8q76jkJzs7IQUNr_cUt)
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/BjIm7iSrVRDX6kHicE_stfvuvM96M-DvKfTaJTUuWHSKua8j8CJNujTzJt_Tp83mkIOPPYKvetUTRssizqhqUQrLL3EKMq8xIVgHKdpdz2uEZvy9lH_Lj3VcLdTVP9akBjhXQbTv)
(http://www.relativelyinteresting.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/donald-trump-climate-change-denial-tweet.jpg)
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/HH9eGt0eVAZ8BGEvspdw5BFiB4KryCYU6ErBiJILkGAqg5FJsT9i4tKvM0zt57CqtRQts-QyJ-WM76fEOxAxRa0UEMzwVF1gHpq6j9v6fhp5KRW3jDGcLLK6_0yG_QGji4W4tMAW)
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.3209483.1496242634!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/lvclimatetrump1n.jpg)
(https://assets.rbl.ms/14832254/980x.png)


Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on January 03, 2018, 01:16:05 PM
*snip - economy stuff*

But if Trump ISN'T responsible, then NO President is responsible, and vice versa.   

That is some seriously flawed reasoning - that past Presidents only had an impact on the economy because they were POTUS, ergo Trump must've impacted the economy *because* he's POTUS.  There are LOTS of ways that the President can impact the economy outside of just being POTUS.  To Trump must get some credit because past Presidents got credit is a pretty childish means of deductive reasoning, and you're smarter than that.

To me, I have merely given the correct answer to a question which required no deeper analysis than that.

But we all know, for Stadler, EVERYTHING requires a deep analysis - including why the sky is or is not blue, or why water is or is not wet.   ;)
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Kattelox on January 03, 2018, 01:27:43 PM
Lord, it gets better. He's finally unleashed on Bannon!

https://twitter.com/PeterAlexander/status/948620185937895430
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on January 03, 2018, 01:33:31 PM
 :corn

I guess that's his retort for the "treasonous" statements that came out this morning from the Bannon camp.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Cool Chris on January 03, 2018, 01:34:14 PM
I don't know what to make of Bannon. I had never heard of the guy, or Breitbart, prior to 2016, and then the liberal (sorry) media completely trashes the guy once he is associated with Trump's campaign. But the guy had a plan. Ignoring the virtues or drawbacks of the plans for a moment, the guy had plans. We all saw the white board. If the guy in the Oval Office has a plan, I have no idea what it is.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on January 03, 2018, 01:44:20 PM
Somebody knows something big is about to drop. Mueller is due for another indictment or two.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on January 03, 2018, 01:54:43 PM
"Steve was a staffer who worked for me after I had already won the nomination by defeating seventeen candidates..."


Executive Chairman of the Campaign and White House Chief Strategist are considered staffer positions?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Kattelox on January 03, 2018, 02:02:24 PM
 :lol

:corn :corn :corn
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 03, 2018, 03:00:13 PM
Seems to me that everybody here agrees that Trump is a fucking idiot. Hell, if I started this thread I'd change the name to "Trump is a fucking idiot." None of us have any qualms or misgivings about that ad hominem attack and there's no need for it to be objective. However, if my response to a question about his presidency is "because he's a fucking idiot" then I've accomplished nothing other than to dumb down the debate. Objectivity is important there, and Stadler would be correct in calling it out.

This is also to Adami and Dave, in the two posts above el Barto's.   

I think the difference I'm trying to make is what Dave alludes to in his last paragraph; the point at which the ad hominem argument goes past supplementing - adding color to - a more cogent political argument and moves to the ONLY argument.   And I think this is important beyond Adami's little digs about "wanting black and white".  I do NOT want a "black and white" world in that sense.   I'm arguing for the grey here.   

It's a popular line of dialogue now - Mike Mills said it on Dan Rather, Alec Baldwin said it on Stern, you see it here (Chino I think said it) - that not only is Trump a "fucking idiot", but the people who voted for him are as well.   And then - since people (whether they are idiots or not) have an aversion to being called "idiots", they turn tail.  So when the "other guy" gets in, all of a sudden, not because he/she IS an idiot, or the people that voted for him are idiots, that's what the argument is.   

I'm a process guy, and I'm one to show respect to our institutions, even the ones I don't like.   I think the ACA is the worst legislation we've passed in a 100 years, but that doesn't mean we can ignore it.  Or call it names.  Or call it's leading proponent a "fucking idiot".    Much of the attack - "Trump's a fucking idiot!" - essentially boils down to "he's not doing what I want him to do, and he's not doing it the way I'd want him to do it, so now I don't have to follow the rules."   It's a never-ending cycle.   I'm not worried about Trump, no, I'm worried what comes NEXT.   in a world that accepts "he's a fucking idiot" as cogent political commentary, and looks to Twitter for a lead on conducting political discourse.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on January 03, 2018, 03:18:13 PM
Seems to me that everybody here agrees that Trump is a fucking idiot. Hell, if I started this thread I'd change the name to "Trump is a fucking idiot." None of us have any qualms or misgivings about that ad hominem attack and there's no need for it to be objective. However, if my response to a question about his presidency is "because he's a fucking idiot" then I've accomplished nothing other than to dumb down the debate. Objectivity is important there, and Stadler would be correct in calling it out.

This is also to Adami and Dave, in the two posts above el Barto's.   

I think the difference I'm trying to make is what Dave alludes to in his last paragraph; the point at which the ad hominem argument goes past supplementing - adding color to - a more cogent political argument and moves to the ONLY argument.   And I think this is important beyond Adami's little digs about "wanting black and white".  I do NOT want a "black and white" world in that sense.   I'm arguing for the grey here.   

It's a popular line of dialogue now - Mike Mills said it on Dan Rather, Alec Baldwin said it on Stern, you see it here (Chino I think said it) - that not only is Trump a "fucking idiot", but the people who voted for him are as well.   And then - since people (whether they are idiots or not) have an aversion to being called "idiots", they turn tail.  So when the "other guy" gets in, all of a sudden, not because he/she IS an idiot, or the people that voted for him are idiots, that's what the argument is.   

I'm a process guy, and I'm one to show respect to our institutions, even the ones I don't like.   I think the ACA is the worst legislation we've passed in a 100 years, but that doesn't mean we can ignore it.  Or call it names.  Or call it's leading proponent a "fucking idiot".    Much of the attack - "Trump's a fucking idiot!" - essentially boils down to "he's not doing what I want him to do, and he's not doing it the way I'd want him to do it, so now I don't have to follow the rules."   It's a never-ending cycle.   I'm not worried about Trump, no, I'm worried what comes NEXT.   in a world that accepts "he's a fucking idiot" as cogent political commentary, and looks to Twitter for a lead on conducting political discourse.
But you, as with the rest of us, think he's a fucking idiot, and for reasons other than he's not doing what you would like.

If Warren from There's Something about Mary managed to get elected president, would "he's an idiot!" be valid political commentary? How mentally defective does one have to be?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: portnoy311 on January 04, 2018, 05:57:45 AM
Jesus fucking Christ... I really fucking hate this man. I seriously can't wrap my head around anyone that is still truly in support of him. How can you look at that man with that kind of rhetoric and think to yourself "yes, this is improving America's position in the world"?

I know a handful of Trump supporters. To them the economy is the only thing that matters,  and since ours is in good shape then Trump is doing great. Lots of talk about consumer confidence, jobs, unemployment rate, deregulation. I fundamentally disagree that Trump's administration should be taking credit for the lion's share, but that's the argument they make. I've seen and read many economists predicting a downturn in 2019 (everything is cyclical, after all), which predictably will be blamed on the the 2018 midterms going to the Dems, no doubt.

Everything else ranges from irrelevant to, "As long as it pisses off liberals" in my conversations with them.

But how do you draw the line when it comes to "taking credit for economics"?  It's not one or the other when it comes to that.   Frankly, I think other than consumer confidence - meaning, the idea that those with money are willing to spend it, knowing that they aren't going to be blindsided by a costly, inefficient tax* of some kind - the President does little to impact the economy.   But if Trump ISN'T responsible, then NO President is responsible, and vice versa.  I think he DOES get some credit for jumpstarting this.   It was evident literally on a minute to minute basis on election night as the results came in.   

As for the last thing, well, there's enough of that to go around on  both sides, isn't there?

I honestly don't get what your point is? My point was that because the economy hasn't tanked in the first year, many (including the Trump supporters I know the best personally) are willing to look the other way on literally every other aspect and decision of his presidency. You're not seeming to refute that, and are even agreeing that Trump is not the biggest reason for us being where we are economically. Chino also laid out good reason to think his decisions will hurt us economically beyond just looking at 2018.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: cramx3 on January 04, 2018, 07:19:52 AM
Is it just me or are his tweets getting worse?  I think with the new character limit being higher, he's spouting out even more.  I'd say if he didn't have twitter and we were left in the dark a bit more about his thoughts, we would be better off.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on January 04, 2018, 07:49:22 AM
I think they definitely are. The wheels are starting to come off the bus, and I think Bannon's e tu Brute moment might have been a tipping point.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 04, 2018, 11:11:13 AM
Seems to me that everybody here agrees that Trump is a fucking idiot. Hell, if I started this thread I'd change the name to "Trump is a fucking idiot." None of us have any qualms or misgivings about that ad hominem attack and there's no need for it to be objective. However, if my response to a question about his presidency is "because he's a fucking idiot" then I've accomplished nothing other than to dumb down the debate. Objectivity is important there, and Stadler would be correct in calling it out.

This is also to Adami and Dave, in the two posts above el Barto's.   

I think the difference I'm trying to make is what Dave alludes to in his last paragraph; the point at which the ad hominem argument goes past supplementing - adding color to - a more cogent political argument and moves to the ONLY argument.   And I think this is important beyond Adami's little digs about "wanting black and white".  I do NOT want a "black and white" world in that sense.   I'm arguing for the grey here.   

It's a popular line of dialogue now - Mike Mills said it on Dan Rather, Alec Baldwin said it on Stern, you see it here (Chino I think said it) - that not only is Trump a "fucking idiot", but the people who voted for him are as well.   And then - since people (whether they are idiots or not) have an aversion to being called "idiots", they turn tail.  So when the "other guy" gets in, all of a sudden, not because he/she IS an idiot, or the people that voted for him are idiots, that's what the argument is.   

I'm a process guy, and I'm one to show respect to our institutions, even the ones I don't like.   I think the ACA is the worst legislation we've passed in a 100 years, but that doesn't mean we can ignore it.  Or call it names.  Or call it's leading proponent a "fucking idiot".    Much of the attack - "Trump's a fucking idiot!" - essentially boils down to "he's not doing what I want him to do, and he's not doing it the way I'd want him to do it, so now I don't have to follow the rules."   It's a never-ending cycle.   I'm not worried about Trump, no, I'm worried what comes NEXT.   in a world that accepts "he's a fucking idiot" as cogent political commentary, and looks to Twitter for a lead on conducting political discourse.
But you, as with the rest of us, think he's a fucking idiot, and for reasons other than he's not doing what you would like.

If Warren from There's Something about Mary managed to get elected president, would "he's an idiot!" be valid political commentary? How mentally defective does one have to be?

But here's the thing:  IF HE GETS ELECTED, it doesn't matter.  I said I adhere to the process, and I MEANT it.   I don't buy this "not my President"  bullshit one bit.   I liked some, I didn't like others, but from Carter to Trump, I get my chance in November every quadrennium, and after that, the winner is my President.    I get it, sometimes things change and certainly we can't elect a Rhodes Scholar who has a brain aneurysm and expect them to lead, but that's not this.   He was elected FAIR AND SQUARE, because a certain sector of society was tired of bad economic policies and identity politics coming first, sometimes to the exclusion of all other politics.    PERIOD.   I'm not dumb and I'm not naïve; I do concede that there are things that Trump does that are potentially REALLY dangerous - his tendency to speak without thinking, to speak without knowing the potential unintended consequences, to speak without knowing the complexity of the issues he's speaking about - but I saw the same thing with Obama (CHINA!), and policy wise, I literally do not see any difference between him and Obama.   Both are championing causes that are economically untenable, and which do nothing but pander to a particular base.    So how do you get to call one of those men a "fucking idiot" and not the other?   And at that point, at what point does anyone who's not "my guy" then just by definition become a "fucking idiot"?    Bush was called - on the daily - a "fucking idiot".    Really?   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Kattelox on January 04, 2018, 11:21:11 AM
Probably because one of them puts himself out there as a fucking idiot on an hourly basis and the other didn't. But that's just my opinion, I might be alone there. Not a hard conclusion to come to. If you saw someone on a daily basis shouting or tweeting the things Trump has for years now, you'd call them an idiot, too.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 04, 2018, 11:28:35 AM
*snip - economy stuff*

But if Trump ISN'T responsible, then NO President is responsible, and vice versa.   

That is some seriously flawed reasoning - that past Presidents only had an impact on the economy because they were POTUS, ergo Trump must've impacted the economy *because* he's POTUS.  There are LOTS of ways that the President can impact the economy outside of just being POTUS.  To Trump must get some credit because past Presidents got credit is a pretty childish means of deductive reasoning, and you're smarter than that.

That was not at all the reasoning.  People don't impact the economy "because" he's President.   I never said that, and if it came off that way, it's my responsibility, but let me set the record straight here:  that's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that AS POTUS, the person matters.   

Businesses care about ONE THING:  consistency.  In the most simplistic sense, they want to know that if they invest dollar 1 today with the idea that they will reap $10 two years from now, that - to the extent possible - the ground rules of that investment won't change.   Obviously, things will change.  Inventions will happen, variables like weather and what not will happen, but in this context, they want to know that the regulatory scheme will not be sabotaged while their in mid-leap, investment-wise.    It's why the real estate market that made literally tens of micro-corrections in the five years previous began to unravel once it was clear that the laissez-faire governing of Bush was coming to a close and it was more than likely that Obama/Clinton was going to be President, and it really burst once the "Audacity of Hope" guy was going to have a real shot at this.   Read that book, it's important to this line of thinking, but I was in the real estate market at the time (I lost my job in the crash) and the money didn't dry up.   The saying around my parts was "keeping their powder dry".   They weren't going to invest in real estate knowing that the environmental regulations were in play, knowing that financial/mortgage rules were in play, and that the whole system could be upended (as called for in The Audacity of Hope).   

LITERALLY the night of the election, early in the evening, when everyone - including Trump - thought Hillary was going to win, the market futures were where they were.   When Trump was clearly much closer than anyone thought, some early actors targeted the futures market and things started to creep up.  Then - it was, if memory serves (don't quote me) around 1 am or so - when it became a reality that Trump could win this, the futures market spiked, and we've never looked back.    The market is up not because Trump is Trump, not "because" Trump is President, not because he's an economic wizard, but ONLY because the people pouring money INTO the stock market know full well that he - or his administration - will not do ANYTHING to upset that apple cart.     Someone here said that when the inevitable tank happens "he'll blame it on the midterm elections" but here's the thing:  that is EXACTLY the right answer.    The market WILL cool when and if the Dems take some control over legislature, because it is a blow to CERTAINTY.    It's not "partisan politics", it's reality.   When a party makes "Wall Street" their spoken target, when one candidate cannot give a speech without using the perforative "billionaires" it's a level of uncertainty that raises the rate of return on investments, which in turn limits the number of investments made, which in turn limits the money pouring into the stock market. 

This is graduate level economics, but first year graduate level economics. 

Quote
To me, I have merely given the correct answer to a question which required no deeper analysis than that.

But we all know, for Stadler, EVERYTHING requires a deep analysis - including why the sky is or is not blue, or why water is or is not wet.   ;)

Stop; I've heard that before too many times to count (there's a guy, Kirks Nose Hair, that hates me to this day because I called him out on "hot is hot").   You're much further over on the spectrum than I am; I'm not debating EVERYTHING, I'm just calling out when there's NO debate.  It's like the kid that asks "can I play outside?" and gets "no", asks "why", and gets "because I said so!".     "Trump's a fucking idiot" is, more often than not, the political equivalent of "because I said so".   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 04, 2018, 11:29:08 AM
Probably because one of them puts himself out there as a fucking idiot on an hourly basis and the other didn't. But that's just my opinion, I might be alone there. Not a hard conclusion to come to.

This is not about Obama.  ;)  :) :)
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 04, 2018, 11:32:37 AM
Jesus fucking Christ... I really fucking hate this man. I seriously can't wrap my head around anyone that is still truly in support of him. How can you look at that man with that kind of rhetoric and think to yourself "yes, this is improving America's position in the world"?

I know a handful of Trump supporters. To them the economy is the only thing that matters,  and since ours is in good shape then Trump is doing great. Lots of talk about consumer confidence, jobs, unemployment rate, deregulation. I fundamentally disagree that Trump's administration should be taking credit for the lion's share, but that's the argument they make. I've seen and read many economists predicting a downturn in 2019 (everything is cyclical, after all), which predictably will be blamed on the the 2018 midterms going to the Dems, no doubt.

Everything else ranges from irrelevant to, "As long as it pisses off liberals" in my conversations with them.

But how do you draw the line when it comes to "taking credit for economics"?  It's not one or the other when it comes to that.   Frankly, I think other than consumer confidence - meaning, the idea that those with money are willing to spend it, knowing that they aren't going to be blindsided by a costly, inefficient tax* of some kind - the President does little to impact the economy.   But if Trump ISN'T responsible, then NO President is responsible, and vice versa.  I think he DOES get some credit for jumpstarting this.   It was evident literally on a minute to minute basis on election night as the results came in.   

As for the last thing, well, there's enough of that to go around on  both sides, isn't there?

I honestly don't get what your point is? My point was that because the economy hasn't tanked in the first year, many (including the Trump supporters I know the best personally) are willing to look the other way on literally every other aspect and decision of his presidency. You're not seeming to refute that, and are even agreeing that Trump is not the biggest reason for us being where we are economically. Chino also laid out good reason to think his decisions will hurt us economically beyond just looking at 2018.

How is that any different than the Lesbian that doesn't give a shit about free tuition, or Wall Street, or the capital of Israel, but voted Bernie/Hillary because she wants to marry her partner THAT BADLY.   How is that any different than the person that voted for Al "I invented the interwebs" Gore for no other reason than he pledged to end the war in Iraq?     Just because I choose not to think that short term or one issue doesn't mean others can't.   It is the price of a democracy.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 04, 2018, 11:35:26 AM
I think they definitely are. The wheels are starting to come off the bus, and I think Bannon's e tu Brute moment might have been a tipping point.

I forget now if I called it here or on the other board I frequent, but for all my "blah blah blah" when it comes to criticism of Trump,  I think this is the one to watch.  I don't at all think it's going to work out the way the left want it to ("Be careful what you wish for!") but I think of all the things that could trip up Trump, an attack from the inside like this is it.  Bannon is the trifecta:  he's a smart and knowledgeable, he's motivated and has an agenda, and he's got nothing to lose and has no conscience.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on January 04, 2018, 12:35:10 PM
Seems to me that everybody here agrees that Trump is a fucking idiot. Hell, if I started this thread I'd change the name to "Trump is a fucking idiot." None of us have any qualms or misgivings about that ad hominem attack and there's no need for it to be objective. However, if my response to a question about his presidency is "because he's a fucking idiot" then I've accomplished nothing other than to dumb down the debate. Objectivity is important there, and Stadler would be correct in calling it out.

This is also to Adami and Dave, in the two posts above el Barto's.   

I think the difference I'm trying to make is what Dave alludes to in his last paragraph; the point at which the ad hominem argument goes past supplementing - adding color to - a more cogent political argument and moves to the ONLY argument.   And I think this is important beyond Adami's little digs about "wanting black and white".  I do NOT want a "black and white" world in that sense.   I'm arguing for the grey here.   

It's a popular line of dialogue now - Mike Mills said it on Dan Rather, Alec Baldwin said it on Stern, you see it here (Chino I think said it) - that not only is Trump a "fucking idiot", but the people who voted for him are as well.   And then - since people (whether they are idiots or not) have an aversion to being called "idiots", they turn tail.  So when the "other guy" gets in, all of a sudden, not because he/she IS an idiot, or the people that voted for him are idiots, that's what the argument is.   

I'm a process guy, and I'm one to show respect to our institutions, even the ones I don't like.   I think the ACA is the worst legislation we've passed in a 100 years, but that doesn't mean we can ignore it.  Or call it names.  Or call it's leading proponent a "fucking idiot".    Much of the attack - "Trump's a fucking idiot!" - essentially boils down to "he's not doing what I want him to do, and he's not doing it the way I'd want him to do it, so now I don't have to follow the rules."   It's a never-ending cycle.   I'm not worried about Trump, no, I'm worried what comes NEXT.   in a world that accepts "he's a fucking idiot" as cogent political commentary, and looks to Twitter for a lead on conducting political discourse.
But you, as with the rest of us, think he's a fucking idiot, and for reasons other than he's not doing what you would like.

If Warren from There's Something about Mary managed to get elected president, would "he's an idiot!" be valid political commentary? How mentally defective does one have to be?

But here's the thing:  IF HE GETS ELECTED, it doesn't matter.  I said I adhere to the process, and I MEANT it.   I don't buy this "not my President"  bullshit one bit.   I liked some, I didn't like others, but from Carter to Trump, I get my chance in November every quadrennium, and after that, the winner is my President.    I get it, sometimes things change and certainly we can't elect a Rhodes Scholar who has a brain aneurysm and expect them to lead, but that's not this.   He was elected FAIR AND SQUARE, because a certain sector of society was tired of bad economic policies and identity politics coming first, sometimes to the exclusion of all other politics.    PERIOD.   I'm not dumb and I'm not naïve; I do concede that there are things that Trump does that are potentially REALLY dangerous - his tendency to speak without thinking, to speak without knowing the potential unintended consequences, to speak without knowing the complexity of the issues he's speaking about - but I saw the same thing with Obama (CHINA!), and policy wise, I literally do not see any difference between him and Obama.   Both are championing causes that are economically untenable, and which do nothing but pander to a particular base.    So how do you get to call one of those men a "fucking idiot" and not the other?   And at that point, at what point does anyone who's not "my guy" then just by definition become a "fucking idiot"?    Bush was called - on the daily - a "fucking idiot".    Really?
Does Trump represent you?

As for the idiocy part, you (as in you, Bill) can tell a smart guy from a dumbass. Can't you? Where does Trump fall into place? Howabout Obama. I agree with you that fairly often it's simply a matter of whether or not you agree with his policies, but sometimes a person is genuinely dumb. I've long maintained that W was a simple man devoid of intellectual curiosity. I think Obama was fairly bright guy who mistakenly thought his intelligence would make him a good president. Trump is simply retarded, and his defect is more emotional than intellectual. You've gotten to know me pretty well over the years. Am I talking out of my ass here, or out of a sense of party loyalty? This is my honest assessment of these people.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on January 04, 2018, 12:39:42 PM
*snip - economy stuff*

But if Trump ISN'T responsible, then NO President is responsible, and vice versa.   

That is some seriously flawed reasoning - that past Presidents only had an impact on the economy because they were POTUS, ergo Trump must've impacted the economy *because* he's POTUS.  There are LOTS of ways that the President can impact the economy outside of just being POTUS.  To Trump must get some credit because past Presidents got credit is a pretty childish means of deductive reasoning, and you're smarter than that.

That was not at all the reasoning.  People don't impact the economy "because" he's President.   I never said that, and if it came off that way, it's my responsibility, but let me set the record straight here:  that's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that AS POTUS, the person matters.   

Businesses care about ONE THING:  consistency.  In the most simplistic sense, they want to know that if they invest dollar 1 today with the idea that they will reap $10 two years from now, that - to the extent possible - the ground rules of that investment won't change.   Obviously, things will change.  Inventions will happen, variables like weather and what not will happen, but in this context, they want to know that the regulatory scheme will not be sabotaged while their in mid-leap, investment-wise.    It's why the real estate market that made literally tens of micro-corrections in the five years previous began to unravel once it was clear that the laissez-faire governing of Bush was coming to a close and it was more than likely that Obama/Clinton was going to be President, and it really burst once the "Audacity of Hope" guy was going to have a real shot at this.   Read that book, it's important to this line of thinking, but I was in the real estate market at the time (I lost my job in the crash) and the money didn't dry up.   The saying around my parts was "keeping their powder dry".   They weren't going to invest in real estate knowing that the environmental regulations were in play, knowing that financial/mortgage rules were in play, and that the whole system could be upended (as called for in The Audacity of Hope).   

LITERALLY the night of the election, early in the evening, when everyone - including Trump - thought Hillary was going to win, the market futures were where they were.   When Trump was clearly much closer than anyone thought, some early actors targeted the futures market and things started to creep up.  Then - it was, if memory serves (don't quote me) around 1 am or so - when it became a reality that Trump could win this, the futures market spiked, and we've never looked back.    The market is up not because Trump is Trump, not "because" Trump is President, not because he's an economic wizard, but ONLY because the people pouring money INTO the stock market know full well that he - or his administration - will not do ANYTHING to upset that apple cart.     Someone here said that when the inevitable tank happens "he'll blame it on the midterm elections" but here's the thing:  that is EXACTLY the right answer.    The market WILL cool when and if the Dems take some control over legislature, because it is a blow to CERTAINTY.    It's not "partisan politics", it's reality.   When a party makes "Wall Street" their spoken target, when one candidate cannot give a speech without using the perforative "billionaires" it's a level of uncertainty that raises the rate of return on investments, which in turn limits the number of investments made, which in turn limits the money pouring into the stock market. 

This is graduate level economics, but first year graduate level economics. 

And I still maintain that the flaw in your reasoning is that Grabby was elected precisely because he intended to upset the apple cart. Obama made very clear what he intended to do. Trump did as well. What it comes down to isn't certainty, but certainty you'll get what you want.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Cool Chris on January 04, 2018, 12:48:48 PM
Barto, I know you are a old-school, but as the wife of a special ed teacher, I am often reminded you aren't allowed to call someone retarded any more  :-X

But with regards to Trump, is being "emotionally deficient" make someone "retarded" or a "fucking idiot?" Smart guys can be terrible politicians, dummies can make a career out of it. Ford wasn't Mensa material, but he was generally a good, honest long-serving politician.  Trump isn't an idiot in the low-IQ category, he just out-kicked his coverage in his current job.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on January 04, 2018, 01:19:01 PM
Stadler, your post on certainty almost has me believing what you wrote.  It's quite the fantasy to blame the Great Recession on the potential of Obama winning. I won't discount that it played no part, but you make it seem it was the only part.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on January 04, 2018, 01:28:30 PM
Barto, I know you are a old-school, but as the wife of a special ed teacher, I am often reminded you aren't allowed to call someone retarded any more  :-X

But with regards to Trump, is being "emotionally deficient" make someone "retarded" or a "fucking idiot?" Smart guys can be terrible politicians, dummies can make a career out of it. Ford wasn't Mensa material, but he was generally a good, honest long-serving politician.  Trump isn't an idiot in the low-IQ category, he just out-kicked his coverage in his current job.
Hey, at least I don't call them Tards anymore.  :lol

In any case, there really isn't a better descriptor than retarded. They're developmentally slow compared to the norm. The fact that bullies started throwing "retarded" around doesn't make the term any less applicable or correct.  And nowhere is the effect of being emotionally stunted more pronounced than with Trump who has never demonstrated a maturity beyond ~10 or so years old. The dude might have a particularly high IQ, or might have tremendous aptitude. That's why I made the distinction. He's simply underdeveloped having never reached the mental maturity of an adult.

Also, I'm not sure but I think Ford was actually a really smart guy. He just looked like a dolt and talked slow.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: XeRocks81 on January 04, 2018, 01:39:15 PM
Stadler, your post on certainty almost has me believing what you wrote.  It's quite the fantasy to blame the Great Recession on the potential of Obama winning. I won't discount that it played no part, but you make it seem it was the only part.
It's quite something isn't it?  You'd think sub-prime mortgages, credit-default swaps etc were a mass hallucination and none of it happened.  Volume after volume written of analysis of everything that happened in the years prior to the financial crisis... nah it's Obama.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 04, 2018, 02:00:06 PM
Does Trump represent you?

I don't know how to answer that.   In terms of "being representative of my position on major issues", not even close.  In terms of "being my President and in charge of the system we've all pledged to support"?  Yes, indeed he does.   

Quote
As for the idiocy part, you (as in you, Bill) can tell a smart guy from a dumbass. Can't you? Where does Trump fall into place? Howabout Obama. I agree with you that fairly often it's simply a matter of whether or not you agree with his policies, but sometimes a person is genuinely dumb. I've long maintained that W was a simple man devoid of intellectual curiosity. I think Obama was fairly bright guy who mistakenly thought his intelligence would make him a good president. Trump is simply retarded, and his defect is more emotional than intellectual. You've gotten to know me pretty well over the years. Am I talking out of my ass here, or out of a sense of party loyalty? This is my honest assessment of these people.

Caveat:  All of this is "my opinion only"; I wrote this and wrote "in my opinion" about ten times, then deleted them and added this overall statement.   I agree with you on Bush and Obama (insofar as we're not talking about moral superiority).  As for Trump?  He's of average intelligence, who's emotional immaturity blunts whatever potency his intelligence offers him.  I would offer that he's also got a psychological makeup that is very reminiscent of my ex-wife, who exhibited signs of borderline personality disorder, with some narcissistic traits.  These all combine into what we see every day.   

None of this is to say that it necessarily means he is or will be a bad President.   It does mean he will be ineffective at certain aspects of being President.  If those things are important to you, you're going to be disappointed.   If they're not you won't care.  Past Presidents are the better examples here.   Clinton was a great President.   His arrogant disdain for the law was a shocking and fatal flaw for me, though.  He did some great things as President, but that "systemic arrogance" undermined him and will tarnish his legacy for some time (and has made it hard for Democrats since).   Bush was an above average President overall.  He blended a global view with a national view as well as any President since Reagan, maybe Nixon.     His lack of intellectual curiosity was a fatal flaw for me, as well.  I think to be the very best in that position you have to be willing to dig in to new things just because, and weather the dead ends that you might find.  It will also tarnish his legacy.   Obama was an average/below average President overall.  His moral superiority, and his inability to recognize that you can't change if the system you're working in doesn't change with you are his fatal flaws.  Belichick doesn't run the football against the best run defenses; he airs it out.  Obama tried to shoehorn his views into contexts they didn't belong, to the detriment of our country. 

In any event, this is all discussion. One thing that some of you don't quite get (Adami, I think you're here) is that I'm not at all saying you can't have opinions, or that you can't have your feelings for the President (or anyone else).  It's when those personal opinions supplant hard analysis - when they BECOME the hard analysis - and start to dictate how others can or should live their lives that we get in trouble.  When pure HATE becomes political analysis.  Isn't that what we're ostensibly railing AGAINST when we rail against Trump?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on January 04, 2018, 02:09:26 PM
Does Trump represent you?
I don't know how to answer that.   In terms of "being representative of my position on major issues", not even close.  In terms of "being my President and in charge of the system we've all pledged to support"?  Yes, indeed he does.   
That's a fuzzy line, ain't it. With regards to "not my president," I think it's important to consider the duality of him as representative. He was elected to represent us, but he doesn't represent us.

Quote

Quote
As for the idiocy part, you (as in you, Bill) can tell a smart guy from a dumbass. Can't you? Where does Trump fall into place? Howabout Obama. I agree with you that fairly often it's simply a matter of whether or not you agree with his policies, but sometimes a person is genuinely dumb. I've long maintained that W was a simple man devoid of intellectual curiosity. I think Obama was fairly bright guy who mistakenly thought his intelligence would make him a good president. Trump is simply retarded, and his defect is more emotional than intellectual. You've gotten to know me pretty well over the years. Am I talking out of my ass here, or out of a sense of party loyalty? This is my honest assessment of these people.

Caveat:  All of this is "my opinion only"; I wrote this and wrote "in my opinion" about ten times, then deleted them and added this overall statement.   I agree with you on Bush and Obama (insofar as we're not talking about moral superiority).  As for Trump?  He's of average intelligence, who's emotional immaturity blunts whatever potency his intelligence offers him.  I would offer that he's also got a psychological makeup that is very reminiscent of my ex-wife, who exhibited signs of borderline personality disorder, with some narcissistic traits.  These all combine into what we see every day.   

None of this is to say that it necessarily means he is or will be a bad President.   It does mean he will be ineffective at certain aspects of being President.  If those things are important to you, you're going to be disappointed.   If they're not you won't care.  Past Presidents are the better examples here.   Clinton was a great President.   His arrogant disdain for the law was a shocking and fatal flaw for me, though.  He did some great things as President, but that "systemic arrogance" undermined him and will tarnish his legacy for some time (and has made it hard for Democrats since).   Bush was an above average President overall.  He blended a global view with a national view as well as any President since Reagan, maybe Nixon.     His lack of intellectual curiosity was a fatal flaw for me, as well.  I think to be the very best in that position you have to be willing to dig in to new things just because, and weather the dead ends that you might find.  It will also tarnish his legacy.   Obama was an average/below average President overall.  His moral superiority, and his inability to recognize that you can't change if the system you're working in doesn't change with you are his fatal flaws.  Belichick doesn't run the football against the best run defenses; he airs it out.  Obama tried to shoehorn his views into contexts they didn't belong, to the detriment of our country. 

In any event, this is all discussion. One thing that some of you don't quite get (Adami, I think you're here) is that I'm not at all saying you can't have opinions, or that you can't have your feelings for the President (or anyone else).  It's when those personal opinions supplant hard analysis - when they BECOME the hard analysis - and start to dictate how others can or should live their lives that we get in trouble.  When pure HATE becomes political analysis.  Isn't that what we're ostensibly railing AGAINST when we rail against Trump?
I agree with you on this. I just think that there can come a point where "he's a fucking idiot" is a valid argument, if his being an idiot makes him a bad president. We're seeing that here.



edit:
Quote
Bush was an above average President overall.  He blended a global view with a national view as well as any President since Reagan, maybe Nixon.
That's an interesting observation. He did seem to get the interrelatedness of it all. All the vision in the world won't help you if you listen to fools, though. While he might have seen that interconnectedness, the people he trusted to make it all come together shattered the big picture in spectacular fashion. Overall his blunders, grave blunders, brought his presidency down to a very low level. Fifteen years later we're only beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel he brought down upon us.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 04, 2018, 02:21:43 PM
And I still maintain that the flaw in your reasoning is that Grabby was elected precisely because he intended to upset the apple cart. Obama made very clear what he intended to do. Trump did as well. What it comes down to isn't certainty, but certainty you'll get what you want.

In the several years I've known you now, I don't think I've ever ONCE said or even implied that you don't know what you're talking about, and I want to take care that I don't start now.

But we're not talking about "general uncertainty", the "uncertainty" of an emotional person acting rashly.   We're talking about the economic uncertainty of changing environments.  You know, like epic sweeping legislation that mandates healthcare for everyone then starts implementing quick fixes every few months - over a hundred at last count - that fix nothing but change the game for companies looking to sell, buy and implement healthcare for EVERY SINGLE PERSON in the country.   Or sweeping environmental changes that seek to immediately stay drilling rights on $100's of millions of dollars of leases that are already invested in.   Or proposed legislation that ramps up - immediately with no grace period - the environmental standards for the sale of property, rendering $100's of millions of dollars (if not more) of property INSTANTLY unusable and unsalable.  Or proposed bills that INSTANTLY would render BILLIONS of dollars of student loan debt uncollectible.  Why do you think Obama cut an $80 BILLION dollar deal with Pharma to guarantee them their profits, and why do you think they then agreed to support Obamacare, when the single BIGGEST benefit that the ACA could have brought was leveraging drug prices? 

I'm loathe to simplify the economics of a $20 trillion economy to personal terms - it almost never works - but think if you were going to buy a car.  Say a sweet '78 Datsun 280Z.   You find one that with a little work could be worth about $5G that you can get for about $3K.  You can do the work for about $1K and you're ahead of the game.   As you're going to buy it, you see that President Obama is going to push to implement higher environmental controls on cars - global warming! it's not just a hoax! - and require even older cars to retrofit catalytic converters.   You know them to be $2K, even more.   Are you buying that car?  Or maybe you sit tight and see what unfolds?   Economic uncertainty.   NOT a guarantee, but the probably of an uncertain economic landscape that might preferentially help some over others (certainly the catalytic converter industry would be happy). 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 04, 2018, 02:30:13 PM
Stadler, your post on certainty almost has me believing what you wrote.  It's quite the fantasy to blame the Great Recession on the potential of Obama winning. I won't discount that it played no part, but you make it seem it was the only part.
It's quite something isn't it?  You'd think sub-prime mortgages, credit-default swaps etc were a mass hallucination and none of it happened.  Volume after volume written of analysis of everything that happened in the years prior to the financial crisis... nah it's Obama.

You guys are quick with the snark, but, as respectfully as you deserve, you are wrong on this one.  First, find me one place where I said all that was 'fantasy'.  I did not, and never have.  All those things were real and were a clear part of the problem.  Second, I'm not saying the potential of Obama winning" was the only variable and the only thing that mattered.  But it certainly was part of the trigger, and was enough to send what should have been a soft landing into the realm of "the Great Depression". Ask yourself, "why were all those devices in place for almost 20 years and no one called the number, no one panicked, but rather every time the pressure was tight it relieved itself slowly, and controllably?".   Then, all of a sudden, when Bush was 90% of the way through, and you're GUARANTEED of a new President, two of the three main candidates for which touted - to varying degrees - CHANGE, they decide to call in their chips?   Coincidence?   No such animal on Wall Street, mein frondes. 

If you think the $20 trillion economy of our nation is built on "coincidences" you guys are much further into the fantasy world than I have ever been. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 04, 2018, 02:34:10 PM
Does Trump represent you?
I don't know how to answer that.   In terms of "being representative of my position on major issues", not even close.  In terms of "being my President and in charge of the system we've all pledged to support"?  Yes, indeed he does.   
That's a fuzzy line, ain't it. With regards to "not my president," I think it's important to consider the duality of him as representative. He was elected to represent us, but he doesn't represent us.

Point duly taken; but there were plenty - what with the "popular vote" and whatnot - that meant it both ways. 

Quote
I agree with you on this. I just think that there can come a point where "he's a fucking idiot" is a valid argument, if his being an idiot makes him a bad president. We're seeing that here.

I think there's examples of that, but across the board?  No, and even if there was it's too early to tell (we're still seeing the impacts of Reagan/Clinton and it's two decades later).   



Quote
Quote
Bush was an above average President overall.  He blended a global view with a national view as well as any President since Reagan, maybe Nixon.
That's an interesting observation. He did seem to get the interrelatedness of it all. All the vision in the world won't help you if you listen to fools, though. While he might have seen that interconnectedness, the people he trusted to make it all come together shattered the big picture in spectacular fashion. Overall his blunders, grave blunders, brought his presidency down to a very low level. Fifteen years later we're only beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel he brought down upon us.

Iraq?  Maybe.  I don't think 50 years from now we're going to be hanging Iraq on his shoulders any more than we hang Vietnam on Kennedy's. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on January 04, 2018, 02:56:05 PM
And I still maintain that the flaw in your reasoning is that Grabby was elected precisely because he intended to upset the apple cart. Obama made very clear what he intended to do. Trump did as well. What it comes down to isn't certainty, but certainty you'll get what you want.

In the several years I've known you now, I don't think I've ever ONCE said or even implied that you don't know what you're talking about, and I want to take care that I don't start now.
If the MP.com forum didn't suck so massively hard I'd hunt down the post where you told me exactly that. In those very words. With an exclamation point!   :rollin

In any case, there are plenty of fields where you're welcome to tell me so, and macroeconomics is certainly one of them. But in this case I think the uncertainty you describe is always present. And doesn't constantly implementing and then revoking rules and regs qualify as uncertainty? I think where I and others run into a problem is that in your model it necessarily comes down to democrats tank the economy and republicans are the ones who make it great again. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: XeRocks81 on January 04, 2018, 03:06:53 PM
And I still maintain that the flaw in your reasoning is that Grabby was elected precisely because he intended to upset the apple cart. Obama made very clear what he intended to do. Trump did as well. What it comes down to isn't certainty, but certainty you'll get what you want.

In the several years I've known you now, I don't think I've ever ONCE said or even implied that you don't know what you're talking about, and I want to take care that I don't start now.
If the MP.com forum didn't suck so massively hard I'd hunt down the post where you told me exactly that. In those very words. With an exclamation point!   :rollin

In any case, there are plenty of fields where you're welcome to tell me so, and macroeconomics is certainly one of them. But in this case I think the uncertainty you describe is always present. And doesn't constantly implementing and then revoking rules and regs qualify as uncertainty? I think where I and others run into a problem is that in your model it necessarily comes down to democrats tank the economy and republicans are the ones who make it great again.

Bingo
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 04, 2018, 03:43:06 PM
And I still maintain that the flaw in your reasoning is that Grabby was elected precisely because he intended to upset the apple cart. Obama made very clear what he intended to do. Trump did as well. What it comes down to isn't certainty, but certainty you'll get what you want.

In the several years I've known you now, I don't think I've ever ONCE said or even implied that you don't know what you're talking about, and I want to take care that I don't start now.
If the MP.com forum didn't suck so massively hard I'd hunt down the post where you told me exactly that. In those very words. With an exclamation point!   :rollin

In any case, there are plenty of fields where you're welcome to tell me so, and macroeconomics is certainly one of them. But in this case I think the uncertainty you describe is always present. And doesn't constantly implementing and then revoking rules and regs qualify as uncertainty? I think where I and others run into a problem is that in your model it necessarily comes down to democrats tank the economy and republicans are the ones who make it great again.

Haha, yeah, maybe there was one time.  I don't know, I was drunk at the time.  :)

But yes, implementing and revoking rules does qualify as "uncertainty".  No one said there was NONE; that's what "interest" is for ("interest" or "profit" is another word for "risk factor" and accounts for that).  You know this inherently if you gamble; betting on "black" pays less because the risk is less than, say, betting on "20". 

And no, it doesn't boil down to "dems tank the economy and republicans are the ones that make it great again".    More often than not that seems to be true, but there are exceptions.   Bill Clinton - a Democrat true and true - understood the notion of "economic certainty" more than most Republicans to be honest, and the economy did just fine under him.   I don't think some of you (not you, el Barto, because we've talked about this) quite comprehend the level of economic impact something like the ACA has.  Even if at the end it zero's out, the impacts in between are where the uncertainty lies.  Every business that now may or may not have to supply healthcare, and for uncertain plans.  What  are the tax implications?  What are the liability implications?  Accounting implications (with reserves and what not).  We're talking billions of dollars that we don't know where they'll be allocated.    Some of this is the cost of doing business - we can account for, say, hurricanes or dead beat payers because of past history and put a factor in - but most of this is not.   And even if it is, the best mitigation for the risk is not a "risk factor", but rather, sitting on your money and waiting for a better investment opportunity.  Remember, there's no obligation to play.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on January 04, 2018, 04:03:21 PM
You guys are quick with the snark, but, as respectfully as you deserve, you are wrong on this one.  First, find me one place where I said all that was 'fantasy'.  I did not, and never have. 

You didn't say that - *I* was the one that said it, as it related to my interpreting that you were saying a political/POTUS change was what cased the Great Recession.  That belief seemed somewhat fantastical to me.

All those things were real and were a clear part of the problem.  Second, I'm not saying the potential of Obama winning" was the only variable and the only thing that mattered. 

Hence why I prefaced my response with "you make it seem".  However, rou wrote solely about how businesses only care about consistency/certainty, and the uncertainty of a new POTUS (with your comments focused on Obama's platform) is what caused the '08 crash.  No mention of other factors in the housing market (the flipping fad, over-leverage) consumer debt, losses at Lehman, collapse of Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns, Big-3 auto losses, LIBOR, Greece, Spanish debt... and, so, on. 

Surely you can see how it seems like you ARE saying that "the potential of Obama winning" was the only variable, when that is the only thing you (initially) mention?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on January 04, 2018, 04:56:23 PM
And I still maintain that the flaw in your reasoning is that Grabby was elected precisely because he intended to upset the apple cart. Obama made very clear what he intended to do. Trump did as well. What it comes down to isn't certainty, but certainty you'll get what you want.

In the several years I've known you now, I don't think I've ever ONCE said or even implied that you don't know what you're talking about, and I want to take care that I don't start now.
If the MP.com forum didn't suck so massively hard I'd hunt down the post where you told me exactly that. In those very words. With an exclamation point!   :rollin

In any case, there are plenty of fields where you're welcome to tell me so, and macroeconomics is certainly one of them. But in this case I think the uncertainty you describe is always present. And doesn't constantly implementing and then revoking rules and regs qualify as uncertainty? I think where I and others run into a problem is that in your model it necessarily comes down to democrats tank the economy and republicans are the ones who make it great again.

Haha, yeah, maybe there was one time.  I don't know, I was drunk at the time.  :)

But yes, implementing and revoking rules does qualify as "uncertainty".  No one said there was NONE; that's what "interest" is for ("interest" or "profit" is another word for "risk factor" and accounts for that).  You know this inherently if you gamble; betting on "black" pays less because the risk is less than, say, betting on "20". 

And no, it doesn't boil down to "dems tank the economy and republicans are the ones that make it great again".    More often than not that seems to be true, but there are exceptions.   Bill Clinton - a Democrat true and true - understood the notion of "economic certainty" more than most Republicans to be honest, and the economy did just fine under him.   I don't think some of you (not you, el Barto, because we've talked about this) quite comprehend the level of economic impact something like the ACA has.  Even if at the end it zero's out, the impacts in between are where the uncertainty lies.  Every business that now may or may not have to supply healthcare, and for uncertain plans.  What  are the tax implications?  What are the liability implications?  Accounting implications (with reserves and what not).  We're talking billions of dollars that we don't know where they'll be allocated.    Some of this is the cost of doing business - we can account for, say, hurricanes or dead beat payers because of past history and put a factor in - but most of this is not.   And even if it is, the best mitigation for the risk is not a "risk factor", but rather, sitting on your money and waiting for a better investment opportunity.  Remember, there's no obligation to play.
I think where you run into a problem is that Trump and his payed minions have been playing the uncertainty card quite a bit. Did he just forget to explain what he'd be doing with cost sharing reductions in ACA for 10 months? No, he repeatedly said "we'll see," grinning tauntingly. Tremendous undermining of the program. Legal dope is a 40 billion dollar industry (not to mention the illegal variety, a fungible component of commerce according to Antonin Scalia, worth 140 more), which now has no fucking clue what's going to happen because of Trump's flakiness. Uncertainty that was ruled out when he was running. Didn't ATT/Time Warner have every reason to think they'd have no trouble moving forward, only to be sucker-punched by the DOJ? By pulling out of the Paris Accords and gutting the EPA, after American industry had moved forward for many years, didn't he pull the rug out from under companies that now have to compete with startups that now get to play on an uneven field?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 04, 2018, 07:44:54 PM
You guys are quick with the snark, but, as respectfully as you deserve, you are wrong on this one.  First, find me one place where I said all that was 'fantasy'.  I did not, and never have. 

You didn't say that - *I* was the one that said it, as it related to my interpreting that you were saying a political/POTUS change was what cased the Great Recession.  That belief seemed somewhat fantastical to me.

But please understand; it wasn't the "change" of President, per se; it was the PROMISE of systemic "change" that Obama ran on.  Nothing was sacred, nothing was safe.   And so the money said, "we're not going to gamble on this unknown dude who owes us nothing, who shows us no understanding of how this works; we're going to sit this one out".

Quote
Hence why I prefaced my response with "you make it seem".  However, rou wrote solely about how businesses only care about consistency/certainty, and the uncertainty of a new POTUS (with your comments focused on Obama's platform) is what caused the '08 crash.  No mention of other factors in the housing market (the flipping fad, over-leverage) consumer debt, losses at Lehman, collapse of Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns, Big-3 auto losses, LIBOR, Greece, Spanish debt... and, so, on. 

Surely you can see how it seems like you ARE saying that "the potential of Obama winning" was the only variable, when that is the only thing you (initially) mention?

NO.  The uncertainty of A president who make his manifesto about not kowtowing to Wall Street, and not accounting for business when pushing for audacious change.  Did you read "The Audacity of Hope"? 

It's not the only variable, but it make certain options untenable.   All those other things happen all the time and they self-correct.   They're called "soft landings", because small changes by certain players are enough to effect the necessary change and  not cause a major sell-off which in turn causes less knowledgeable investors to follow suit with a "panic" sell off.  That didn't happen here.   After a certain point, there's no going back.   All those other things are important, of course, but if the money was willing to stay in and cushion them, we would have had a recession, small "r", and not a "Great Recession", big G, big R.  But instead, we had a guy that went on record as saying there would be "no bailouts" and that no one is "too big to fail", and in fact, maybe they SHOULD fail because it might be good for the collective.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: portnoy311 on January 04, 2018, 08:52:14 PM
Jesus fucking Christ... I really fucking hate this man. I seriously can't wrap my head around anyone that is still truly in support of him. How can you look at that man with that kind of rhetoric and think to yourself "yes, this is improving America's position in the world"?

I know a handful of Trump supporters. To them the economy is the only thing that matters,  and since ours is in good shape then Trump is doing great. Lots of talk about consumer confidence, jobs, unemployment rate, deregulation. I fundamentally disagree that Trump's administration should be taking credit for the lion's share, but that's the argument they make. I've seen and read many economists predicting a downturn in 2019 (everything is cyclical, after all), which predictably will be blamed on the the 2018 midterms going to the Dems, no doubt.

Everything else ranges from irrelevant to, "As long as it pisses off liberals" in my conversations with them.

But how do you draw the line when it comes to "taking credit for economics"?  It's not one or the other when it comes to that.   Frankly, I think other than consumer confidence - meaning, the idea that those with money are willing to spend it, knowing that they aren't going to be blindsided by a costly, inefficient tax* of some kind - the President does little to impact the economy.   But if Trump ISN'T responsible, then NO President is responsible, and vice versa.  I think he DOES get some credit for jumpstarting this.   It was evident literally on a minute to minute basis on election night as the results came in.   

As for the last thing, well, there's enough of that to go around on  both sides, isn't there?

I honestly don't get what your point is? My point was that because the economy hasn't tanked in the first year, many (including the Trump supporters I know the best personally) are willing to look the other way on literally every other aspect and decision of his presidency. You're not seeming to refute that, and are even agreeing that Trump is not the biggest reason for us being where we are economically. Chino also laid out good reason to think his decisions will hurt us economically beyond just looking at 2018.

How is that any different than the Lesbian that doesn't give a shit about free tuition, or Wall Street, or the capital of Israel, but voted Bernie/Hillary because she wants to marry her partner THAT BADLY.   How is that any different than the person that voted for Al "I invented the interwebs" Gore for no other reason than he pledged to end the war in Iraq?     Just because I choose not to think that short term or one issue doesn't mean others can't.   It is the price of a democracy.

I'm sure there's people 158 years ago who voted for Lincoln because they loved top hats. I don't understand what your point is, or why you're expecting me to defend every vote of anyone who voted D in previous elections (including elections I didn't), or when I said those hypotheticals were different. Chino asked why roughly 1/3 of the population approved of a POTUS who is obviously and severely mucking up major issues, and I told him. To a lot of people if the economy is doing well that day, the POTUS can be a literal raccoon and they'll approve. As you say, it's the price of democracy. It's the reason we have DJT in the first place.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on January 05, 2018, 06:04:06 AM
I think where you run into a problem is that Trump and his payed minions have been playing the uncertainty card quite a bit. Did he just forget to explain what he'd be doing with cost sharing reductions in ACA for 10 months? No, he repeatedly said "we'll see," grinning tauntingly. Tremendous undermining of the program. Legal dope is a 40 billion dollar industry (not to mention the illegal variety, a fungible component of commerce according to Antonin Scalia, worth 140 more), which now has no fucking clue what's going to happen because of Trump's flakiness. Uncertainty that was ruled out when he was running. Didn't ATT/Time Warner have every reason to think they'd have no trouble moving forward, only to be sucker-punched by the DOJ? By pulling out of the Paris Accords and gutting the EPA, after American industry had moved forward for many years, didn't he pull the rug out from under companies that now have to compete with startups that now get to play on an uneven field?

This consistency/certainty has holes in it all over the place.  Let's also add DeVos and the who-the-hell-knows-how-she's-gonna-fuck-up-Education policies (or lack thereof) she brought to the table.  Gutting Obamacare (purportedly on the afternoon of his inauguration) A) never came to fruition and B) would've been the epitome of inconsistency.  How much wasted investment would that have been from the health and insurance industries?  Visas... that's putting the IT industry (particularly the Indian outsourcers, and all their customers) into a massive 'who knows'.  Plus, the majority of memos Trump signed was to undo Obama-era directives/legislation.  I'm sure if we thought a little harder, there's a dozen more.   

Hardly a model of consistency.  It's a weak argument to claim that Trump's "consistency" approach is what's contributing to the gains in the stock market.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 05, 2018, 09:51:27 AM
Jesus fucking Christ... I really fucking hate this man. I seriously can't wrap my head around anyone that is still truly in support of him. How can you look at that man with that kind of rhetoric and think to yourself "yes, this is improving America's position in the world"?

I know a handful of Trump supporters. To them the economy is the only thing that matters,  and since ours is in good shape then Trump is doing great. Lots of talk about consumer confidence, jobs, unemployment rate, deregulation. I fundamentally disagree that Trump's administration should be taking credit for the lion's share, but that's the argument they make. I've seen and read many economists predicting a downturn in 2019 (everything is cyclical, after all), which predictably will be blamed on the the 2018 midterms going to the Dems, no doubt.

Everything else ranges from irrelevant to, "As long as it pisses off liberals" in my conversations with them.

But how do you draw the line when it comes to "taking credit for economics"?  It's not one or the other when it comes to that.   Frankly, I think other than consumer confidence - meaning, the idea that those with money are willing to spend it, knowing that they aren't going to be blindsided by a costly, inefficient tax* of some kind - the President does little to impact the economy.   But if Trump ISN'T responsible, then NO President is responsible, and vice versa.  I think he DOES get some credit for jumpstarting this.   It was evident literally on a minute to minute basis on election night as the results came in.   

As for the last thing, well, there's enough of that to go around on  both sides, isn't there?

I honestly don't get what your point is? My point was that because the economy hasn't tanked in the first year, many (including the Trump supporters I know the best personally) are willing to look the other way on literally every other aspect and decision of his presidency. You're not seeming to refute that, and are even agreeing that Trump is not the biggest reason for us being where we are economically. Chino also laid out good reason to think his decisions will hurt us economically beyond just looking at 2018.

How is that any different than the Lesbian that doesn't give a shit about free tuition, or Wall Street, or the capital of Israel, but voted Bernie/Hillary because she wants to marry her partner THAT BADLY.   How is that any different than the person that voted for Al "I invented the interwebs" Gore for no other reason than he pledged to end the war in Iraq?     Just because I choose not to think that short term or one issue doesn't mean others can't.   It is the price of a democracy.

I'm sure there's people 158 years ago who voted for Lincoln because they loved top hats. I don't understand what your point is, or why you're expecting me to defend every vote of anyone who voted D in previous elections (including elections I didn't), or when I said those hypotheticals were different. Chino asked why roughly 1/3 of the population approved of a POTUS who is obviously and severely mucking up major issues, and I told him. To a lot of people if the economy is doing well that day, the POTUS can be a literal raccoon and they'll approve. As you say, it's the price of democracy. It's the reason we have DJT in the first place.

My point was that it's nothing new, nothing specific to Trump, and not at all why we have "Trump" specifically.   We have Trump because the POLITICIANS turned into "one issue" representatives.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on January 05, 2018, 09:53:08 AM
(Adami, I think you're here)

The only things I'm in are your head and your heart.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: portnoy311 on January 05, 2018, 10:32:32 AM
Right, I thought my post made that clear.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 05, 2018, 10:54:27 AM
And I still maintain that the flaw in your reasoning is that Grabby was elected precisely because he intended to upset the apple cart. Obama made very clear what he intended to do. Trump did as well. What it comes down to isn't certainty, but certainty you'll get what you want.

In the several years I've known you now, I don't think I've ever ONCE said or even implied that you don't know what you're talking about, and I want to take care that I don't start now.
If the MP.com forum didn't suck so massively hard I'd hunt down the post where you told me exactly that. In those very words. With an exclamation point!   :rollin

In any case, there are plenty of fields where you're welcome to tell me so, and macroeconomics is certainly one of them. But in this case I think the uncertainty you describe is always present. And doesn't constantly implementing and then revoking rules and regs qualify as uncertainty? I think where I and others run into a problem is that in your model it necessarily comes down to democrats tank the economy and republicans are the ones who make it great again.

Haha, yeah, maybe there was one time.  I don't know, I was drunk at the time.  :)

But yes, implementing and revoking rules does qualify as "uncertainty".  No one said there was NONE; that's what "interest" is for ("interest" or "profit" is another word for "risk factor" and accounts for that).  You know this inherently if you gamble; betting on "black" pays less because the risk is less than, say, betting on "20". 

And no, it doesn't boil down to "dems tank the economy and republicans are the ones that make it great again".    More often than not that seems to be true, but there are exceptions.   Bill Clinton - a Democrat true and true - understood the notion of "economic certainty" more than most Republicans to be honest, and the economy did just fine under him.   I don't think some of you (not you, el Barto, because we've talked about this) quite comprehend the level of economic impact something like the ACA has.  Even if at the end it zero's out, the impacts in between are where the uncertainty lies.  Every business that now may or may not have to supply healthcare, and for uncertain plans.  What  are the tax implications?  What are the liability implications?  Accounting implications (with reserves and what not).  We're talking billions of dollars that we don't know where they'll be allocated.    Some of this is the cost of doing business - we can account for, say, hurricanes or dead beat payers because of past history and put a factor in - but most of this is not.   And even if it is, the best mitigation for the risk is not a "risk factor", but rather, sitting on your money and waiting for a better investment opportunity.  Remember, there's no obligation to play.
I think where you run into a problem is that Trump and his payed minions have been playing the uncertainty card quite a bit. Did he just forget to explain what he'd be doing with cost sharing reductions in ACA for 10 months? No, he repeatedly said "we'll see," grinning tauntingly. Tremendous undermining of the program. Legal dope is a 40 billion dollar industry (not to mention the illegal variety, a fungible component of commerce according to Antonin Scalia, worth 140 more), which now has no fucking clue what's going to happen because of Trump's flakiness. Uncertainty that was ruled out when he was running. Didn't ATT/Time Warner have every reason to think they'd have no trouble moving forward, only to be sucker-punched by the DOJ? By pulling out of the Paris Accords and gutting the EPA, after American industry had moved forward for many years, didn't he pull the rug out from under companies that now have to compete with startups that now get to play on an uneven field?

This is to you and Jingle.  It's not "uncertainty" in the lay sense of the word.  It's specifically "economic uncertainty" in the form of changing guidelines, rules and boundaries, primarily legislatively.    Every company on the planet deals with "uncertainty" on a daily basis.  They balance existing cash streams with new products, they balance competitors, they balance external factors like wars and weather calamities... but to some degree they are mitigatable, forecastable (from a probability perspective), and, not insignificantly, insurable.  Right now, the weed industry is by necessity a local one.  The dispensary in Fort Collins, CO doesn't care about what happens in Cali or Connecticut or Cansas.  Their AG as said "business as usual; we've already incorporated these guidelines".  In the future?  Sure, this could be big for the marijuana producers.   But it's not a "NYSE wide change".  This is specific industry uncertainty, with little impact to other industries. The previous uncertainty around the ACA was pan-industry.   The current uncertainty around the ACA doesn't really impact corporations at this point; Trump's only been fucking with the mandate and the personal subsidies.   Those receiving the subsidies are not the primary funders of the market to begin with (no judgment there, just a reality) so why would getting rid of the subsidies impact business on a grand scale?   

The EPA issue is a good one (and one I can speak to with experience, given that I was EHS - Environmental Health and Safety - Counsel for a Fortune 10 company for a good number of years).   Rollbacks are not a problem for a number of reasons.  One, an upstart isn't going to just start manufacturing billion dollar turbine systems tomorrow.   But more importantly, those types of regulations hit businesses on both sides:   GE.    They have a SIGNIFICANT infrastructure out there that now does not need to be massively overhauled and upgraded on someone else's timeframe (another HUGE part of the problem; corporations manage earnings, and when someone else tells them they have to do something on their timeframe, it fucks with that.   Stock price is a measure of future earnings, and if that can't be forecasted, the stock price goes down).  GE also SELLS stuff to companies with an existing infrastructure.   If that base doesn't have to change, GE's good; if the Feds pass sweeping environmental regulation that drastically cuts emissions, say, or demands a certain percentage of energy from a particular source, that's a huge problem.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on January 05, 2018, 12:22:46 PM
The pot market is not local. What happens in Cansas matters a great deal to the folk in Cali. It matters much more to the investors, and while it hasn't hit the NYSE yet, there's a tremendous amount of action going on, with far more yet to come. Who's going to invest in the next Seagrams, Phillip Morris, or Ben E. Keith if the future of the industry is subject to the fanatical whims of an 80 year old throwback?

Also, the cost sharing subsidies fucked with the insurers. It had nothing to do with the consumers other than to increase their premiums. A great deal of the blame for the rate increases was uncertainty about what the would or would not be reimbursed. This is clearly the economic uncertainty you deride, and it is a pan-industry problem.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on January 05, 2018, 01:26:00 PM
I'm just going to re-quote this so you can read it again Bill.

Businesses care about ONE THING:  consistency.  In the most simplistic sense, they want to know that if they invest dollar 1 today with the idea that they will reap $10 two years from now, that - to the extent possible - the ground rules of that investment won't change.

...

The market is up not because Trump is Trump, not "because" Trump is President, not because he's an economic wizard, but ONLY because the people pouring money INTO the stock market know full well that he - or his administration - will not do ANYTHING to upset that apple cart.   

As it relates to the ACA, Trump was promising to blow it up.  As it relates to a few other industries (energy, environment, manufacturing come to mind), Trump was promising to make radical changes.  According to your argument, that should've had the opposite effect of what is actually happening, and should've started way back in August/September on the "possibility" of that radical change - since that's when the shit hit the fan in '08 under the end of Bush, and the possibility of Obama (or McCain).
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 05, 2018, 04:06:34 PM
The pot market is not local. What happens in Cansas matters a great deal to the folk in Cali. It matters much more to the investors, and while it hasn't hit the NYSE yet, there's a tremendous amount of action going on, with far more yet to come. Who's going to invest in the next Seagrams, Phillip Morris, or Ben E. Keith if the future of the industry is subject to the fanatical whims of an 80 year old throwback?

I want to ask you why you don't think it's "local", but to stay on topic:  they won't invest.   But that's an industry call.  None of this is intended to remove risk or to guarantee returns in any specific industry.  There are always going to be industries that are promoted or not based on other criteria.   For example, I'm not at all asking for "no laws" so that we can all invest radically in coal.  It's a dead industry.  I have no doubt that the stock market has already factored that in.    I also have little doubt that the stock market has factored in the dichotomy between Fed law and state law.   

Quote
Also, the cost sharing subsidies fucked with the insurers. It had nothing to do with the consumers other than to increase their premiums. A great deal of the blame for the rate increases was uncertainty about what the would or would not be reimbursed. This is clearly the economic uncertainty you deride, and it is a pan-industry problem.

I'm not following you; removing the subsidies fucked with insurers, but they've been fucked with since day one of the ACA, and with the mandate gone, they can manage the impacts.  It's not a pan-industry problem, though, because - pick an industry - energy producers are not impacted by that.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 06, 2018, 08:25:16 AM
I'm just going to re-quote this so you can read it again Bill.

Businesses care about ONE THING:  consistency.  In the most simplistic sense, they want to know that if they invest dollar 1 today with the idea that they will reap $10 two years from now, that - to the extent possible - the ground rules of that investment won't change.

...

The market is up not because Trump is Trump, not "because" Trump is President, not because he's an economic wizard, but ONLY because the people pouring money INTO the stock market know full well that he - or his administration - will not do ANYTHING to upset that apple cart.   

As it relates to the ACA, Trump was promising to blow it up.  As it relates to a few other industries (energy, environment, manufacturing come to mind), Trump was promising to make radical changes.  According to your argument, that should've had the opposite effect of what is actually happening, and should've started way back in August/September on the "possibility" of that radical change - since that's when the shit hit the fan in '08 under the end of Bush, and the possibility of Obama (or McCain).

YES!  And that's a good thing for business.  Look, I'm clearly not doing a good job of explaining this.   "Certainty" isn't "lack of change" (and vice versa; "change" doesn't mean "lack of certainty").   Change is fine if it can be managed, forecasted, reserved for, insured for.   Change in the right direction is not only not a problem, but welcome.   The changes Trump was promising were almost all pro-business and designed - to the extent there was design - to increase the landscape for possibility of return. 

It's like... sports.  You train.  You work out.  You game plan.  But you still have to play the game, right?  And anything can happen.   Someone could get hurt.  But you plan for that, with backups, or try to minimize the hits on your star player.  Both teams forecast for weather.  There are spare cleats, gloves, etc.   But what would happen if at the coin flip, the refs say "Oh, and by the way, we're going to outlaw forward passes".  Or "ANY contact, of any kind, even incidental, will be considered pass interference, first down at the spot of the foul."  Or "we're not going to use footballs, we're going to use badminton shuttlecocks instead."   

"Economic certainty" is not the absence of change or risk.  It's the absence of systemic, pan-industry singularities that in a moment change EVERYTHING about your business.  GE again;  they have around 250,000 employees.  Across the board, their two largest spends are fuel and healthcare.   Everything else is business-specific or procurable (meaning it can be had cheaper in bulk or in volume).  When a law is passed that DOUBLES their healthcare spend - across the board, for their Train division, their Plastics division, their Healthcare (products) division, their Capital division, AND that stock is a bellwether stock in the Dow Jones (meaning it's purchased both individually and in indexes and mutual funds) it changes the investment profile of the market.   

 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on January 06, 2018, 09:22:12 AM
Look, I'm clearly not doing a good job of explaining this. 

On this, we agree.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 06, 2018, 10:46:00 AM
I was being humble.  Don't gloat!   There are two sides to the "delivery" and "receipt" of information.  :). :). :)

For what it's worth, I just had the opposite argument with my Dad:  he said something along the lines of "Donald Trump has done more for the economy than Obama, Clinton and Carter combined".   And I said exactly what I said here:  HE himself didn't do anything for the economy, but his policies and outlook on the economy have set the playing field for people to be confident that their investments were not subject to arbitrary whims of government policies that have no concern for the economy.

Also, what say you on these bets:   A steak dinner that Trump was not President as of January 6, 2019, and an Italian dinner that Hillary OR Comey would not see any jail time? 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: ? on January 06, 2018, 11:38:57 AM
Quote
I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius....and a very stable genius at that!
"I'm so smart I forgot about my first campaign (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2000)!"
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: cramx3 on January 06, 2018, 11:42:45 AM
Quote
I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius....and a very stable genius at that!
"I'm so smart I forgot about my first campaign (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2000)!"

lol said the same thing to my gf when we read his tweets this morning
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on January 06, 2018, 11:51:32 AM
(https://scontent.fykz1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/26230107_543901859327938_5592710838894005997_n.jpg?oh=8ba057e1928f31c8f44120f0c5882fd1&oe=5AB5FB9B)
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on January 06, 2018, 11:56:43 AM
I don't think Trump is the worst president.

I'll admit it's mostly just a matter of me not agreeing with many of his decisions since I'm not a capitalist, or conservative, or a strict individualist, or evangelical.

I can say some of his decisions are really really bad (like the Jerusalem thing), but mostly the dude is just embarrassing. I can't think of too many people who are more embarrassing to the American public.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Cool Chris on January 06, 2018, 12:27:49 PM
I can say some of his decisions are really really bad (like the Jerusalem thing)...

As someone with more of a personal interest in this topic, can you elucidate your thoughts for me? Ok to do via PM. Middle Eastern relations and politics is something I am very (unintentionally) ignorant of.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on January 06, 2018, 12:32:21 PM
I can say some of his decisions are really really bad (like the Jerusalem thing)...

As someone with more of a personal interest in this topic, can you elucidate your thoughts for me? Ok to do via PM. Middle Eastern relations and politics is something I am very (unintentionally) ignorant of.

Yea, I'll shoot you a PM in a bit with my thoughts. Always happy to talk about that region.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on January 06, 2018, 01:18:39 PM
I wasn't asked, but I'll chime in anyway. The Jerusalem thing accomplishes no purpose insofar as Israel goes. Everybody knows we were on their cock before and we remain so now. It accomplished two things for Grabby, though. It pandered to the evangelicals who, for reasons completely baffling to me, have a hard-on for Israel. And, like so many other things he's done, gave a middle finger and hearty Fuck You to the rest of the world. The latter is a recurring theme for his presidency. Do stuff that serves no actual purpose but shows complete disregard for convention, no matter how reasonable that convention might be.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Cool Chris on January 06, 2018, 01:42:02 PM
That was my high-level assessment as well. I don't see it as much of an FU as much of a "Hey, we're doing our own thing here, deal with it." That could be perceived as an FU though, so I get your point. I like the notion of not following convention just because it is there, but concede it shouldn't be trampled with no reason other than to trample it.

I know there is a thread about Israel so didn't want to make it a big topic in this one. Will carry this via PM with you and Adami if necessary, or move to the other thread.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 06, 2018, 04:05:07 PM
Nothing to see here.  Move along (to the other thread that I didn't see before I posted here).
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Snow Dog on January 07, 2018, 07:44:32 AM
(http://az705044.vo.msecnd.net/20180103/trump-nuclear-button-tweet.png)

replace "nuclear button" with "tiny penis", and it's actually quite funny.

No worries. We’re good...

(https://i.imgur.com/Yl0aVxQ.jpg)
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jammindude on January 07, 2018, 09:50:19 AM
Normally, I would just automatically assume that someone shopped that.   But these days, I have to ask....is that Melania one real?  I know the original one is. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Kattelox on January 07, 2018, 10:16:04 AM
Just for fun, let's say you could gather 5 presidents together for a round table discussion (about anything). The catch is you have to include Donald Trump. Who you got? I'm thinking of the interaction with Trump on these picks. John Adams (or Washington), JFK, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Dave_Manchester on January 07, 2018, 10:52:04 AM
Just for fun, let's say you could gather 5 presidents together for a round table discussion (about anything). The catch is you have to include Donald Trump. Who you got? I'm thinking of the interaction with Trump on these picks. John Adams (or Washington), JFK, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt.

Lincoln: Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation

Trump: Wrong!
 
Lincoln: ...conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal

Trump: Wrong!

Lincoln: Now we are engaged in a great civil war

Trump: The greatest civil war, huge, tremendous, but don't worry, I got this.

Lincoln: ...testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.

Trump: Nobody endures longer than me, believe me.

Lincoln: We are met on a great battle-field of that war.

Trump: Lyin' Lincoln wants to be a tough guy...


In seriousness, I don't get the impression Trump handles sustained conversation very well. The kind that requires careful listening and the mental juggling of complex ideas. I don't think he'd have much to offer on a dinner date with the great presidents. Perhaps he could discuss carnal conquests with Slick Willy and JFK. Quite frankly I'd pay good money to listen in on that chat.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on January 07, 2018, 12:48:49 PM
Andrew Jackson to serve as Trump's mouthpiece on political matters.
James Garfield as a very intelligent, educated republican counterpoint who could explain why they're both stunningly full of shit.
Lyndon B. Johnson to put a very quick end to any discussion about hands, dicks, or buttons.
John F. Kennedy to put a very quick end to any discussion about sexual prowess.
George Washington to put a very quick end to any discussion about who was the first or greatest to do anything.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on January 07, 2018, 12:56:40 PM
Andrew Jackson to serve as Trump's mouthpiece on political matters.
James Garfield as a very intelligent, educated republican counterpoint who could explain why they're both stunningly full of shit.
Lyndon B. Johnson to put a very quick end to any discussion about hands, dicks, or buttons.
John F. Kennedy to put a very quick end to any discussion about sexual prowess.
George Washington to put a very quick end to any discussion about who was the first or greatest to do anything.

The hell would we be left with?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Kattelox on January 07, 2018, 12:59:07 PM
Andrew Jackson to serve as Trump's mouthpiece on political matters.
James Garfield as a very intelligent, educated republican counterpoint who could explain why they're both stunningly full of shit.
Lyndon B. Johnson to put a very quick end to any discussion about hands, dicks, or buttons.
John F. Kennedy to put a very quick end to any discussion about sexual prowess.
George Washington to put a very quick end to any discussion about who was the first or greatest to do anything.

The hell would we be left with?

Trump playing with one of those bead maze toys while the rest enjoy a nice scotch?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on January 07, 2018, 01:09:16 PM
Quote from: #TheRealDonaldTrump:
Had dinner with five former presidents last night. Those guys had nothing to offer. Total losers. Boring. Jackson wants to meet with me tomorrow morning at dawn down by the river. Probably wants to apologize.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 07, 2018, 06:22:28 PM


In seriousness, I don't get the impression Trump handles sustained conversation very well. The kind that requires careful listening and the mental juggling of complex ideas. I don't think he'd have much to offer on a dinner date with the great presidents. Perhaps he could discuss carnal conquests with Slick Willy and JFK. Quite frankly I'd pay good money to listen in on that chat.

Alec Baldwin was on Stern not long ago, and since Howard knows Donald fairly well, he asked Alec about his level of acquaintance with him, being a "big wig" of sorts in NYC.  Alec said - and I think while he was clearly not a fan of Trump, he was being sincere here and not mean, though you can't tell with Baldwin because he's so damn smart - that Trump was well-known as the unofficial Mayor of New York, meaning he would appear at everything, but he'd never stay in any one place very long.  He'd swoop in, glad hand, take pictures, but as soon as the dust settled he'd be gone.  There was almost no personal interaction beyond the superficial.   Having said that, Alec said in that that limited capacity he was always a gracious polite man, for what that's worth.   Just, it was clear, not very deep.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: axeman90210 on January 07, 2018, 10:31:26 PM
There's been a lot of interesting talk about the economy and finance in the last couple pages. Not going to go back and quote, but I'll just hit on a couple things.

I'm probably splitting hairs a little bit in the grand scheme of things, but with regards to election night, the initial reaction to Trump's increasing chances of winning the presidency was panic. Pulled from a CNN article:

(https://i.imgur.com/IxRHLmR.jpg)

After Florida and Ohio were called for Trump the market bottomed out hitting it's stop loss a little after midnight. The numbers were already in Don's favor then (though he wasn't a lock yet). The market started to bounce back reflecting on the possibilities of Trump in the presidency with Republicans controlling both chambers as far as pro-business legislature. This was no doubt aided by his (in retrospect uncharacteristically) conciliatory tone in his acceptance speech, leading to hope he wouldn't be as volatile as expected based on his campaign. Since then the market has obviously done well, posting a similar % gain in the Dow to Obama's first year, and slightly worse job #s than last year. Some of the gains are certainly due to both his regulatory rollbacks (not to say that necessarily makes all of them good decisions) and the expectation and ultimate delivery of tax cuts.

Personally I'm not a fan of a decent chunk of the tax bill (even though as someone with few itemized deductions, the doubling of the standard deduction will probably be a boon to me) for a number of reasons. One, I'm skeptical of how much of the tax savings will actually make it beyond executives and major shareholders. I know there are plenty of companies who were already sitting on cash reserves, and I'm sure some of the tax cuts will end up funding increased compensation and bonuses for top executives, share buybacks, and dividends. Not exactly helpful to people who don't own stocks or are hoping for a big hiring spike. I'm not saying there won't be any gains to that effect, just that I doubt there will be anywhere near as much as Republicans who are trying to sell it to the rank and file are claiming. Two, I don't know how necessary it was to blow a trillion dollar plus hole into the budget for a major tax cut given that the economy was already growing beforehand. We haven't had a down quarter in GDP since Q1 2014 (which was immediately followed by two quarters of 4%+ growth). Even if the cuts are as effective in growing the economy as the GOP hopes/promises, given how low the unemployment rate already is, the likely result is that the Fed ends up speeding up their monetary tightening, which then mutes any positive effect from the tax plan. Then we're left in a position where growth is the same, or at best slightly better than without a major tax cut, but at the same time the government now loses the option of a big tax cut as a stimulus tool for the next time the economy takes a downturn.

As far as the 08 downturn, I don't think I'd say Obama is anything more than a footnote in terms of causes. The housing market was heading for a disaster no matter what. People like John Paulson were looking to bet against it as early as late 2005 to mid 2006, and Paulson had returns north of 60% in February 2007 (yes, 60% in one month) thanks to those bets well before the primaries were even decided. I don't doubt Stadler's anecdotes about some money staying on the sidelines once it was clear that Obama had a real shot at becoming President. I would just argue that the cat was already out of the bag. The financial alchemy that enabled companies to take garbage mortgages, chop them up and package them into much desired investment grade debt (rated so by ratings companies that had no idea what they were doing and operate with perverse motivations in general given that these companies are the ones paying for the ratings) was based on the faulty assumption that there would never be a nationwide downturn in the housing market, and resulted in way too many people getting mortgages who had no business getting one. And there were still those hundreds of billions of dollars in credit default swaps oustanding on companies who were doomed by the imminent housing crash. I'd argue that at best, the absence of an Obama (or Obama-like) frontrunner in 2008 lets some of that money that was held back come into play, which likely delays the inevitable for a little while longer and maybe cushions the blow a little bit. I don't think Obama is the difference between a run of the mill downturn and what we actually went through though. It was always going to be very ugly and very painful.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on January 08, 2018, 07:11:22 AM
There's been a lot of interesting talk about the economy and finance in the last couple pages. Not going to go back and quote, but I'll just hit on a couple things.

I'm probably splitting hairs a little bit in the grand scheme of things, but with regards to election night, the initial reaction to Trump's increasing chances of winning the presidency was panic. Pulled from a CNN article:

(https://i.imgur.com/IxRHLmR.jpg)

After Florida and Ohio were called for Trump the market bottomed out hitting it's stop loss a little after midnight. The numbers were already in Don's favor then (though he wasn't a lock yet). The market started to bounce back reflecting on the possibilities of Trump in the presidency with Republicans controlling both chambers as far as pro-business legislature. This was no doubt aided by his (in retrospect uncharacteristically) conciliatory tone in his acceptance speech, leading to hope he wouldn't be as volatile as expected based on his campaign. Since then the market has obviously done well, posting a similar % gain in the Dow to Obama's first year, and slightly worse job #s than last year. Some of the gains are certainly due to both his regulatory rollbacks (not to say that necessarily makes all of them good decisions) and the expectation and ultimate delivery of tax cuts.

Wait a second, though; this isn't a real time - meaning, "to the second!" - activity.   If Hillary is your president, where are you investing?  Wall Street?  Coal?   Energy companies?   Real estate?   Probably not.  If Trump is your president, where are you investing? 

So what you're seeing is exactly what I'm talking about:  once it became a reality that Hillary wasn't walking with this, investors moved to "keep their powder dry", i.e., you watch the futures drop as we know the money SHOULDN'T be where it is, but we don't yet know where it SHOULD be.  "Losing Florida" doesn't mean "losing the election", it means a key block in the wall has fallen and the pundits may not be right.   Then as more and more data comes in, you start to see where the good plays might be, and so you start to see where the money might go.  Remember, these are FUTURES, so you're really reading minds at this point.   The real key is when the markets open, and at that point the behavior continued to exhibit the thought that was forecast the night before. 

Quote
Personally I'm not a fan of a decent chunk of the tax bill (even though as someone with few itemized deductions, the doubling of the standard deduction will probably be a boon to me) for a number of reasons. One, I'm skeptical of how much of the tax savings will actually make it beyond executives and major shareholders. I know there are plenty of companies who were already sitting on cash reserves, and I'm sure some of the tax cuts will end up funding increased compensation and bonuses for top executives, share buybacks, and dividends. Not exactly helpful to people who don't own stocks or are hoping for a big hiring spike. I'm not saying there won't be any gains to that effect, just that I doubt there will be anywhere near as much as Republicans who are trying to sell it to the rank and file are claiming. Two, I don't know how necessary it was to blow a trillion dollar plus hole into the budget for a major tax cut given that the economy was already growing beforehand. We haven't had a down quarter in GDP since Q1 2014 (which was immediately followed by two quarters of 4%+ growth). Even if the cuts are as effective in growing the economy as the GOP hopes/promises, given how low the unemployment rate already is, the likely result is that the Fed ends up speeding up their monetary tightening, which then mutes any positive effect from the tax plan. Then we're left in a position where growth is the same, or at best slightly better than without a major tax cut, but at the same time the government now loses the option of a big tax cut as a stimulus tool for the next time the economy takes a downturn.

You can't lump "executive pay", "stock buy-backs" and "dividends" into one pile.  They're not at all the same, and the idea that "oh, well, I'm too poor to invest" is sort of a hollow one with me.   You can invest with as little as $25 a month.   If you have ANY retirement scheme with your company, you are investing.   In those cases, dividends and buy-backs are a direct benefit to you.  At some point, we're not talking about "who benefits" as much as we're now talking about making these massive, national endeavors "idiot-proof", and that's where much of the problem lies.    Look, I don't want to turn this into a "Liberal/Conservative" discussion, but increasingly, the Liberal platform is one of "lack of accountability" and trying to make risk scenarios "idiot-proof".   Absolving people of their student debt, contracts entered into willingly and with free will.   REQUIRING that everyone have healthcare, because as we all know most of us are too stupid to decide on our own whether we want insurance or not.   Minimum wage, because we shouldn't ask our people to actually take responsibility for their career and their growth within their career.   

Quote
As far as the 08 downturn, I don't think I'd say Obama is anything more than a footnote in terms of causes. The housing market was heading for a disaster no matter what. People like John Paulson were looking to bet against it as early as late 2005 to mid 2006, and Paulson had returns north of 60% in February 2007 (yes, 60% in one month) thanks to those bets well before the primaries were even decided. I don't doubt Stadler's anecdotes about some money staying on the sidelines once it was clear that Obama had a real shot at becoming President. I would just argue that the cat was already out of the bag. The financial alchemy that enabled companies to take garbage mortgages, chop them up and package them into much desired investment grade debt (rated so by ratings companies that had no idea what they were doing and operate with perverse motivations in general given that these companies are the ones paying for the ratings) was based on the faulty assumption that there would never be a nationwide downturn in the housing market, and resulted in way too many people getting mortgages who had no business getting one. And there were still those hundreds of billions of dollars in credit default swaps oustanding on companies who were doomed by the imminent housing crash. I'd argue that at best, the absence of an Obama (or Obama-like) frontrunner in 2008 lets some of that money that was held back come into play, which likely delays the inevitable for a little while longer and maybe cushions the blow a little bit. I don't think Obama is the difference between a run of the mill downturn and what we actually went through though. It was always going to be very ugly and very painful.

I'm not arguing with you; but having Paulson bet against is not the same thing as a "Great Recession".   It could  have been another of hundreds of moderate corrections over the past 100 years.   No one - least of all me - is saying that "we'd be billionaires if it wasn't for Obama!".   It likely WOULD have corrected itself and burst.  But we can look at how that "burst" occurred and what the consequences are.  This is one of the things that I didn't explain very well in the previous explanations:   investing is content neutral.   An investment dollar in coal is the same - with respect to the markets and the indices - as a dollar in pharma, as a dollar in transportation, etc.  Now, some are bigger than others, so a dollar in, say, marijuana may not LITERALLY be the same as a dollar in, say, Big Oil, but the point is that the market doesn't care. It's not sentient in that way.   The worst thing for the market is apathy; if you have a dollar, and decide you do not want to put it in the market that is FAR worse than investing in a dead end industry.  THEN, once the dollar is invested, do all the other things come into play, i.e. quality of the industry and what not.   "Obama" (the idea, not the man) led people to pull their money entirely.   Had he been more conscious of his impacts and his role - as Clinton was, so it's not strictly a "Democrat" thing - he could have given confidence to investors that while the old guard may not be completely safe, there WERE good investments out there that were safe and solid.  He didn't do that.  "Change You Can Believe In!"

Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on February 20, 2018, 10:46:38 AM
If Trump had said 4 years ago the things he says today about the KKK, Muslims, Mexicans, disabled, I would NOT have accepted his endorsement
— Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) March 3, 2016

@MittRomney has announced he is running for the Senate from the wonderful State of Utah. He will make a great Senator and worthy successor to @OrrinHatch, and has my full support and endorsement!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 20, 2018

Thank you Mr. President for the support. I hope that over the course of the campaign I also earn the support and endorsement of the people of Utah.
— Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) February 20, 2018


What a pussy.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on February 20, 2018, 10:50:06 AM
Mitt is a flag that sways with the political wind.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Harmony on February 20, 2018, 03:48:51 PM
If Trump had said 4 years ago the things he says today about the KKK, Muslims, Mexicans, disabled, I would NOT have accepted his endorsement
— Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) March 3, 2016

@MittRomney has announced he is running for the Senate from the wonderful State of Utah. He will make a great Senator and worthy successor to @OrrinHatch, and has my full support and endorsement!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 20, 2018

Thank you Mr. President for the support. I hope that over the course of the campaign I also earn the support and endorsement of the people of Utah.
— Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) February 20, 2018


What a pussy.

Yeah, what a stand up guy.  
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on February 21, 2018, 08:35:02 AM
Three people I respect deeply (seriously; I consider two of you friends, and only exclude Harmony because I wouldn't know her if she was standing on my foot), but I can't disagree with you more.

Let him vote blindly in favor of some of Trump's more ridiculous policies before we start calling him a "pussy".  We rail against the partisanship of Washington, we lament how Trump ridicules anyone who even seems to disagree with him, and now we're going to mock both men for being at least reasonably professional and adult?   

Trump actually acts like an adult and extends the olive branch (no, not at all naïve to the political benefit to him of having Romney in the Senate) to someone who previously likely would have been mocked via Twitter, and it's bad?    And because Romney wasn't bathing  in the swirling bath of shit that is political discourse in America circa 2018 he's a "pussy"?   C'mon.   There's plenty to mock in  the news today, I don't think this is even close. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on February 21, 2018, 09:05:03 AM
Trump actually acts like an adult and extends the olive branch

I think we can all agree that Trump's motivations are rarely genuine, and almost universally self-serving.

As it relates to my opinion on Mitt's position... If he was sincere in the comment in 2016, what's changed in him over the last 23 months that he now will gladly accept the endorsement?  Have his morals or principals changed?  The fact that Trump said it 6 years ago now makes it ok for Mitt to dismiss?  He comes across as though he's pandering to Trump's base now that he has something to gain (or lose) from it.  in March/'16, he had no horse in any race, so he would have been free to speak his conscience.

Either he wasn't being sincere then, or he's not being authentic to himself now.  That's the basis of my comment.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on February 21, 2018, 09:16:09 AM
Trump actually acts like an adult and extends the olive branch

I think we can all agree that Trump's motivations are rarely genuine, and almost universally self-serving.

As it relates to my opinion on Mitt's position... If he was sincere in the comment in 2016, what's changed in him over the last 23 months that he now will gladly accept the endorsement?  Have his morals or principals changed?  The fact that Trump said it 6 years ago now makes it ok for Mitt to dismiss?  He comes across as though he's pandering to Trump's base now that he has something to gain (or lose) from it.  in March/'16, he had no horse in any race, so he would have been free to speak his conscience.

Either he wasn't being sincere then, or he's not being authentic to himself now.  That's the basis of my comment.

Why?  Because you feel he should reject it?  I don't see anything "insincere" about accepting kind words from your enemy.   If my ex-wife - who I've battled in multiple forums, including court, says - in public - something nice, am I required to say "Fuck you, whore.   Go back to your dickless, spineless dork husband who you cheated on me with for three fucking years while I was raising our kid."  Or do I say "Thank you; I appreciate the kind words."?    Romney merely said he wouldn't have endorsed Trump had he known certain facts.  But in the time since, Trump was elected - to the best of our knowledge, and following the rules of the U.S. election system - President.  You think Romney should "resist" that?   Why? 

Please feel free to clarify your point, but I'm reading into your comment that because Romney felt that Trump was crossing lines of bigotry that he ought to subsequently reject everything Trump.  I don't agree with that.   That's part of the conversation we're having about Trump in the other thread and why he won.  That's part of the disconnect.   I don't understand where in the discourse it was determined that the MINUTE one says something that isn't completely in line with the identity politics playbook, that everything subsequent is negated and rejected.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on February 21, 2018, 09:23:53 AM
I agree with Stadler that he shouldn't have to reject his endorsement. At the same time I'd actually find it refreshing for somebody to do so, and the fact that nobody is willing to is very problematic for me. Frankly, Romney would differentiate himself in a good way if he'd express his honest opinion that Trump is an ass-hat of the highest order. I'm really tired of republicans, and democrats too, plying him with token respect because of the office he holds. He has no respect whatsoever for the presidency so I don't see why it should provide him cover for acting like an ass.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on February 21, 2018, 09:38:04 AM
Both totally fine comments.  We'll agree that we have a different perspective on this response.  IMO, there's nothing right or wrong about any kind of response - it's just telling/revealing... and everyone can/will interpret it how they see fit.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on February 21, 2018, 11:25:51 AM
I agree with Stadler that he shouldn't have to reject his endorsement. At the same time I'd actually find it refreshing for somebody to do so, and the fact that nobody is willing to is very problematic for me. Frankly, Romney would differentiate himself in a good way if he'd express his honest opinion that Trump is an ass-hat of the highest order. I'm really tired of republicans, and democrats too, plying him with token respect because of the office he holds. He has no respect whatsoever for the presidency so I don't see why it should provide him cover for acting like an ass.

I don't see anything different between Republicans kissing Trump's ass and Democrats rejecting everything as a matter of course.  Neither are doing anything to further the best interests of the populace at large, which is - or rather should be - their primary goal. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on February 21, 2018, 11:28:08 AM
I agree with Stadler that he shouldn't have to reject his endorsement. At the same time I'd actually find it refreshing for somebody to do so, and the fact that nobody is willing to is very problematic for me. Frankly, Romney would differentiate himself in a good way if he'd express his honest opinion that Trump is an ass-hat of the highest order. I'm really tired of republicans, and democrats too, plying him with token respect because of the office he holds. He has no respect whatsoever for the presidency so I don't see why it should provide him cover for acting like an ass.

I don't see anything different between Republicans kissing Trump's ass and Democrats rejecting everything as a matter of course.  Neither are doing anything to further the best interests of the populace at large, which is - or rather should be - their primary goal.
So?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on February 21, 2018, 11:37:14 AM
I agree with Stadler that he shouldn't have to reject his endorsement. At the same time I'd actually find it refreshing for somebody to do so, and the fact that nobody is willing to is very problematic for me. Frankly, Romney would differentiate himself in a good way if he'd express his honest opinion that Trump is an ass-hat of the highest order. I'm really tired of republicans, and democrats too, plying him with token respect because of the office he holds. He has no respect whatsoever for the presidency so I don't see why it should provide him cover for acting like an ass.

I don't see anything different between Republicans kissing Trump's ass and Democrats rejecting everything as a matter of course.  Neither are doing anything to further the best interests of the populace at large, which is - or rather should be - their primary goal.
So?

Sew buttons on your underwear!  Haha, I was just making an observation.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on February 28, 2018, 06:13:14 AM
@RealDonaldTrump
Feb 22, 2018 08:26:26 PM “School shooting survivor says he quit @CNN Town Hall after refusing scripted question.” @TuckerCarlson. Just like so much of CNN, Fake News. That’s why their ratings are so bad! MSNBC may be worse.



http://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/02/27/shooting-survivors-father-admits-email-changes-in-cnn-spat/

Quote
Last week's televised town hall on guns and school safety has led to finger-pointing by the father of a Florida school shooting survivor and CNN.

The network says Glenn Haab, the father of Marjory Stoneman Douglas junior Colton Haab, doctored emails to push a claim that the network told his son what to say at the forum. Colton Haab backed out of the Feb. 21 event.

CNN denies scripting any remarks and released an email exchange between a CNN producer and Glenn Haab that it says Glenn Haab altered. The altered email was sent to other news outlets, including Fox News.

Haab acknowledges omitting some words from the email but says he didn't do it on purpose.

Business Insider reported Friday evening that, according to CNN, a network producer agreed to let the younger Haab write and ask a question about arming teachers at the network's Wednesday town hall.

What are the chances that Trump and Tucker correct their mistake and let their base know that they were actually the ones spreading the fake news?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on February 28, 2018, 06:19:55 AM
Does it really matter what he tweets anymore?  His base will buy (and wants to buy) any and everything hook-line-and-sinker.  Moderates (on either side) likely approach his tweets with an appropriate amount of skepticism.  Firm liberals don't believe jack-shit.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on February 28, 2018, 08:19:26 AM
Does it really matter what he tweets anymore?  His base will buy (and wants to buy) any and everything hook-line-and-sinker.  Moderates (on either side) likely approach his tweets with an appropriate amount of skepticism.  Firm liberals don't believe jack-shit.
At this point I'm not even sure moderate conservatives believe jack shit regarding his tweets. They're often insightful but never truthful.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: gmillerdrake on February 28, 2018, 09:06:38 AM
Does it really matter what he tweets anymore?  His base will buy (and wants to buy) any and everything hook-line-and-sinker.  Moderates (on either side) likely approach his tweets with an appropriate amount of skepticism.  Firm liberals don't believe jack-shit.
At this point I'm not even sure moderate conservatives believe jack shit regarding his tweets. They're often insightful but never truthful.

I follow DT on twitter....not because of I'm interested in what he has to say. But because it's literally a source of comedy. It's so baffling....some of the things he tweets. It's....unreal. The dude simply cannot help himself...he has no ability to edit a thought and just take a deep breath and think for a moment.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on February 28, 2018, 09:25:03 AM
Does it really matter what he tweets anymore?  His base will buy (and wants to buy) any and everything hook-line-and-sinker.  Moderates (on either side) likely approach his tweets with an appropriate amount of skepticism.  Firm liberals don't believe jack-shit.

His base will buy (and wants to buy) any and everything hook-line-and-sinker, true, but you forgot the part about how "the RESIST movement will reject (and wants to reject) any and everything as a matter of course.

You take each one and assess it on it's merits.  Some are all right, some are mostly right, some are half right, some are mostly wrong, and some are all wrong.   I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean; its not as if Chuck Schumer or Nancy "Chump Change" Pelosi is wasting even the slightest effort on making sure their arguments are completely fact-based and free of any bias or emotional component. 

Look, I'm the first person that says that Trump should shutter the Twitter account and leave that to the professionals.  It doesn't help him.   But the "Fake News" isn't entirely wrong.  It's just not, and that is supported by both hard facts and admissions of the principals.  The Main Stream Media has blurred the line between hard data, subjective data presentation, and outright op-ed masquerading as "journalism", to the point where virtually none of it is of any substantive use for deriving meaningful positions on the issues.    Our populace, generally, is less informed than I'd like to see, and it's getting harder.  If we weren't going to put in the work when Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw were toeing the Walter Cronkite line, why would ANYONE expect us to do it now when you have Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity screaming over each other with inanities?

That Trump has no idea how to present that argument in a cogent, consistent, defensible way doesn't change that.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on February 28, 2018, 10:24:45 AM
Does it really matter what he tweets anymore?  His base will buy (and wants to buy) any and everything hook-line-and-sinker.  Moderates (on either side) likely approach his tweets with an appropriate amount of skepticism.  Firm liberals don't believe jack-shit.

His base will buy (and wants to buy) any and everything hook-line-and-sinker, true, but you forgot the part about how "the RESIST movement will reject (and wants to reject) any and everything as a matter of course.

You take each one and assess it on it's merits.  Some are all right, some are mostly right, some are half right, some are mostly wrong, and some are all wrong.   I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean; its not as if Chuck Schumer or Nancy "Chump Change" Pelosi is wasting even the slightest effort on making sure their arguments are completely fact-based and free of any bias or emotional component. 

Look, I'm the first person that says that Trump should shutter the Twitter account and leave that to the professionals.  It doesn't help him.   But the "Fake News" isn't entirely wrong.  It's just not, and that is supported by both hard facts and admissions of the principals.  The Main Stream Media has blurred the line between hard data, subjective data presentation, and outright op-ed masquerading as "journalism", to the point where virtually none of it is of any substantive use for deriving meaningful positions on the issues.    Our populace, generally, is less informed than I'd like to see, and it's getting harder.  If we weren't going to put in the work when Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw were toeing the Walter Cronkite line, why would ANYONE expect us to do it now when you have Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity screaming over each other with inanities?

That Trump has no idea how to present that argument in a cogent, consistent, defensible way doesn't change that.

:iagree:

Bolded part - that's exactly what I was trying to imply with 'liberals don't believe jack-shit.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: lonestar on February 28, 2018, 10:32:47 AM

I follow DT on twitter....not because of I'm interested in what he has to say. But because it's literally a source of comedy. It's so baffling....some of the things he tweets. It's....unreal. The dude simply cannot help himself...he has no ability to edit a thought and just take a deep breath and think for a moment.

Same here. Most of them are predictable af (tough on crime, strong on 2A blah blah), some are downright baffling in there stupidity, and every once in a whole they just make me cringe for what the rest of the world must be thinking. Mostly though, I want a heads up for if and when he decides to announce he's starting to fly the bombs...
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: gmillerdrake on February 28, 2018, 10:50:41 AM

I follow DT on twitter....not because of I'm interested in what he has to say. But because it's literally a source of comedy. It's so baffling....some of the things he tweets. It's....unreal. The dude simply cannot help himself...he has no ability to edit a thought and just take a deep breath and think for a moment.

Same here. Most of them are predictable af (tough on crime, strong on 2A blah blah), some are downright baffling in there stupidity, and every once in a whole they just make me cringe for what the rest of the world must be thinking. Mostly though, I want a heads up for if and when he decides to announce he's starting to fly the bombs...

He's so incredibly thin skinned....he cannot simply let go and allow random comments from random reporters/congressmen/comedians etc to go without a response from him EVERY President prior to him has had criticism and they just ignore it. When you acknowledge it you give it credit.....ignore it and it usually goes away. People know that Trump can't let anything go so he is just goaded into gut wrenching post after post. It's sad. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on February 28, 2018, 10:57:45 AM
^^^ That's the part that continually baffles me.  For a man who has spent so much time in the spotlight, to not have a thicker skin as a matter of course is incredibly interesting to me.   

Forget about "President"; I don't think ANYONE should  be fighting personal battles on twitter.  It's just so base and childish.  Who gives a shit what some loser in his mom's basement thinks of you, and more importantly, posts from the safety of anonymity? 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: cramx3 on February 28, 2018, 11:13:53 AM
Add me to the group that follows Trump on twitter just for the lols
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on February 28, 2018, 12:15:33 PM
Like I said, his tweets are informative but never truthful. Partly because like many politicians he tends to maneuver. Partly because the truth is whatever he feels like at the time. This is a wonderful bill is followed shortly thereafter by this is a terrible bill. Sad. Stadler pointed out the partisan aspect of this, the far left will never believe a word he says. I'd suggest that nobody should. While it might be true, it's almost certainly coincidental if it is. I'd say this about all politicians, but it's doubly true in Grabby's case, nobody should accept anything he says. He has zero credibility, and that's largely due to the fact that he sabotages it at every instance.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: lonestar on February 28, 2018, 01:12:42 PM
Ya know, I'm pretty far left, and half the shit he tweets I actually believe that he believes. I mean, I disagree with about 99% of it, but I do feel he thinks he's preaching some serious gospel truth.  It's a really interesting introspection into the mind of someone who's just so fucking detached from reality.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: gmillerdrake on February 28, 2018, 01:22:27 PM
It's a really interesting introspection into the mind of someone who's just so fucking detached from reality.

I get what you're saying is directed specifically at Trump......but in all seriousness, this is the problem with our Congressional Leadership in general. They are all detached from reality.....and they're living in a completely different one than 'normal' Americans. That IMO...is one of the largest issues we face.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on February 28, 2018, 01:34:07 PM
It's a really interesting introspection into the mind of someone who's just so fucking detached from reality.

I get what you're saying is directed specifically at Trump......but in all seriousness, this is the problem with our Congressional Leadership in general. They are all detached from reality.....and they're living in a completely different one than 'normal' Americans. That IMO...is one of the largest issues we face.

The average age of congress is like 58, and I think the senate is something like 61 or 62. I get that with age can come wisdom, but life moves fast today. You have living fossils, who never use technology, deciding on how technology should be used and consumed by those who were born into it. When it comes to the Russian meddling through social media, I honestly think that the majority of our leaders don't truly grasp the power that kind of technology has and the scope of what can be accomplished with it.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on February 28, 2018, 01:39:07 PM
Ya know, I'm pretty far left, and half the shit he tweets I actually believe that he believes. I mean, I disagree with about 99% of it, but I do feel he thinks he's preaching some serious gospel truth.  It's a really interesting introspection into the mind of someone who's just so fucking detached from reality.
He believes everything he tweets. Even the stuff that's contradictory. When you live in your own reality truths come and go and nothing is permanent.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: gmillerdrake on February 28, 2018, 01:48:21 PM
It's a really interesting introspection into the mind of someone who's just so fucking detached from reality.

I get what you're saying is directed specifically at Trump......but in all seriousness, this is the problem with our Congressional Leadership in general. They are all detached from reality.....and they're living in a completely different one than 'normal' Americans. That IMO...is one of the largest issues we face.

The average age of congress is like 58, and I think the senate is something like 61 or 62. I get that with age can come wisdom, but life moves fast today. You have living fossils, who never use technology, deciding on how technology should be used and consumed by those who were born into it. When it comes to the Russian meddling through social media, I honestly think that the majority of our leaders don't truly grasp the power that kind of technology has and the scope of what can be accomplished with it.

There's that aspect of it for sure, not even being able to understand certain elements (like technology) that we as 'normal' Americans have to navigate every day.

I was speaking also towards the fact that they've essentially created/made themselves an entirely different class of people. They are elite, period....whether we like it or not. In their minds they know better and what's best for us little people so we should just shut up and listen.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on February 28, 2018, 01:53:55 PM
I was speaking also towards the fact that they've essentially created/made themselves an entirely different class of people. They are elite, period....whether we like it or not. In their minds they know better and what's best for us little people so we should just shut up and listen.

Other than the fact that they are "elected", this above statement (and essentially, reality) doesn't sound like much of a democracy.  Can't say we're all that different up here in this regard.  Though, I do believe our politicians and system safeguards a LITTLE bit better against the influence of lobbyists.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: gmillerdrake on February 28, 2018, 01:59:00 PM
I was speaking also towards the fact that they've essentially created/made themselves an entirely different class of people. They are elite, period....whether we like it or not. In their minds they know better and what's best for us little people so we should just shut up and listen.

Other than the fact that they are "elected", this above statement (and essentially, reality) doesn't sound like much of a democracy.  Can't say we're all that different up here in this regard.  Though, I do believe our politicians and system safeguards a LITTLE bit better against the influence of lobbyists.

that's the rub....WE keep electing these people...over and over and over and are confused and baffled that things don't change  :justjen    :lol
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: axeman90210 on February 28, 2018, 02:07:15 PM
Ya know, I'm pretty far left, and half the shit he tweets I actually believe that he believes. I mean, I disagree with about 99% of it, but I do feel he thinks he's preaching some serious gospel truth.  It's a really interesting introspection into the mind of someone who's just so fucking detached from reality.
He believes everything he tweets. Even the stuff that's contradictory. When you live in your own reality truths come and go and nothing is permanent.

Yup. That's one thing I meant to say when we were having a laugh about his "I'd like to think I'd have run in there, even unarmed" bit. I think he honestly believes he would. We all just know better :lol
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on February 28, 2018, 02:30:05 PM
Ya know, I'm pretty far left, and half the shit he tweets I actually believe that he believes. I mean, I disagree with about 99% of it, but I do feel he thinks he's preaching some serious gospel truth.  It's a really interesting introspection into the mind of someone who's just so fucking detached from reality.

But - and this is an argument I make often, and it's sad that I have to - doesn't everyone?   Do you really believe that [insert other politician] doesn't believe what they say?  I get it; he's more inconsistent than most, but nonetheless, we see inconsistency all the time - in fact, investigators will often, ironically, use inconsistencies to decide a witness/suspect is actually telling the truth.   Liars tend to stick firmly to the script.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on February 28, 2018, 02:32:56 PM
It's a really interesting introspection into the mind of someone who's just so fucking detached from reality.

I get what you're saying is directed specifically at Trump......but in all seriousness, this is the problem with our Congressional Leadership in general. They are all detached from reality.....and they're living in a completely different one than 'normal' Americans. That IMO...is one of the largest issues we face.



The average age of congress is like 58, and I think the senate is something like 61 or 62. I get that with age can come wisdom, but life moves fast today. You have living fossils, who never use technology, deciding on how technology should be used and consumed by those who were born into it. When it comes to the Russian meddling through social media, I honestly think that the majority of our leaders don't truly grasp the power that kind of technology has and the scope of what can be accomplished with it.

As you get higher up, the age does too:

Kasich: 65
Trump: 71
Clinton: 70
Biden: 75
Romney: 70
Sanders:  76
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: cramx3 on February 28, 2018, 03:13:28 PM
and you got McCain at 81

I really hope when I hit my 70s I am retired and enjoying my remaining years of life, or at least not working in a highly stressful and extremely important job that many people rely on me to be on point. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on February 28, 2018, 04:21:49 PM
and you got McCain at 81

I really hope when I hit my 70s I am retired and enjoying my remaining years of life, or at least not working in a highly stressful and extremely important job that many people rely on me to be on point.

In my dream old age scenario, if I end up in a home of some kind, I hope it's just one long LAN party until I'm dead.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: lonestar on February 28, 2018, 04:58:13 PM
and you got McCain at 81

I really hope when I hit my 70s I am retired and enjoying my remaining years of life, or at least not working in a highly stressful and extremely important job that many people rely on me to be on point.
Shit, based on my current physical condition, I'd be amazed if I could do my job at 60, much less 70.

Ya know, I'm pretty far left, and half the shit he tweets I actually believe that he believes. I mean, I disagree with about 99% of it, but I do feel he thinks he's preaching some serious gospel truth.  It's a really interesting introspection into the mind of someone who's just so fucking detached from reality.

But - and this is an argument I make often, and it's sad that I have to - doesn't everyone?   Do you really believe that [insert other politician] doesn't believe what they say?  I get it; he's more inconsistent than most, but nonetheless, we see inconsistency all the time - in fact, investigators will often, ironically, use inconsistencies to decide a witness/suspect is actually telling the truth.   Liars tend to stick firmly to the script.   

I hear what you're saying, but actually I'd give a good deal of politicians the benefit of knowing that they're bullshitting people and being ok with it. Trump is enough of a narcissistic twat that he probably thinks he's saving America with every tweet. I can just see him on his shitter in the White house high fiving himself after hitting the send button.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: cramx3 on March 01, 2018, 07:42:37 AM
and you got McCain at 81

I really hope when I hit my 70s I am retired and enjoying my remaining years of life, or at least not working in a highly stressful and extremely important job that many people rely on me to be on point.

In my dream old age scenario, if I end up in a home of some kind, I hope it's just one long LAN party until I'm dead.

 :lol never thought about such a scenario before, but yea, when we are put off to the nursing home, we may just be strapped to a chair and in a virtual reality to enjoy the rest of our time.

And back to Trump.  He called Jeff Sessions Mr. Magoo and I got to admit, that got a good laugh out of me just now reading that. (He didn't tweet it, but it's trending)  https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/trump-calls-jeff-sessions-apos-073059111.html (https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/trump-calls-jeff-sessions-apos-073059111.html)
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on March 01, 2018, 07:56:12 AM
@RealDoanldTrump
Mar 1, 2018 06:53:58 AM - Many ideas, some good & some not so good, emerged from our bipartisan meeting on school safety yesterday at the White House. Background Checks a big part of conversation. Gun free zones are proven targets of killers. After many years, a Bill should emerge. Respect 2nd Amendment!

Just curious. When those 26 people were murdered in that church in Texas a while back, was that a gun free zone?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on March 01, 2018, 08:16:31 AM
Somebody has a hard time grasping causality.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: chknptpie on March 02, 2018, 06:24:25 AM
Blaming gun free zones seems akin to victim blaming.

Well if he had a gun, he could have shot his attacker
Well if she didn't dress so provocative, she wouldn't get raped
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on March 02, 2018, 06:36:43 AM
Blaming gun free zones seems akin to victim blaming.

Well if he had a gun, he could have shot his attacker
Well if she didn't dress so provocative, she wouldn't get raped

I don't disagree, entirely, but how is that any different than "If he didn't have a gun, no one would have died?"  It's all a form of "blame" isn't it?   Blaming the victim is bad, but so is blaming the WRONG person.  Neither help solve the problem. 

Plus, I don't know that he's "blaming" gun free zones as much as highlighting that it is a variable in the equation as well (and it is). 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on March 02, 2018, 06:37:23 AM
Somebody has a hard time grasping causality.

It's not exclusive to him.  There's a lot of that going around.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Harmony on March 02, 2018, 08:16:44 AM
I swear this guy has the grammar and spelling skills of a 2nd grader.  FWIW, his handlers cleaned it up for him.

Of course, this doesn't even address WHY he's focusing his time on a television show other than it obviously hurts his feelings that Baldwin is mocking him.   ::)    The leader of the free world, my friends.   :\

(https://i.imgur.com/SZuOb5j.jpg)
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on March 02, 2018, 08:22:41 AM
@RealDonaldTrump

Mar 2, 2018 05:50:34 AM - When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win. Example, when we are down $100 billion with a certain country and they get cute, don’t trade anymore-we win big. It’s easy!



I've recently entered a trade war with my grocery store. Several weeks ago, I realized that I had a huge trade deficit with them. I've been giving them thousands of dollars per year for food, and they haven't bought ANY food from me. VERY UNFAIR! I've decided to eat nothing, and now I'm winning bigly. Checkmate, grocery store!
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on March 02, 2018, 08:25:56 AM
@RealDonaldTrump

Mar 2, 2018 05:50:34 AM - When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win. Example, when we are down $100 billion with a certain country and they get cute, don’t trade anymore-we win big. It’s easy!



I've recently entered a trade war with my grocery store. Several weeks ago, I realized that I had a huge trade deficit with them. I've been giving them thousands of dollars per year for food, and they haven't bought ANY food from me. VERY UNFAIR! I've decided to eat nothing, and now I'm winning bigly. Checkmate, grocery store!

Technically, you could create a surplus with them by selling them cones.  Or charging them to put their shopping carts in the coral.  You don't have to sell the same product back and forth, but I understand your position - particularly as it relates to ruffage.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on March 02, 2018, 08:26:22 AM
Blaming gun free zones seems akin to victim blaming.

Well if he had a gun, he could have shot his attacker
Well if she didn't dress so provocative, she wouldn't get raped

I don't disagree, entirely, but how is that any different than "If he didn't have a gun, no one would have died?"  It's all a form of "blame" isn't it?   Blaming the victim is bad, but so is blaming the WRONG person.  Neither help solve the problem. 

Plus, I don't know that he's "blaming" gun free zones as much as highlighting that it is a variable in the equation as well (and it is).

How would we know? Has a shooter told you?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on March 02, 2018, 08:30:10 AM
Blaming gun free zones seems akin to victim blaming.

Well if he had a gun, he could have shot his attacker
Well if she didn't dress so provocative, she wouldn't get raped

I don't disagree, entirely, but how is that any different than "If he didn't have a gun, no one would have died?"  It's all a form of "blame" isn't it?   Blaming the victim is bad, but so is blaming the WRONG person.  Neither help solve the problem. 

Plus, I don't know that he's "blaming" gun free zones as much as highlighting that it is a variable in the equation as well (and it is).

How would we know? Has a shooter told you?

:clap:
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: cramx3 on March 02, 2018, 09:03:34 AM
Blaming gun free zones seems akin to victim blaming.

Well if he had a gun, he could have shot his attacker
Well if she didn't dress so provocative, she wouldn't get raped

I don't disagree, entirely, but how is that any different than "If he didn't have a gun, no one would have died?"  It's all a form of "blame" isn't it?   Blaming the victim is bad, but so is blaming the WRONG person.  Neither help solve the problem. 

Plus, I don't know that he's "blaming" gun free zones as much as highlighting that it is a variable in the equation as well (and it is).

How would we know? Has a shooter told you?

:clap:

I was curious and googled this and found: https://www.dailywire.com/news/27440/what-percentage-mass-shootings-happen-gun-free-amanda-prestigiacomo#exit-modal (https://www.dailywire.com/news/27440/what-percentage-mass-shootings-happen-gun-free-amanda-prestigiacomo#exit-modal)

Quote
According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, "gun free zones" (areas where guns are prohibited) have been the target of more than 98% of all mass shootings.

I don't think I need to hear it from the shooter since the stats are very lopsided (assuming this is true of course).   I don't see how it isn't one of many variables even if it's only a small part of it, it seems meaningful statistically.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on March 02, 2018, 09:43:02 AM
If we were to declare banks to be gun free zones, you'd suddenly find that 100 percent of bank robberies happened in gun free zones.

Mass shooters are generally targeting schools, which are necessarily gun free zones. Many places where large numbers of people congregate are. As GMD likes to remind us, sporting events qualify, even though not they're not under the federal statute. This guy didn't seek out a gun free zone. He sought a place that would be crowded with targets that he had a grudge with and would be packed together in once place.

Also, gun free zones extend 1000' from any school property. I've done some research on drug free zones, and found that it's very difficult to not be within one. If there's a resident who's operating a day care center in the middle of your neighborhood, that counts. If a school's football field is offset from the school, you've got a 1000' radius from that, as well. Drug free zones are worse, because they include any place where kids might congregate, but schools cover a whole lot of ground.

Also, gun free zones generally don't prohibit most people from carrying weapons anyway, so there's really no deterrent to a potential shooter. There are a whole lot of guns legally possessed within them.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: axeman90210 on March 02, 2018, 10:06:02 AM
Blaming gun free zones seems akin to victim blaming.

Well if he had a gun, he could have shot his attacker
Well if she didn't dress so provocative, she wouldn't get raped

I don't disagree, entirely, but how is that any different than "If he didn't have a gun, no one would have died?"  It's all a form of "blame" isn't it?   Blaming the victim is bad, but so is blaming the WRONG person.  Neither help solve the problem. 

Plus, I don't know that he's "blaming" gun free zones as much as highlighting that it is a variable in the equation as well (and it is).

How would we know? Has a shooter told you?

:clap:

I was curious and googled this and found: https://www.dailywire.com/news/27440/what-percentage-mass-shootings-happen-gun-free-amanda-prestigiacomo#exit-modal (https://www.dailywire.com/news/27440/what-percentage-mass-shootings-happen-gun-free-amanda-prestigiacomo#exit-modal)

Quote
According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, "gun free zones" (areas where guns are prohibited) have been the target of more than 98% of all mass shootings.

I don't think I need to hear it from the shooter since the stats are very lopsided (assuming this is true of course).   I don't see how it isn't one of many variables even if it's only a small part of it, it seems meaningful statistically.

Just read this a couple hours ago, which in part addressed that 98% figure.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/trumps-misleading-gun-rhetoric/
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: cramx3 on March 02, 2018, 11:05:23 AM
From that link just for reference

Quote
As for Trump’s claim that “98 percent of all mass shootings in the United States, since 1950, have taken place in gun-free zones,” that figure has been disputed. It comes from an updated 2014 report from the Crime Prevention Research Center, founded by economist John Lott, whose work is often cited by gun rights advocates.

Calculating such a statistic depends on one’s definition of “mass shooting” and “gun-free zone.”

Lott’s research cites “six mass public shootings since at least 1950 that have not been part of some other crime where at least four people have been killed in an area where general civilians are allowed to have guns.”

But in the book “Rampage Nation,” Louis Klarevas, who teaches at the University of Massachusetts-Boston, identified 111 shootings since 1966 (where six or more people, not including the perpetrator, had been killed per incident, whether in a public or private place) and found 13 in a gun-free zone and five in a “gun-restricting zone” (where civilians can’t have guns but there is regular armed security). That would be just 16 percent of mass shootings in a gun-free or gun-restricted zone.

To highlight one of the discrepancies: Lott says the 2015 shooting at an Oregon community college was in a gun-free zone, but as we found when researching the issue, that’s not exactly the case. While Umpqua Community College does have policies prohibiting firearms on campus, a college official told us those prohibitions “would not apply to those with valid concealed weapon permits pursuant to Oregon law.”

Klarevas counts that incident as occurring in a gun-allowing zone.

One source says 16% and the other 98%  :lol wtf kind of studies are these. 

Also, gun free zones generally don't prohibit most people from carrying weapons anyway, so there's really no deterrent to a potential shooter. There are a whole lot of guns legally possessed within them.

It definitely sounds like "gun free zones" needs a more strict definition as the statistics seem to be swayed by what one considers such. 

However, I'm not sure any of the arguments presented have made me feel any less that "gun free zones" are a small variable to the equation even if the 16% stat is the true answer, I still feel there's vulnerability in these zones.  I'm not advocating for more guns either. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: axeman90210 on March 02, 2018, 11:08:22 AM
Studies that used very different definitions of key variables :lol :lol
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on March 02, 2018, 12:36:16 PM
However, I'm not sure any of the arguments presented have made me feel any less that "gun free zones" are a small variable to the equation even if the 16% stat is the true answer, I still feel there's vulnerability in these zones.  I'm not advocating for more guns either.
Perhaps one of DTF's scientists will correct me, but it seems to me for it to be a variable it has to do one of two things. It could encourage shooters to choose such a place as a target. Perhaps some terrorists might have taken this into account, but I don't know of any. Most others are differently motivated. Or, it could increase the severity by lessening the chances of a good guy with a gun intervening. This seems even less likely. Good guys with guns don't tend to be anywhere when these happen, or they run an hide. It's certainly possible that one or both of these things occur, but I don't know of any such cases and they both seem pretty unlikely in the grand scheme of things. Like I said, mass shooters select locations based on who and how many they want to kill, and gun free zones don't seem to offer a whole lot of deterrence since there will still be plenty of armed civvies about.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on March 02, 2018, 02:22:08 PM
If we were to declare banks to be gun free zones, you'd suddenly find that 100 percent of bank robberies happened in gun free zones.

Mass shooters are generally targeting schools, which are necessarily gun free zones. Many places where large numbers of people congregate are. As GMD likes to remind us, sporting events qualify, even though not they're not under the federal statute. This guy didn't seek out a gun free zone. He sought a place that would be crowded with targets that he had a grudge with and would be packed together in once place.

Also, gun free zones extend 1000' from any school property. I've done some research on drug free zones, and found that it's very difficult to not be within one. If there's a resident who's operating a day care center in the middle of your neighborhood, that counts. If a school's football field is offset from the school, you've got a 1000' radius from that, as well. Drug free zones are worse, because they include any place where kids might congregate, but schools cover a whole lot of ground.

Also, gun free zones generally don't prohibit most people from carrying weapons anyway, so there's really no deterrent to a potential shooter. There are a whole lot of guns legally possessed within them.

So help me out here, so next time I talk to my anonymous shooter source I can sound intelligent (that was a good one, by the way):  what's a gun free zone?  Higher penalty for having a gun illegally in it? I was under the impression that even if I was legally permitted to carry, I couldn't bring it into a gun free zone.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on March 02, 2018, 03:33:27 PM
If we were to declare banks to be gun free zones, you'd suddenly find that 100 percent of bank robberies happened in gun free zones.

Mass shooters are generally targeting schools, which are necessarily gun free zones. Many places where large numbers of people congregate are. As GMD likes to remind us, sporting events qualify, even though not they're not under the federal statute. This guy didn't seek out a gun free zone. He sought a place that would be crowded with targets that he had a grudge with and would be packed together in once place.

Also, gun free zones extend 1000' from any school property. I've done some research on drug free zones, and found that it's very difficult to not be within one. If there's a resident who's operating a day care center in the middle of your neighborhood, that counts. If a school's football field is offset from the school, you've got a 1000' radius from that, as well. Drug free zones are worse, because they include any place where kids might congregate, but schools cover a whole lot of ground.

Also, gun free zones generally don't prohibit most people from carrying weapons anyway, so there's really no deterrent to a potential shooter. There are a whole lot of guns legally possessed within them.

So help me out here, so next time I talk to my anonymous shooter source I can sound intelligent (that was a good one, by the way):  what's a gun free zone?  Higher penalty for having a gun illegally in it? I was under the impression that even if I was legally permitted to carry, I couldn't bring it into a gun free zone.
It varies. The federal law makes anyplace within 1000' of a school facility or ground a GFZ, but carves out plenty of exceptions. If you own property within that exclusion zone, or are licensed to carry then you're excluded. State and local laws can also expand on that. In Tejas a place that derives >51% of revenue can't allow guns inside, and that includes CCL holders. Those would technically also be considered GFZs, but of a different sort. Then you've got private business that choose to disallow CCL. This can even include apartment communities. Those might be considered GFZs, depending on whether it suits somebody's agenda to label it as such.

My point was that there are still plenty of guns inside of GFZs, I'd bet that GMD passes in and out of them 20 times a day at least carrying his Kimber, so I wouldn't put much stock in it being a safer place to shoot up.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: gmillerdrake on March 02, 2018, 05:38:55 PM
If we were to declare banks to be gun free zones, you'd suddenly find that 100 percent of bank robberies happened in gun free zones.

Mass shooters are generally targeting schools, which are necessarily gun free zones. Many places where large numbers of people congregate are. As GMD likes to remind us, sporting events qualify, even though not they're not under the federal statute. This guy didn't seek out a gun free zone. He sought a place that would be crowded with targets that he had a grudge with and would be packed together in once place.

Also, gun free zones extend 1000' from any school property. I've done some research on drug free zones, and found that it's very difficult to not be within one. If there's a resident who's operating a day care center in the middle of your neighborhood, that counts. If a school's football field is offset from the school, you've got a 1000' radius from that, as well. Drug free zones are worse, because they include any place where kids might congregate, but schools cover a whole lot of ground.

Also, gun free zones generally don't prohibit most people from carrying weapons anyway, so there's really no deterrent to a potential shooter. There are a whole lot of guns legally possessed within them.

So help me out here, so next time I talk to my anonymous shooter source I can sound intelligent (that was a good one, by the way):  what's a gun free zone?  Higher penalty for having a gun illegally in it? I was under the impression that even if I was legally permitted to carry, I couldn't bring it into a gun free zone.
It varies. The federal law makes anyplace within 1000' of a school facility or ground a GFZ, but carves out plenty of exceptions. If you own property within that exclusion zone, or are licensed to carry then you're excluded. State and local laws can also expand on that. In Tejas a place that derives >51% of revenue can't allow guns inside, and that includes CCL holders. Those would technically also be considered GFZs, but of a different sort. Then you've got private business that choose to disallow CCL. This can even include apartment communities. Those might be considered GFZs, depending on whether it suits somebody's agenda to label it as such.

My point was that there are still plenty of guns inside of GFZs, I'd bet that GMD passes in and out of them 20 times a day at least carrying his Kimber, so I wouldn't put much stock in it being a safer place to shoot up.

Yep. I’m in and out of numerous areas that either have that gun with the red circle and line through to or places that are considered ‘gun free’. I’m in and out of my kids elementary school all the time while concealing my weapon and I think that’s a gun free area as well. 

The way Missouri’s conceal carry law is written is there are specific areas you “can’t” carry that are listed, yet in the very next provision of that law it states that if discovered carrying in those locations it is not a criminal offense....so, I’m not breaking the law. Besides...conceal means conceal.....no one has ever or should ever know you have a weapon on you unless you’ve accessed it to use it.


Gun Free Zones are a joke around the board. They’re there to make it look like some type of effort has been made, it’s lazy IMO.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on March 02, 2018, 06:12:19 PM
You and I are in agreement about them being a joke. However, perhaps not about who the joke is on. The only time I ever really hear about them is the pro-gun folk citing them as a danger to us all. After all, the reason we're discussing it is because the Boy King shot his mouth off about them attracting killers and lunatics. Pretty sure the NRA would certainly parrot the line about how dangerous they are, as well.

There's also the problem that the origin of the bill which was the republicans incorporating it into their tough on crime legislation in the early 90s. Nifty way to sell the, uh, less desirables to the corporate prisons.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: gmillerdrake on March 02, 2018, 06:23:06 PM
No....I think we’re on the same side. I don’t buy that these zones are ‘targeted’ by psycho’s. I don’t think there’s much evidence to actually support that? All I do know, is that you ‘serious’ conceal carry folks....and by that I mean people that carry literally all the time......are going to carry in those areas anyway.

And that isn’t because ‘we’ are trying to be dicks an ignore the law but that (as I said earlier) in Missouri it’s not a crime to carry in gun free zones.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Lucien on April 14, 2018, 03:39:27 AM
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/375609403376144384
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: AngelBack on April 14, 2018, 05:02:08 AM
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/375609403376144384

Great point.  Better to turn a blind eye to women and children being attacked with chemical weapons than to take a different stance than you did 5 years ago when you were a private citizen (even though the background of the twitter feed misleadingly looks more recent).

The normalization of chemical weapon use could not be allowed and thankfully the UK and France are providing some cover on this.  As always, "style over substance" with libs.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on April 14, 2018, 05:10:43 AM
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/375609403376144384

Great point.  Better to turn a blind eye to women and children being attacked with chemical weapons than to take a different stance than you did 5 years ago when you were a private citizen (even though the background of the twitter feed misleadingly looks more recent).

The normalization of chemical weapon use could not be allowed and thankfully the UK and France are providing some cover on this.  As always, "style over substance" with libs.

I kinda agree with this.  Trump's previous stance was probably JUST in opposition to Obama.  I'm far from the resident Trump defender/apologist (we leave that to Stads), but not really sure what the point is of pointing out an old tweet just because it contradicts something of this magnitude and consequence.  Other topics, maybe he's hypocritical (taxes for instance), but on humanitarian issues, I think it's kinda important to 'do the right thing'.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: XJDenton on April 14, 2018, 05:17:49 AM
Quote
The normalization of chemical weapon use could not be allowed and thankfully the UK and France are providing some cover on this.

This sentiment would have rung a bit less hollow if we hadn't already ignored chemical attacks by them in 2015 and 2017. And also if the Trump administration hadn't reduced the amount of refugees they received from the region by several orders of magnitude.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: AngelBack on April 14, 2018, 06:24:27 AM
Quote
The normalization of chemical weapon use could not be allowed and thankfully the UK and France are providing some cover on this.

This sentiment would have rung a bit less hollow if we hadn't already ignored chemical attacks by them in 2015 and 2017. And also if the Trump administration hadn't reduced the amount of refugees they received from the region by several orders of magnitude.

2015 Obama's watch and you are right, nothing was going to happen under him.  He was a completely empty suit.

2016 Trump struck the airport and some aircraft as a warning shot.  Since that time diplomatic efforts to get Russia to reign Assad in, efforts to get the U.N. involved (which is a joke, that organization is a useless kabuki crap show) and now the latest.

Again, I ask, should Trump have just sat on his hands because he didn't react on YOUR preferred timeline?

And had he done nothing "Trump protecting Putin" would be the headlines.  And I reject the notion that the USA is obligated to be the world's "battered women's shelter".
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on April 14, 2018, 07:54:59 AM
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/375609403376144384

Great point.  Better to turn a blind eye to women and children being attacked with chemical weapons than to take a different stance than you did 5 years ago when you were a private citizen (even though the background of the twitter feed misleadingly looks more recent).

The normalization of chemical weapon use could not be allowed and thankfully the UK and France are providing some cover on this.  As always, "style over substance" with libs.

I kinda agree with this.  Trump's previous stance was probably JUST in opposition to Obama.  I'm far from the resident Trump defender/apologist (we leave that to Stads), but not really sure what the point is of pointing out an old tweet just because it contradicts something of this magnitude and consequence.  Other topics, maybe he's hypocritical (taxes for instance), but on humanitarian issues, I think it's kinda important to 'do the right thing'.

Gaddamn it.   :). Seriously, though, sad when just "being fair" and "nonjudgement" has to be black-and-whited into "apologizing.  I've said more times than Derek Sheridan has weighed in on apps and cheesy vocals that I didn't vote for him, wouldn't now vote for him, don't like him, and don't agree with well over half of his policies.   I just choose not to hate, and not to inject my subjective opinion in direct opposition to the facts we know.    If that's "apologist", well I guess so. 

I wrote about this elsewhere just this past week.  Somehow, "reasoned re-evaluation of new facts and arriving at a different conclusion" - what some of us used to call "learning" - has been re-labeled "flip-flopping" (and made a pejorative) and rigid adherence to old positions has become a virtue.   In any other context we would celebrate this kind of evolution.    I've been critical of a lot of things that Obama did - and will continue to do so - but one of them was NOT his prevarication on certain subjects.  It's just a fact that as President you know more than you did before you were President, even if you were a U.S. Senator.   Trump wasn't even that.  It's logical to assume that his access to facts - and the people that know them - is exponentially greater than it was before he became President, and certainly more than five years ago.  I know, I know, he's mentally deficient, he has the IQ of a shoe, and his brain is in his testicles - got it! - but while I don't get or accept the stupid lies - "I weight 239 pounds!" - "changing your mind" isn't and shouldn't be a detriment. 

I, too, don't quite get the connection between taking action against chemical weapons and the notion that we have to ship people halfway across the planet out of "good will". 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: XJDenton on April 14, 2018, 08:14:31 AM
Angelback:

Quote
Better to turn a blind eye to women and children being attacked with chemical weapons than to take a different stance than you did 5 years ago when you were a private citizen

Also Angelback:

And I reject the notion that the USA is obligated to be the world's "battered women's shelter".

You don't see a slight amount cognitive dissonance in being concerned about women and children being gassed while simultaneously not feeling obligated to give them a way out of that situation?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on April 14, 2018, 08:33:37 AM
And I reject the notion that the USA is obligated to be the world's "battered women's shelter".

You don't see a slight amount cognitive dissonance in being concerned about women and children being gassed while simultaneously not feeling obligated to give them a way out of that situation?

+1.

And Angel... it seems somewhat arrogant to think that the US is (or should be) the "world's battered women's shelter"  Immigration aside, I would suspect that the US is far from the highest (per capita) landing zone for refugees.  I don't feel like fact checking that statement so someone feel free to validate OR contradict this position with facts.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on April 14, 2018, 10:44:17 AM
I don't see any cognitive dissonance in that.   I find rape abhorrent, but that doesn't mean that every hooker in Hartford with a client who gets handsy gets to watch Blacklist with me in my living room.   

As for Jingle, of course you're right, but it's complicated.  Lebanon and Jordan lead the world in taking in "refugees" but it's kind of a logistics issue more than anything else.   And "per capita" is complicated too, since we're third overall, and more than half the countries of the world have less people than the top twenty STATES in America.  We do, though, lead the world in foreign-born residents, at least as a percentage of the world population of foreign-born people. 

Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: XJDenton on April 14, 2018, 11:10:39 AM
I find rape abhorrent, but that doesn't mean that every hooker in Hartford with a client who gets handsy gets to watch Blacklist with me in my living room.   

No, but you do fund police departments, rape centers, anti-trafficing programs and the like, which would be much more apt comparisons to vetted refugee admission than your rather glib example.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Harmony on April 14, 2018, 12:22:43 PM
Quote
In 2016, near the end of Barack Obama's presidency, the U.S. resettled 15,479 Syrian refugees, according to State Department figures. In 2017, the country let in 3,024. So far this year, that number is just 11. By comparison, over the same 3 1/2-month period in 2016, the U.S. accepted 790.

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2018/04/12/602022877/the-u-s-has-welcomed-only-11-syrian-refugees-this-year?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=politics&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180413

We don't need to be the world's "battered women's shelter" but the numbers are telling.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: gmillerdrake on April 14, 2018, 02:49:32 PM
Quote
In 2016, near the end of Barack Obama's presidency, the U.S. resettled 15,479 Syrian refugees, according to State Department figures. In 2017, the country let in 3,024. So far this year, that number is just 11. By comparison, over the same 3 1/2-month period in 2016, the U.S. accepted 790.

What's the issue here? Regional Countries with a similar culture and set of beliefs should be the ones to accept and handle Syrian refugees. Shipping them halfway across the world into an unfamiliar setting doesn't seem like the answer. The US could chip in financially I don't see anything wrong with limiting the amount of refugees. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on April 14, 2018, 03:18:31 PM
Fair... but then claim of being the worlds battered women shelter doesn't play out.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: lonestar on May 28, 2018, 09:49:20 AM
Quote
Happy Memorial Day! Those who died for our great country would be very happy and proud at how well our country is doing today. Best economy in decades, lowest unemployment numbers for Blacks and Hispanics EVER (& women in 18years), rebuilding our Military and so much more. Nice!


"happy"....
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: axeman90210 on May 28, 2018, 04:20:16 PM
It's the "Nice!" at the end that really gets me. :facepalm:
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: XJDenton on May 28, 2018, 07:43:54 PM
Jesus christ he's a bell-end.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: lonestar on May 30, 2018, 08:28:47 PM
I think he has a secret agenda to get more and more idiotic on a daily basis...his response to the Roseanne cancellation...

(https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/34131413_1914827468552532_2060996827863318528_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=139f634d485338c55daaa850740ddd72&oe=5B821925)


He's such a fucking fuck  :rollin :rollin :rollin
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on May 30, 2018, 08:50:01 PM
(https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5b0f0ab51e0000a6048e6fb6.png?cache=vpwknuagzf&ops=scalefit_630_noupscale)
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: lonestar on May 30, 2018, 11:05:09 PM
Um, yeah...sure....
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on May 31, 2018, 09:25:53 AM
Yeah, sounds just like her.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on May 31, 2018, 09:35:27 AM
I fully cop to being irrational on this point, but my GOD does it chap my ass to see grown people in an official capacity using "&" for "and" and "w" for "with" like we're hanging w our baes on sat night B4 the dance!   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: lonestar on May 31, 2018, 09:39:51 AM
I fully cop to being irrational on this point, but my GOD does it chap my ass to see grown people in an official capacity using "&" for "and" and "w" for "with" like we're hanging w our baes on sat night B4 the dance!

Yeah? If we instituted a 140 character limit on DTF, you'd be using them like a junkie on payday within a week.  :biggrin:
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on May 31, 2018, 09:45:28 AM
I fully cop to being irrational on this point, but my GOD does it chap my ass to see grown people in an official capacity using "&" for "and" and "w" for "with" like we're hanging w our baes on sat night B4 the dance!

I like 2 hope that 100% due 2 the character limits of Twitter.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: cramx3 on May 31, 2018, 09:50:11 AM
I fully cop to being irrational on this point, but my GOD does it chap my ass to see grown people in an official capacity using "&" for "and" and "w" for "with" like we're hanging w our baes on sat night B4 the dance!

I like 2 hope that 100% due 2 the character limits of Twitter.

Yea, I resort to these when my tweets have become lengthy and need an extra character.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on May 31, 2018, 10:34:51 AM
I fully cop to being irrational on this point, but my GOD does it chap my ass to see grown people in an official capacity using "&" for "and" and "w" for "with" like we're hanging w our baes on sat night B4 the dance!

Yeah? If we instituted a 140 character limit on DTF, you'd be using them like a junkie on payday within a week.  :biggrin:

Sorry, not to be a dick or obnoxious, but I promise you I would not.   You know that GEICO commercial, where all the older people are in a group circle and the one guy says "I find myself telling people that defense wins championships", and the woman next to him leans over and says "well, it does!"?  My family makes fun of me for missing my meeting, and invariably they start to laugh at how I still text in full sentences.   

Told you, I fully cop to being irrational on this point.  :)
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on May 31, 2018, 10:40:14 AM
Yeah, my texts are full sentences with proper capitalization, spelling, and punctuation. Since I rely on voice to text there's really no reason not to be grammatically correct.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: lonestar on May 31, 2018, 10:53:29 AM
I'm that way as well in text messages, except that I had to teach my phone not to autocorrect 'hella'...NorCal for life yo...



I fully cop to being irrational on this point, but my GOD does it chap my ass to see grown people in an official capacity using "&" for "and" and "w" for "with" like we're hanging w our baes on sat night B4 the dance!

Yeah? If we instituted a 140 character limit on DTF, you'd be using them like a junkie on payday within a week.  :biggrin:

Sorry, not to be a dick or obnoxious, but I promise you I would not.   You know that GEICO commercial, where all the older people are in a group circle and the one guy says "I find myself telling people that defense wins championships", and the woman next to him leans over and says "well, it does!"?  My family makes fun of me for missing my meeting, and invariably they start to laugh at how I still text in full sentences.   

Told you, I fully cop to being irrational on this point.  :)

I actually 100% believe you tbh.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: cramx3 on May 31, 2018, 10:58:00 AM
Yeah, my texts are full sentences with proper capitalization, spelling, and punctuation. Since I rely on voice to text there's really no reason not to be grammatically correct.

There are no limits in text messages though.  I'm mostly grammatically correct in those (I have typos or my phone autocorrects things wrong sometimes) but texts are also personal.  Tweets, i still go for grammatically correct (more so than my texts because it's public) but in terms of spelling to make space, I will do whats necessary 2 make my point if it comes 2 that.  It's not like people don't understand it anymore, it's just no longer proper english, but the platform gives way to not use proper english.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: lonestar on May 31, 2018, 11:00:23 AM
I do agree with Stadler's initial point though, that while it's ok for say me, or cramX, or whatever teen celebrity flavor of the week is, to use whatever shortcuts we need to be succinct in our text, there should be a higher standard for say the POTUS.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: cramx3 on May 31, 2018, 11:21:30 AM
I would agree with that as well.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on May 31, 2018, 11:56:55 AM
I do agree with Stadler's initial point though, that while it's ok for say me, or cramX, or whatever teen celebrity flavor of the week is, to use whatever shortcuts we need to be succinct in our text, there should be a higher standard for say the POTUS.

Or a foreign born FLOTUS?

Also, reading her tweet with her accent is kinda funny, though I really want to read it in Alec-Baldwin-Trump
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on May 31, 2018, 12:48:10 PM
Be best.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on May 31, 2018, 01:17:44 PM
I'm that way as well in text messages, except that I had to teach my phone not to autocorrect 'hella'...NorCal for life yo...

There's a better chance of me asking Hillary out to dinner and a movie than there is me texting the word "hella".   :)

I actually 100% believe you tbh.

I wish I was exaggerating even a little bit, but alas, I am not. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on May 31, 2018, 01:24:44 PM
Yeah, my texts are full sentences with proper capitalization, spelling, and punctuation. Since I rely on voice to text there's really no reason not to be grammatically correct.

There are no limits in text messages though.  I'm mostly grammatically correct in those (I have typos or my phone autocorrects things wrong sometimes) but texts are also personal.  Tweets, i still go for grammatically correct (more so than my texts because it's public) but in terms of spelling to make space, I will do whats necessary 2 make my point if it comes 2 that.  It's not like people don't understand it anymore, it's just no longer proper english, but the platform gives way to not use proper english.
But that last sentence is part of my long-standing beef with social media.   Just because it makes it easy - or desireable - to do so doesn't  make it right or just.   I get it; the world isn't going to collapse because of a little grammatic or syntax substitution, but we shouldn't be promoting "dumb".   

Those few times I was faced with that dilemma, I just tried to figure out a way to make the same point more concisely.  See, we all know the difference; we all learned the rules and are now breaking them; some of these kids don't know the right way and perhaps never will. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: lonestar on May 31, 2018, 03:51:59 PM
(https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5b0f0ab51e0000a6048e6fb6.png?cache=vpwknuagzf&ops=scalefit_630_noupscale)


 :rollin

(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/34146422_893912454126532_783064171188060160_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&oh=b46f3ef672ad1c37edd8edc7db8464d6&oe=5BBBFB68)
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on May 31, 2018, 07:43:12 PM
Should've read "His Bigly".   :lol
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Harmony on June 01, 2018, 12:01:07 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/Mfetn13.jpg)
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: lonestar on June 01, 2018, 01:32:13 PM
 :lol
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: ? on June 04, 2018, 07:30:04 AM
As pointed out by someone on Twitter (not that it wasn't obvious already):

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DeeUekKU0AEFO1q?format=jpg)
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on June 04, 2018, 07:48:17 AM
And... mystery solved!   The problem isn't TRUMP!  It's RANDY FUCKING BACHMAN!

"And I been (takin' care of business)
Everyday (takin' care of businees)
Every way (takin' care of business)
It's all mine (takin' care of business)
And workin' overtime
Workout!"

:)
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: XJDenton on June 04, 2018, 01:23:06 PM
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1003616210922147841

So can we stop pretending this guy isn't a fascist now?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: portnoy311 on June 04, 2018, 08:32:45 PM
I also noticed in his letter disinviting the Eagles he referred to himself as "their President." He doesn't serve the people, we all serve him.

And that's about the 20th most insulting thing he's said this week.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on June 04, 2018, 08:47:07 PM
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1003616210922147841

So can we stop pretending this guy isn't a fascist now?

I like Trump about as much as I agree with Stadler, but there isn't anything fascist about that. Especially since he implied that he wasn't going to pardon himself.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: lonestar on June 04, 2018, 08:51:09 PM
Yeah, that's more wannabe dick wagging...."Look at me, I got all this power and am untouchable, but I don't need it cause I'm a fucking saint...." dude's more insecure than a three year old when they can't find their blanket and binky.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: XJDenton on June 04, 2018, 09:18:47 PM
I like Trump about as much as I agree with Stadler, but there isn't anything fascist about that. Especially since he implied that he wasn't going to pardon himself.

The problem isn't if he does, it is that he is harboring under the belief that he can.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on June 04, 2018, 09:50:58 PM
I like Trump about as much as I agree with Stadler, but there isn't anything fascist about that. Especially since he implied that he wasn't going to pardon himself.

The problem isn't if he does, it is that he is harboring under the belief that he can.

Well that's fine. I honestly have no idea if he can.

The problem would be if he couldn't, but does anyway. If he tries and is shot down, then he's just an idiot.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: XJDenton on June 04, 2018, 09:57:58 PM
A fascist who fails is still a fascist. ;)
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on June 04, 2018, 10:03:23 PM
A fascist who fails is still a fascist. ;)

I dunno. I'm sure, if given the opportunity, Trump would likely be pleased as piss to be a truly fascist leader.

But right now, he's just a wannabe.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: XJDenton on June 04, 2018, 10:07:18 PM
Could have said the same about the Austrian who was giving speeches in Munich beer halls in the 20s. #yesijustwentfullgodwin
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on June 04, 2018, 10:08:26 PM
Could have said the same about the Austrian who was giving speeches in beer halls in the 70's. #yesijustwentfullarnold

And yet now he's one of America's treasures.



Also, if wanting to be a fascist dictator made you a fascist dictator, then every leader in the world and every CEO on the planet, and probably Stadler, is a fascist dictator.


Good Cage man, you're making me defend Trump! Do you know how dirty this feels? WHAT DID I EVER DO TO YOU?!?!
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: XJDenton on June 04, 2018, 10:12:15 PM
Who said he was a dictator?
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on June 04, 2018, 10:15:47 PM
Who said he was a dictator?

You know what I mean! GAWSH!
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: XJDenton on June 04, 2018, 10:23:46 PM
Alright, alright. :p
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on June 04, 2018, 11:39:02 PM
I like Trump about as much as I agree with Stadler, but there isn't anything fascist about that. Especially since he implied that he wasn't going to pardon himself.

The problem isn't if he does, it is that he is harboring under the belief that he can.

So what?   Since when are thoughts illegal?  I'm harboring under the belief that I can bang Margot Robbie, but it doesn't mean I can, and doesn't mean I'm all that and a bag of chips.   Every plaintiff that brings a case to a courtroom believes they can win that case.   Every guy that asks a girl out believes that she will say yes. 

I could do this all day. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on June 04, 2018, 11:40:12 PM
Could have said the same about the Austrian who was giving speeches in beer halls in the 70's. #yesijustwentfullarnold

And yet now he's one of America's treasures.



Also, if wanting to be a fascist dictator made you a fascist dictator, then every leader in the world and every CEO on the planet, and probably Stadler, is a fascist dictator.


Good Cage man, you're making me defend Trump! Do you know how dirty this feels? WHAT DID I EVER DO TO YOU?!?!


Wait, what? 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on June 04, 2018, 11:41:57 PM
And at the risk of repeating myself, the comment trail on a tweet?   You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on June 05, 2018, 12:20:21 AM
Could have said the same about the Austrian who was giving speeches in beer halls in the 70's. #yesijustwentfullarnold

And yet now he's one of America's treasures.



Also, if wanting to be a fascist dictator made you a fascist dictator, then every leader in the world and every CEO on the planet, and probably Stadler, is a fascist dictator.


Good Cage man, you're making me defend Trump! Do you know how dirty this feels? WHAT DID I EVER DO TO YOU?!?!


Wait, what?


You'll have to be more specific than that.

Was it my changing the Hitler reference to an Arnold one? Was it my use of Cage? Was it my implication that you'd be a fascist dictator?

Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on June 05, 2018, 08:15:01 AM
Haha.  Yes.   

:)  ;)
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: RuRoRul on June 05, 2018, 08:46:59 AM
The president announces in an official statement (as they declared his Twitter to be) that he has the authority to pardon himself of any crime.

The same president also recently stated he has "absolute authority" to direct the justice department however he chooses.

His legal spokesman was just recently making the point that the president could have shot and killed one of his top law enforcement officials if he wasn't happy with him and couldn't be indicted.

These things are not at the same level on the "facist-meter" as "Guy fantazises about banging celebrity". The problem comparing this to "But isn't this just the same as any example of someone thinking they can do something" is those people aren't in position where they are the head of an extremely powerful executive branch that is putting out a steady stream of intent to want to hold even more absolute power. The position of the person making these statements matters. And another note is it is statements, not just thoughts, or else we wouldn't be talking about it. A random guy Tweets "I believe I can bang Margot Robbie!" gets an eye-roll. If the producer of her next film Tweets "I believe I can bang Margot Robbie!", then that discussion is probably getting shipped to the Harvey Weinstein thread. The position and the level of power available to someone matters greatly when they state their belief or intention to overreach or abuse it. It shouldn't need to be explained that random man on the street says he intends to take away all guns it's probably not worth worrying about, president of the country announces he intends to use everything at his disposal to take away all guns it's maybe a cause for concern.

Let's put it this way - murder in Washington D.C is a federal crime. Donald Trump could murder every member of Congress that might vote to impeach him (or at least enough to send a message to any who might try it). Then he could pardon himself for it.

An extreme hypothetical, maybe, but no more extreme than the hypothetical being used by Trump's own legal team (shooting James Comey in the head instead of firing him) to demonstrate their position that the president can't be indicted, it requires impeachment.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on June 05, 2018, 09:16:53 AM
The president announces in an official statement (as they declared his Twitter to be) that he has the authority to pardon himself of any crime.

The same president also recently stated he has "absolute authority" to direct the justice department however he chooses.

His legal spokesman was just recently making the point that the president could have shot and killed one of his top law enforcement officials if he wasn't happy with him and couldn't be indicted.

These things are not at the same level on the "facist-meter" as "Guy fantazises about banging celebrity". The problem comparing this to "But isn't this just the same as any example of someone thinking they can do something" is those people aren't in position where they are the head of an extremely powerful executive branch that is putting out a steady stream of intent to want to hold even more absolute power. The position of the person making these statements matters. And another note is it is statements, not just thoughts, or else we wouldn't be talking about it. A random guy Tweets "I believe I can bang Margot Robbie!" gets an eye-roll. If the producer of her next film Tweets "I believe I can bang Margot Robbie!", then that discussion is probably getting shipped to the Harvey Weinstein thread. The position and the level of power available to someone matters greatly when they state their belief or intention to overreach or abuse it. It shouldn't need to be explained that random man on the street says he intends to take away all guns it's probably not worth worrying about, president of the country announces he intends to use everything at his disposal to take away all guns it's maybe a cause for concern.

Let's put it this way - murder in Washington D.C is a federal crime. Donald Trump could murder every member of Congress that might vote to impeach him (or at least enough to send a message to any who might try it). Then he could pardon himself for it.

An extreme hypothetical, maybe, but no more extreme than the hypothetical being used by Trump's own legal team (shooting James Comey in the head instead of firing him) to demonstrate their position that the president can't be indicted, it requires impeachment.

But you have to apply your own standards to your analysis.  You didn't mention once that the notion of "Presidential immunity" - for lack of a better term - is actually a legitimately debatable topic in Constitutional law.   So rather than jump to conclusions and call him FACIST!, why not err on the side of "Constitutional pundit"?

As for control of the DOJ, well, yeah, he does.   It's a wing of his branch of government.  Again, there is a legitimate and as-yet unsettled debate as to the whether there are limits to that, but your implication that Trump is saying "I am a god, I am Supreme Leader, I am the GRAND POO-BAH!  Bow to me!" is not accurate.   

I'm only vaguely aware of the "Comey" comment - meaning I didn't hear it live - but even that is being misrepresented.  He said "...and not face charges before being impeached".   That very clearly is saying that the penal process for the President involves CONGRESS, not a Department in his own branch of government.   That's not the same as "I can do anything I want".  In fact, I might argue that if you're really "ANTI-TRUMP", you WANT it that way.   You WANT an independent branch of government evaluating his conduct, not a group that reports to him.  THAT'S far more "fascist" than the reality.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on June 05, 2018, 09:35:24 AM
The president announces in an official statement (as they declared his Twitter to be) that he has the authority to pardon himself of any crime.

The same president also recently stated he has "absolute authority" to direct the justice department however he chooses.

His legal spokesman was just recently making the point that the president could have shot and killed one of his top law enforcement officials if he wasn't happy with him and couldn't be indicted.

These things are not at the same level on the "facist-meter" as "Guy fantazises about banging celebrity". The problem comparing this to "But isn't this just the same as any example of someone thinking they can do something" is those people aren't in position where they are the head of an extremely powerful executive branch that is putting out a steady stream of intent to want to hold even more absolute power. The position of the person making these statements matters. And another note is it is statements, not just thoughts, or else we wouldn't be talking about it. A random guy Tweets "I believe I can bang Margot Robbie!" gets an eye-roll. If the producer of her next film Tweets "I believe I can bang Margot Robbie!", then that discussion is probably getting shipped to the Harvey Weinstein thread. The position and the level of power available to someone matters greatly when they state their belief or intention to overreach or abuse it. It shouldn't need to be explained that random man on the street says he intends to take away all guns it's probably not worth worrying about, president of the country announces he intends to use everything at his disposal to take away all guns it's maybe a cause for concern.

Let's put it this way - murder in Washington D.C is a federal crime. Donald Trump could murder every member of Congress that might vote to impeach him (or at least enough to send a message to any who might try it). Then he could pardon himself for it.

An extreme hypothetical, maybe, but no more extreme than the hypothetical being used by Trump's own legal team (shooting James Comey in the head instead of firing him) to demonstrate their position that the president can't be indicted, it requires impeachment.

But you have to apply your own standards to your analysis.  You didn't mention once that the notion of "Presidential immunity" - for lack of a better term - is actually a legitimately debatable topic in Constitutional law.   So rather than jump to conclusions and call him FACIST!, why not err on the side of "Constitutional pundit"?

As for control of the DOJ, well, yeah, he does.   It's a wing of his branch of government.  Again, there is a legitimate and as-yet unsettled debate as to the whether there are limits to that, but your implication that Trump is saying "I am a god, I am Supreme Leader, I am the GRAND POO-BAH!  Bow to me!" is not accurate.   


I'm only vaguely aware of the "Comey" comment - meaning I didn't hear it live - but even that is being misrepresented.  He said "...and not face charges before being impeached".   That very clearly is saying that the penal process for the President involves CONGRESS, not a Department in his own branch of government.   That's not the same as "I can do anything I want".  In fact, I might argue that if you're really "ANTI-TRUMP", you WANT it that way.   You WANT an independent branch of government evaluating his conduct, not a group that reports to him.  THAT'S far more "fascist" than the reality.
It is very definitely a point of debate that's never really been resolved. I think you're missing the point, though. The problem is that Trump thinks he is God, supreme leader, and grand poobah. Has he ever given you any real indication that he understands the difference between being president and being king? He sure hasn't given me that idea.

There's also the second problem that I don't think this congress can adequately check a rogue president. Giuliani said that if Trump pardoned himself Monday he'd be impeached Tuesday. I don't think for a second that would happen. If he cut Melania's head off and displayed in on a pike in the rose garden they'd let it slide.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on June 05, 2018, 09:59:50 AM
Well, I'll be honest; I wrestle with this pretty regularly (to the extent I'm thinking about it).    One of the things that really soured me on Hillary - though not enough for me to not vote for her - and keeps me from even higher praise of Bill is their sense of "entitlement".  It's been scrubbed from the record by Winston Smith, apparently, but while First Lady, Hillary gave a speech/interview where she bluntly said that it was her and Bill's birthright and entitlement to lead.   She couched it as an obligation to lead, a requirement to lead and while she didn't mention "god", the implication is that they were "anointed".   It's an odious attitude, be it with Hillary or Donald or anyone else.  Where I get confused is, Trump's policies don't really reflect that mindset in the way that Clinton's did/do.   Yeah, there's a sort of isolationism that I really don't like (and that isn't manageable in our global economy) but within the borders, there's not a really significant amount of "us vs. them".*


* No, I don't think some of the social policies are "us vs. them".  There's a really strong argument - enforced by the results of the election - that the notion of "identity politics" have CREATED an "us vs. them" and Trump is merely correcting. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: RuRoRul on June 05, 2018, 10:31:49 AM
The president announces in an official statement (as they declared his Twitter to be) that he has the authority to pardon himself of any crime.

The same president also recently stated he has "absolute authority" to direct the justice department however he chooses.

His legal spokesman was just recently making the point that the president could have shot and killed one of his top law enforcement officials if he wasn't happy with him and couldn't be indicted.

These things are not at the same level on the "facist-meter" as "Guy fantazises about banging celebrity". The problem comparing this to "But isn't this just the same as any example of someone thinking they can do something" is those people aren't in position where they are the head of an extremely powerful executive branch that is putting out a steady stream of intent to want to hold even more absolute power. The position of the person making these statements matters. And another note is it is statements, not just thoughts, or else we wouldn't be talking about it. A random guy Tweets "I believe I can bang Margot Robbie!" gets an eye-roll. If the producer of her next film Tweets "I believe I can bang Margot Robbie!", then that discussion is probably getting shipped to the Harvey Weinstein thread. The position and the level of power available to someone matters greatly when they state their belief or intention to overreach or abuse it. It shouldn't need to be explained that random man on the street says he intends to take away all guns it's probably not worth worrying about, president of the country announces he intends to use everything at his disposal to take away all guns it's maybe a cause for concern.

Let's put it this way - murder in Washington D.C is a federal crime. Donald Trump could murder every member of Congress that might vote to impeach him (or at least enough to send a message to any who might try it). Then he could pardon himself for it.

An extreme hypothetical, maybe, but no more extreme than the hypothetical being used by Trump's own legal team (shooting James Comey in the head instead of firing him) to demonstrate their position that the president can't be indicted, it requires impeachment.

But you have to apply your own standards to your analysis.  You didn't mention once that the notion of "Presidential immunity" - for lack of a better term - is actually a legitimately debatable topic in Constitutional law.   So rather than jump to conclusions and call him FACIST!, why not err on the side of "Constitutional pundit"?

As for control of the DOJ, well, yeah, he does.   It's a wing of his branch of government.  Again, there is a legitimate and as-yet unsettled debate as to the whether there are limits to that, but your implication that Trump is saying "I am a god, I am Supreme Leader, I am the GRAND POO-BAH!  Bow to me!" is not accurate.   

I'm only vaguely aware of the "Comey" comment - meaning I didn't hear it live - but even that is being misrepresented.  He said "...and not face charges before being impeached".   That very clearly is saying that the penal process for the President involves CONGRESS, not a Department in his own branch of government.   That's not the same as "I can do anything I want".  In fact, I might argue that if you're really "ANTI-TRUMP", you WANT it that way.   You WANT an independent branch of government evaluating his conduct, not a group that reports to him.  THAT'S far more "fascist" than the reality.
I think that using the word fascist leads people to look around and think "Does this look exactly like Nazi Germany in the late 1930s? No. So it's bullshit." For that reason I don't think it is usually that helpful for people to make the jump to that term, even if they are arguably correct in terms of discussing the concepts of fascism in theory - it has a connotation with real life history that makes people have an emotional reaction to drive them one way or another (either "Yeah, this is the worst!" or "No, this just shows people are being ridiculous!") rather than considering the topic on its merit. I'd rather look at whether people see something as problematic or not and if so why, and if not, why not.

As for complete control of the Department of Justice, honestly I am not sure exactly where the line is but I didn't think it worked that way - or it least, it wasn't supposed to. The president can appoint certain positions and can remove people from certain positions but while they are there they are supposed to act somewhat independently. If it were true that the president had complete authority over the DOJ, then the Trump team's accusations of "politicising the DOJ" or "spying" that they throw at Obama (even if in that case they aren't true) wouldn't even matter, as it would mean it would be completely fine for Obama to order people to investigate or put surveillance on whoever he wanted just for his own personal reasons. The DOJ must have some degree of independence in its processes, even if it's part of the executive branch, if it's to be able to do its job - especially when it comes to investigations of corruption involving figures close to the president.

I didn't misrepresent the comment from Giuliani, the last sentence of my post says that it was to demonstrate their position that it requires the president to be impeached before being indicted (which, if we're being Constitutional Pundits, is also up for debate as well). But I think it is a good comment to include because it shows that it's not just in discussion on a forum that extreme hypotheticals are being used to make arguments or to draw the lines clearly - Giuliani's comment was actually pretty effective at demonstrating his position. It's also the case that when it comes to codifying the rules or the checks and balances that are supposed to keep things from breaking in extreme pressure, it's necessary to consider hypotheticals that subject them to extreme pressure.

It is very definitely a point of debate that's never really been resolved. I think you're missing the point, though. The problem is that Trump thinks he is God, supreme leader, and grand poobah. Has he ever given you any real indication that he understands the difference between being president and being king? He sure hasn't given me that idea.

There's also the second problem that I don't think this congress can adequately check a rogue president. Giuliani said that if Trump pardoned himself Monday he'd be impeached Tuesday. I don't think for a second that would happen. If he cut Melania's head off and displayed in on a pike in the rose garden they'd let it slide.
This post follows up some of the other points I'd want to say more effectively than I probably could here.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on June 05, 2018, 01:43:33 PM
I think that using the word fascist leads people to look around and think "Does this look exactly like Nazi Germany in the late 1930s? No. So it's bullshit." For that reason I don't think it is usually that helpful for people to make the jump to that term, even if they are arguably correct in terms of discussing the concepts of fascism in theory - it has a connotation with real life history that makes people have an emotional reaction to drive them one way or another (either "Yeah, this is the worst!" or "No, this just shows people are being ridiculous!") rather than considering the topic on its merit. I'd rather look at whether people see something as problematic or not and if so why, and if not, why not.

I don't disagree, but I'm not even using "Germany circa 1938" as the standard.  For me, I tend to look at it in terms of a personal liberty issue.  I'm pretty hard core when it comes to that.   I don't at all believe it's government's job to protect us, either from ourselves or from others.   I don't need Hitler to remind me to be skeptical when government is trying to tell me what I can and can't do/think/say. 

Quote
As for complete control of the Department of Justice, honestly I am not sure exactly where the line is but I didn't think it worked that way - or it least, it wasn't supposed to. The president can appoint certain positions and can remove people from certain positions but while they are there they are supposed to act somewhat independently. If it were true that the president had complete authority over the DOJ, then the Trump team's accusations of "politicising the DOJ" or "spying" that they throw at Obama (even if in that case they aren't true) wouldn't even matter, as it would mean it would be completely fine for Obama to order people to investigate or put surveillance on whoever he wanted just for his own personal reasons. The DOJ must have some degree of independence in its processes, even if it's part of the executive branch, if it's to be able to do its job - especially when it comes to investigations of corruption involving figures close to the president.

Welcome to "Advanced Concepts in Constitutional Law, 104" with your professor, Achilles Stadler.   First, it should  be accepted at this point that just because Trump asserts a claim, it is in no way usable as evidence as to the veracity of that claim.  I believe if it was convenient to do so, Trump would accuse Obama of "politicizing" the annual Easter Egg Roll on the South Lawn.  The  DOJ reports to the President.   Whatever that means to "if it's to be able to do it's job" is subject to discussion.   There are other avenues to provide integrity to investigations; Independent Counsel (which report to the Attorney General or Congress as need be, though I believe the legislation has been changed so that it's only the AG), the Office of Independent Counsel (the AG), Office of Special Counsel (which  has oversight from Congress, providing a check and a balance) and independent counsel, small I, small C, which is what Mueller is, which is simply a dedicated investigator used by Attorney's General to investigate specific matters.    All of this is subject to debate, as none of it is set out in clear black and white, and in fact, may be established by conflicting laws (I think there are three piece of legislation that govern the Office of Special Counsel, for example). 

Quote
I didn't misrepresent the comment from Giuliani, the last sentence of my post says that it was to demonstrate their position that it requires the president to be impeached before being indicted (which, if we're being Constitutional Pundits, is also up for debate as well). But I think it is a good comment to include because it shows that it's not just in discussion on a forum that extreme hypotheticals are being used to make arguments or to draw the lines clearly - Giuliani's comment was actually pretty effective at demonstrating his position. It's also the case that when it comes to codifying the rules or the checks and balances that are supposed to keep things from breaking in extreme pressure, it's necessary to consider hypotheticals that subject them to extreme pressure.

Well, I go both ways on Giuliani.   He's done some remarkable things, and I know for me, personally (living as I do near NYC) I've seen him rise to greatness.   But there are other times when he's downright baffling, to the point that I think he's either SOOOOO much smarter than me that I can't follow, or he's lost his marbles.  I think at least in this specific role, you have to take Giuliani with a grain of (public relations) salt when using his words to parse out legal and strategic positions.    I would not at all be surprised if his role is simply to obfuscate. 

Quote
It is very definitely a point of debate that's never really been resolved. I think you're missing the point, though. The problem is that Trump thinks he is God, supreme leader, and grand poobah. Has he ever given you any real indication that he understands the difference between being president and being king? He sure hasn't given me that idea.

There's also the second problem that I don't think this congress can adequately check a rogue president. Giuliani said that if Trump pardoned himself Monday he'd be impeached Tuesday. I don't think for a second that would happen. If he cut Melania's head off and displayed in on a pike in the rose garden they'd let it slide.
This post follows up some of the other points I'd want to say more effectively than I probably could here.

And  I don't know whether you're right or wrong.  I do know that partisanship has become a quagmire for any real discussion or real illumination of truth.    Not just Trump - and I dont' think he's either the first or the worst when it comes to this, though he's top tier on the latter - but all of politics has become a game of "say it enough times and it will eventually, magically, come true".   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on June 05, 2018, 02:08:10 PM
Re: Constitutional law 104, I think it says a great deal that all presidents have gone far out of their way to keep themselves removed from Justice. You do that to avoid the appearance of corruption. Trump not only doesn't know or care about crossing this line, but out of sheer hubris he obliterated it by smearing his own bullshit all over it. He wants everybody to know that he doesn't give a damn about the appearance of impropriety, which is a fine attitude if impropriety is your game.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on June 06, 2018, 10:14:58 AM
Re: Constitutional law 104, I think it says a great deal that all presidents have gone far out of their way to keep themselves removed from Justice. You do that to avoid the appearance of corruption. Trump not only doesn't know or care about crossing this line, but out of sheer hubris he obliterated it by smearing his own bullshit all over it. He wants everybody to know that he doesn't give a damn about the appearance of impropriety, which is a fine attitude if impropriety is your game.

I won't argue that one bit.  There was always a degree of temperance, a measure of restraint, that is missing from Trump - and all politics frankly; I'm going to repeat that Trump is neither the first nor the worst here either - that I for one sorely miss. 

I'm honestly torn; I don't expect my leaders to be exactly what I want them to be - that's not democracy - but personally?  In my heart?   I wish for a greater level of "transcendence" from my Presidents; some measure that they recognize the weight and importance of the office in the grand scheme of things, not just as a means to get their pet objectives in play.    Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, Kennedy...  I think maybe perhaps Reagan was the last to really show that.   Glimpses here and there from Bush and Obama, but too many missteps from both that undermine it to say they really meant it.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on June 06, 2018, 01:09:40 PM
Re: Constitutional law 104, I think it says a great deal that all presidents have gone far out of their way to keep themselves removed from Justice. You do that to avoid the appearance of corruption. Trump not only doesn't know or care about crossing this line, but out of sheer hubris he obliterated it by smearing his own bullshit all over it. He wants everybody to know that he doesn't give a damn about the appearance of impropriety, which is a fine attitude if impropriety is your game.

I won't argue that one bit.  There was always a degree of temperance, a measure of restraint, that is missing from Trump - and all politics frankly; I'm going to repeat that Trump is neither the first nor the worst here either - that I for one sorely miss. 

I'm honestly torn; I don't expect my leaders to be exactly what I want them to be - that's not democracy - but personally?  In my heart?   I wish for a greater level of "transcendence" from my Presidents; some measure that they recognize the weight and importance of the office in the grand scheme of things, not just as a means to get their pet objectives in play.    Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, Kennedy...  I think maybe perhaps Reagan was the last to really show that.   Glimpses here and there from Bush and Obama, but too many missteps from both that undermine it to say they really meant it.
I never got the impression Reagan had that quality. At least no more than Carter/GHWB bookending him. I think Obama, a constitutional scholar, did get that. You attribute his actions more to ego than I. I think Dumbass figured it out, but certainly didn't start that way. In his final years he really did try to be more than the lackey he was intended to be, and deserves some credit for that.

However, not only does Trump lack that quality, it's a repugnant attitude to him. That's not what the presidency is to him, and he's quite proud to flaunt that belief.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: lonestar on July 24, 2018, 07:18:04 PM
Aaaaaaaand from Bizarro world Trump...

(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/37784893_1284567478346691_6970501191469891584_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&oh=89d42621140b700dc640aea5a730b95f&oe=5BC83461)
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on July 24, 2018, 07:21:58 PM
Did I miss something? I thought he and Putin were BFFs?

I admit I don't follow it too closely, but I feel like Putin hasn't responded Trump's texts for a few days or something.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on July 24, 2018, 07:57:41 PM
My only guess is that he got an intel briefing this morning revealing that the Russians were "meddling" to get Democrats elected in the mid-terms
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: lonestar on July 24, 2018, 08:11:51 PM
This is a real tweet folks. Not the onion, not a fake.


I've read it many, many times and I still can't wrap my head around it.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on July 24, 2018, 08:54:56 PM
Why is this surprising? You guys expecting consistency or something? The man has no core values and simply says whatever works for him in the moment.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on July 24, 2018, 08:56:54 PM
Why is this surprising? You guys expecting consistency or something? The man has no core values and simply says whatever works for him in the moment.

I know for me, since I said I don't follow this, is less about consistency but more about intrigue behind the drama. Like....what happened? What caused the switch? I guess it's the same kind of interest you'd show to a soap opera or something.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: KevShmev on July 24, 2018, 09:28:06 PM
Tweets like that make me think he is just trying to make heads explode all over the nation.  And they are probably are.

Or he probably just is that delusional.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: lonestar on July 24, 2018, 10:07:32 PM
Tweets like that make me think he is just trying to make heads explode all over the nation.  And they are probably are.

Or he probably just is that delusional.

I personally think he's that delusional. He thinks he's kicking ass, and he knows his base will eat up anything he tweets. Shit, just look at the trainwreck he's made out of the kneeling issue with his tweets. But with this one, he completely left the reservation, I almost respect how batshit he went with this one.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Jaffa on July 24, 2018, 11:05:11 PM
I believe that Donald Trump has perfected a unique strategy.  At this point in time, anyone who is remotely interested in supporting Donald Trump has long since swallowed the pill that the media is fake news biased against him, and they can't be trusted to accurately report his words.  Even if the media is literally just posting his Tweet, his followers are trained to expect the media to take his Tweets out of context and overreact, and as a counter, his followers are always ready to spin whatever he says to fit their narrative.

And now that the Fake News umbrella is in full effect, it's very easy for him to hide under it.  He can take as many contradictory positions as he wants, and his followers will just ignore whichever ones they don't like.  They'll focus on the bits and pieces that speak to their own personal opinion, and the rest is fake news.

In the span of about three days, he took the following positions:

1. I trust U.S. Intel when they say Russia meddled in the election.
2. Putin says Russia didn't meddle in the election, so Russia obviously didn't meddle in the election, and I don't know why they would.
3. Number 2 was a typo.  I meant I don't know why they wouldn't.  Obviously they meddled.
4. It doesn't matter if they meddled.  We can't dwell on the past if we want to form a better relationship in the future.
5. Somebody definitely meddled.  I don't know why you're so obsessed with Russia. 
6. I won without anyone's help. 

As far as I can tell, this is every possible position on whether or not Russia meddled.  They did, they didn't, they did, they may or may not have so let bygones be bygones, someone did but not necessarily Russia, it was all me baby. 

And all along, he's been doing an impressive juggling act of 'Under my leadership, we can have a healthy relationship with Russia and isn't that better for everyone' and 'I'm tougher on Russia than anyone, why would they want me to be president when they could have Crooked Hillary in their pocket'.  This Tweet doesn't seem to be anything new in that regard.  It's another effective step in the process of emboldening his supporters to ignore his critics.  It gets the left up in arms, and right now, the more the left gets up in arms, the more the right rolls their eyes and doubles down. 

The would/wouldn't thing is a great example to me. 

After Trump came forward with the explanation that he just misspoke, both sides started bickering about it.  Are you kidding me, says the left.  Don't make such a big deal out of a slip of the tongue, says the right.  You actually believe this, says the left.  Why wouldn't we, says the right.  He doubled down on it, says the left.  Fake news, says the right, and so on.  Meanwhile, the internet gets to work making a meme out of the whole thing, and twenty seconds later there's a new scandal to focus on. 

But let's go back to Helsinki for a moment and look at what Trump actually said: "I have President Putin. He just said it’s not Russia. I will say this. I don’t see any reason why it would be..."  Now, I'm not inclined to take Trump at his word, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt here.  Let's assume he actually did mean to say wouldn't, and the whole thing was just a slip of the tongue.  It's certainly not outside of the realm of possibility for him to have a slip of the tongue. 

The thing is, what he 'meant' to say might actually be worse than what he said.  If he meant 'wouldn't,' then the implication is that the President of the United States doesn't see any reason why a foreign tyrant wouldn't interfere in the election that put said President in power.  I don't know about anyone else, but that notion is profoundly disturbing to me.  Yet we aren't talking about it, because he's buried it in so many layers of obfuscation that it becomes impossible to figure out what he really meant, much less address it.  Meanwhile, we've got two new executive orders, and I don't even know what they are because my head is spinning over yet another Tweet.

In some way, it's kinda brilliant. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Chino on July 25, 2018, 06:17:11 AM
Jul 25, 2018 06:20:28 AM - China is targeting our farmers, who they know I love & respect, as a way of getting me to continue allowing them to take advantage of the U.S. They are being vicious in what will be their failed attempt. We were being nice - until now! China made $517 Billion on us last year.


Costco made over $7k dollars off of me last year and I didn't see a dime from them. What assholes! No more Mr. Nice Guy! 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: KevShmev on July 25, 2018, 06:26:26 AM
I believe that Donald Trump has perfected a unique strategy.  At this point in time, anyone who is remotely interested in supporting Donald Trump has long since swallowed the pill that the media is fake news biased against him, and they can't be trusted to accurately report his words.  Even if the media is literally just posting his Tweet, his followers are trained to expect the media to take his Tweets out of context and overreact, and as a counter, his followers are always ready to spin whatever he says to fit their narrative.

And now that the Fake News umbrella is in full effect, it's very easy for him to hide under it.  He can take as many contradictory positions as he wants, and his followers will just ignore whichever ones they don't like.  They'll focus on the bits and pieces that speak to their own personal opinion, and the rest is fake news.

The worst part is that there are plenty of people, like me, who have long held the belief that the news media is mostly trash, but now if you say it, many automatically assume you are a Trump fan and are trashing the media because "Fake news!!"

Let's face it, while Trump being an utter disaster and total clown show is a given at this point, he is throwing red meat to his supporters who are tired of the TV news media being so liberal (Fox News being the exception). 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Dave_Manchester on July 25, 2018, 07:48:47 AM
I believe...[snip]

This was a very good post and all I'd add to it is that Trump's almost literally insane Tweet about Russia wanting the Democrats to win (trust me we don't) is part of his strategy of making sure he can never be blamed for anything he ever does. If the GOP do well in November he will say it's because he clamped down on Russian interference, unlike that weak coward Obama. And if the Dems win, it'll be because Russia was rooting for the Dems all along, just as Trump told everyone they were. In Scenario A he's a big tough strongman who makes Putin shit himself and in Scenario B he's a prescient genius.

All his life Trump has used his wealth to bully or buy people into falling in line, and at his former pissant level it worked. Now he is playing at an entirely different level and he has absolutely no idea how to negotiate his way around. He is trying to use on China (for example) the same bullying tactics that worked in the Manhattan real estate business. Just now on Twitter he is blaming China for "targeting American farmers, who they know I love and respect...", neglecting to remind everyone of who started this stupid trade war in the first place, and who declared it would be "easy to win!" Trump, like every dim-witted bully, has no idea what to do when someone pushes back. He is crying like a baby on Twitter about China because he doesn't realise that this is how the game works. He thought stamping his feet and issuing threats on Twitter would be enough. He targeted China's interests and most vulnerable political assets, so they targeted his. Did he honestly think they would roll over for him? I can't wait to see what he will do when China deliberately drives down the value of their currency to really fuck him over (they have already started doing this by the way).

There are two basic strategies I've noticed Trump uses - one is what I just said, he makes sure he can never be blamed for anything bad that happens, while also taking the credit for anything good that happens. He even admitted this when he said on camera that if he was proven wrong about North Korea he would make up some excuse anyway. He thought he was being funny. It wasn't funny. The American president was telling his people that he will simply lie to them if he makes a mistake. I didn't find that funny or cute, but whatever, his base did. 

His second strategy is to shit on language. To make words meaningless. Last week was a turning point for me. When Trump said "I meant to say wouldn't, not would", this was him testing just how much he can get away with. And he got away with it. 2 days later the story was buried. We're onto another porn star story now apparently. Yesterday it was the all-caps threat of nuclear war with Iran (who immediately laughed at him by the way). Tomorrow he'll pick a fight with Turkey. Nothing ever has time to stick, and that's a deliberate strategy from him. Where do you go from there? When a president can say "I meant the exact opposite of what I said, even though it was about the 800th time I'd said it up to that point so clearly I'm bullshitting you all now"? That is the point we are at now. The president can lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and there will never be any consequences, because the moment a lie starts to become problematic, he simply fires off a "DEAR IRAN, DON'T YOU EVER THREATEN MY AMERICAN CHILDREN EVER AGAIN..."

I don't know what you can do now over there in America. Language - that thing we use to fix meanings to things and to hold people to account - has become meaningless. If tomorrow Trump says "The fucking Jews deserved everything they got in the Holocaust and I only regret we don't do the same here", there will be a momentary outcry. Then the next day Trump will say he meant the opposite. Then he'll threaten Turkey or Iran or Mexico or the Palestinian Territories on Twitter. Then CNN will publish a tape about a porn model. Then he'll trash Angela Merkel. Nothing will ever stick. Think I'm exagerrating? Who here remembers when the American president re-tweeted propaganda from a British fascist party? Because I do. And how long did that scandal last? All of 2 days before he started threatening "Little Rocket Man" with fire and fury like the world had never seen (spot the similiarity in phrasing between that North Korean threat and his Iran tweet by the way).     

Anyway, that rambled more than even my usual standards. I only came in to say: good post, Jaffa.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on July 25, 2018, 08:54:30 AM
Anyway, that rambled more than even my usual standards.

Not really.   ;D  But a read-worthy post none-the-less.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: ? on July 25, 2018, 09:14:03 AM
I believe...[snip]

This was a very good post and all I'd add to it is that Trump's almost literally insane Tweet about Russia wanting the Democrats to win (trust me we don't) is part of his strategy of making sure he can never be blamed for anything he ever does.
I wouldn't be so sure about that, because in the UK, Russia first interfered in the Brexit referendum to help the "Leave" side win, but then in the following parliamentary election they tried to swing the results in Labour's favor (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-election-russia/russian-twitter-accounts-tried-to-help-opposition-in-uk-election-report-idUSKBN1I00BB). Now May and the Tories have a smaller majority and her government has a weaker position in the Brexit negotiations. If the Dems winning the majority (or gaining a critical number of seats) and slowing down the decision-making process by shooting Trump down on everything hypothetically helped Russia, I could see the Kremlin attempting to influence the election in the Dems' favor, if only to sow more division in the US.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 25, 2018, 06:08:41 PM
I believe...[snip]

This was a very good post and all I'd add to it is that Trump's almost literally insane Tweet about Russia wanting the Democrats to win (trust me we don't) is part of his strategy of making sure he can never be blamed for anything he ever does. If the GOP do well in November he will say it's because he clamped down on Russian interference, unlike that weak coward Obama. And if the Dems win, it'll be because Russia was rooting for the Dems all along, just as Trump told everyone they were. In Scenario A he's a big tough strongman who makes Putin shit himself and in Scenario B he's a prescient genius.

All his life Trump has used his wealth to bully or buy people into falling in line, and at his former pissant level it worked. Now he is playing at an entirely different level and he has absolutely no idea how to negotiate his way around. He is trying to use on China (for example) the same bullying tactics that worked in the Manhattan real estate business. Just now on Twitter he is blaming China for "targeting American farmers, who they know I love and respect...", neglecting to remind everyone of who started this stupid trade war in the first place, and who declared it would be "easy to win!" Trump, like every dim-witted bully, has no idea what to do when someone pushes back. He is crying like a baby on Twitter about China because he doesn't realise that this is how the game works. He thought stamping his feet and issuing threats on Twitter would be enough. He targeted China's interests and most vulnerable political assets, so they targeted his. Did he honestly think they would roll over for him? I can't wait to see what he will do when China deliberately drives down the value of their currency to really fuck him over (they have already started doing this by the way).

There are two basic strategies I've noticed Trump uses - one is what I just said, he makes sure he can never be blamed for anything bad that happens, while also taking the credit for anything good that happens. He even admitted this when he said on camera that if he was proven wrong about North Korea he would make up some excuse anyway. He thought he was being funny. It wasn't funny. The American president was telling his people that he will simply lie to them if he makes a mistake. I didn't find that funny or cute, but whatever, his base did. 

His second strategy is to shit on language. To make words meaningless. Last week was a turning point for me. When Trump said "I meant to say wouldn't, not would", this was him testing just how much he can get away with. And he got away with it. 2 days later the story was buried. We're onto another porn star story now apparently. Yesterday it was the all-caps threat of nuclear war with Iran (who immediately laughed at him by the way). Tomorrow he'll pick a fight with Turkey. Nothing ever has time to stick, and that's a deliberate strategy from him. Where do you go from there? When a president can say "I meant the exact opposite of what I said, even though it was about the 800th time I'd said it up to that point so clearly I'm bullshitting you all now"? That is the point we are at now. The president can lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and there will never be any consequences, because the moment a lie starts to become problematic, he simply fires off a "DEAR IRAN, DON'T YOU EVER THREATEN MY AMERICAN CHILDREN EVER AGAIN..."

I don't know what you can do now over there in America. Language - that thing we use to fix meanings to things and to hold people to account - has become meaningless. If tomorrow Trump says "The fucking Jews deserved everything they got in the Holocaust and I only regret we don't do the same here", there will be a momentary outcry. Then the next day Trump will say he meant the opposite. Then he'll threaten Turkey or Iran or Mexico or the Palestinian Territories on Twitter. Then CNN will publish a tape about a porn model. Then he'll trash Angela Merkel. Nothing will ever stick. Think I'm exagerrating? Who here remembers when the American president re-tweeted propaganda from a British fascist party? Because I do. And how long did that scandal last? All of 2 days before he started threatening "Little Rocket Man" with fire and fury like the world had never seen (spot the similiarity in phrasing between that North Korean threat and his Iran tweet by the way).     

Anyway, that rambled more than even my usual standards. I only came in to say: good post, Jaffa.

Good post; I like the analysis about the use of tactics in one situation and the attempt to use the same tactics in a very different situation.  I don't think Trump is a one-trick pony, but he's not more than a three or four trick pony and that doesn't cut it on the world stage with 195-some-odd other countries to deal with.

But two observations (one I've made before):
- I'm skeptical of some of the analyses by Trump, since people - not you - are not clean enough with their analysis.  They let their personal feelings get in the way.   To hear most tell it, he's the dumbest guy to ever walk the earth, Lloyd Christmas dumb... except when he has to be basically the sharpest guy to ever work in government to execute the plans and strategies to rejuvenate the Reich.   

- I'm repeating myself, but Trump is but the latest and greatest manifestation of the assault on language.    This  started a while ago, when people decided that "biosolids" was better than "shit" to describe, well, shit.   We've gone through twenty-plus years of gerrymandering the language so we don't ofofend, so we don't say what we really mean, so we back-door facts in where they would otherwise not be welcome... and we wonder why it's being abused on a more broad level?    We can't expect to just "turn on" and "turn off" the precision we need to make the points we have to make.   Sure, he's taken it to Yngwie levels, but the RESIST! crowd is throwing their gasoline on the fire, and the press isn't exactly manning the fire extinguishers. 
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Dave_Manchester on July 26, 2018, 07:34:34 AM
Good post; I like the analysis about the use of tactics in one situation and the attempt to use the same tactics in a very different situation.  I don't think Trump is a one-trick pony, but he's not more than a three or four trick pony and that doesn't cut it on the world stage with 195-some-odd other countries to deal with.

But two observations (one I've made before):
- I'm skeptical of some of the analyses by Trump, since people - not you - are not clean enough with their analysis.  They let their personal feelings get in the way.   To hear most tell it, he's the dumbest guy to ever walk the earth, Lloyd Christmas dumb... except when he has to be basically the sharpest guy to ever work in government to execute the plans and strategies to rejuvenate the Reich.   

Re: his 3 or 4 tricks. I think one of Trump's biggest mistakes has been to overuse his tactic of deliberately raising the tension of a situation to its peak level in order to force the 'other side' to come to his table. I've seen businesses use this trick in certain situations, and it can be effective, but Trump is relying on it far too much in politics and it's weakening him. Once upon a time his messianic promises of 'fire and fury' to 'Little Rocket Man' were enough to make the world very nervous. Now, everyone is simply laughing at him. Iran's response to his all-caps rage tweet was to openly mock him. Think about where we are now as a civilisation - an American president makes direct threats of nuclear annihilation against countries, and the world just laughs at him. Trump imagines himself to be an intimidating political strongman, cut from the same cloth as Genghis Khan, and the rest of the world sees him as the senile old loon who rants and raves at the bus shelter. The worst thing you can do at that level of geopolitics is to let it be known your words and threats are completely meaningless, and that's what he's done.   

I keep describing him as a bully, and I think that's the best single word to sum him up. He uses aggression to get his way, and that will generally work if you're trying to get your way with weak people, but he's dealing now with the likes of Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin (Putin is mentioned only because he has the backs of Syria and Iran, both of which Trump keeps threatening). I encourage everyone to really study how Xi became the most powerful man in China since Chairman Mao. This is not a man who is going to be intimidated by a crazy old political novice squawking away on Twitter. This is a man who reads a Tweet like "China is being vicious because they are targeting our wonderful farmers, who they know I love!" and only laughs hysterically along with the rest of us.       

That is the danger of Trump's method. He uses dumb and obvious bullying tactics against entities that simply cannot be bullied. He uses bone-headed kindergarten-level intimidation techniques against people who can't be intimidated. Not only this, but they are experienced experts in effortlessly dealing with bullies. Trump is now dealing with (among others) a former director of the KGB, and a man who brought the entire Communist Party of China under his near-total control. Trump imagines he is at that level. He isn't. He is so painfully out of his depth in the game that he seems to want to play that it's grimly fascinating watching him embarrass himself like this with his various Tweets and apocalyptic vows. He thinks he is the most powerful man in the room because of his nuclear button. He isn't. He's actually very weak. And if you're weak, you need to use intelligence and guile to overcome your enemies. 'Intelligence' and 'guile' are not words most commonly used in association with the political method of Donald Trump.

Finally (and since this is the Trump Tweets thread), we see today yet another of his tricks, this time after having Juncker walk him through the ABCs of international trade. 2 days ago, Trump wrote on Twitter: "Tariffs are the greatest!" (he actually wrote that), and then went on to give a disturbingly idiotic overview of why he thinks this. Then yesterday, less than 24 hours later, he was demanding on Twitter that the EU stop this harmful imposition of tariffs. Donald - fucking make up your mind, are they "the greatest" or are they harmful?? Because it was YOU who started these bullshit tit-for-tat tariffs in the first place, because you declared on March 2nd of this year that "trade wars are good, and easy to win!" 

It's an established pattern by now. Trump charges off around the world like a bull in a china shop making all sorts of ludicrous threats and claims. Then he meets an actual politician who quickly fobs him off by reminding him of long-term commitments that have already been made, prompting Trump to immediately call a press conference to tell the world about his "victory" and his "great deal". The MAGA crowd swallow it whole while the rest of the world sees yet another example of a president being made to look weak, silly and dangerously naive about the rules of the game he's now playing.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Kattelox on July 26, 2018, 10:29:02 AM
Mueller now looking at Trump's tweets for any potential obstruction of justice. (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/us/politics/trump-tweets-mueller-obstruction.html)
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: bosk1 on July 26, 2018, 11:07:19 AM
Also, if wanting to be a fascist dictator made you a fascist dictator, then every leader in the world and every CEO on the planet, and probably Stadler, is a fascist dictator.

Bro, what about me??
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Stadler on July 26, 2018, 11:32:21 AM
That is the danger of Trump's method. He uses dumb and obvious bullying tactics against entities that simply cannot be bullied. He uses bone-headed kindergarten-level intimidation techniques against people who can't be intimidated. Not only this, but they are experienced experts in effortlessly dealing with bullies. Trump is now dealing with (among others) a former director of the KGB, and a man who brought the entire Communist Party of China under his near-total control. Trump imagines he is at that level. He isn't. He is so painfully out of his depth in the game that he seems to want to play that it's grimly fascinating watching him embarrass himself like this with his various Tweets and apocalyptic vows. He thinks he is the most powerful man in the room because of his nuclear button. He isn't. He's actually very weak. And if you're weak, you need to use intelligence and guile to overcome your enemies. 'Intelligence' and 'guile' are not words most commonly used in association with the political method of Donald Trump.

I want to stay away from "weak" and "strong", because it's far too situational to assess on a blanket level.  Even in a singular situation - say, a meeting with Putin - there are moments of weakness - he's likely woefully underprepared psychologically to engage with Putin - and moments of strength - Putin likely doesn't like some of the NATO discussions, or the tariff discussions that make it less likely that someone might buy Russian oil.    Plus, none of us have ever been in a room with him, and we don't have any idea to what degree his public demeanor is tailored to the lights and cameras.   It wouldn't surprise me in the least if there was some element of "don't believe everything you see" to some of his conversations.

But I did highlight a couple words above that are, to me, relevant.   Some - a good part - of negotiating is "emotional", in quotes because it's not really legitimate emotion, but more "non-factual interpersonal communication".   I was in a meeting room not too long ago, and in the prep session we were talking about how our "opponent" had a culture of "win".  So it was less about getting what we wanted in an absolute sense, than it was about  packaging what we wanted in a way that allowed them to go back and say, internally, "win".  In a negotiation, nothing is left to chance (at least by good negotiators).   I will often plan out how I want a conversation to start.   On this issue, I will initiate the discussion, because I want to position the argument (or I want to gauge their reaction).   On other issues, I will wait until they bring it up to be the one reacting.   My greatest fear in a negotiation is that they come in with something I didn't anticipate.   My wildest dream in a negotiation is that they come in with an approach/position that I've anticipated, role-played and prepared a response.    Trump being "obvious" makes too many of his negotiations a "wildest dream" for the other side.   
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Dave_Manchester on July 26, 2018, 01:30:27 PM
Yesterday it was the all-caps threat of nuclear war with Iran (who immediately laughed at him by the way). Tomorrow he'll pick a fight with Turkey. Nothing ever has time to stick, and that's a deliberate strategy from him.

Told you. Absolutely right on cue:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1022502465147682817

"The United States will impose large sanctions on Turkey for their long time detainment of Pastor Andrew Brunson, a great Christian, family man and wonderful human being. He is suffering greatly. This innocent man of faith should be released immediately!"
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Dave_Manchester on July 26, 2018, 02:25:57 PM
And I think that will serve as my reply to your previous post Stadler, about 'strong' and 'weak'. The United States is very strong, no question about that (though if I'm to believe your media your strength is overstated - "the greatest and most advanced technological nation the planet has ever seen" had their precious election system successfully fucked with by a handful of GRU operatives?), but its president is weak, and there is a real danger he is going to irreparably weaken his country with this constant telegraphing of his geopolitical moves. If a very low-level political dogsbody like me can predict with pinpoint precision what, when and why President Trump will do things, imagine what the people far above me are able to do. Imagine what China's Ministry of State Security is able to do. 

Since you've got me on the subject of a country's strengths and weaknesses - Trump needs to understand what America's strengths are, and on what they are based. Trump thinks his military and his beloved and much-vaunted 'red button' is what makes America strong. It isn't. Nuclear weapons are a last line of defence against bullies, not a tool to be used by them, as he seems to think, and for all my ranting over the years about American warmongering and aggression, it actually isn't your weapons that made and make you strong (you generally just beat up kids who can't hope to defend themselves, and when you try to take on a properly armed people the Vietnamese showed us what happens). Your strength is your wealth, and the foundations of that wealth. It is also a kind of political intelligence that made other, more civilised countries put their trust in America to act as their leader on the world stage. In my opinion, Trump is in very real danger of fucking over your economy and your position as centre of the global financial structure, and also of abdicating America's role as 'leader' of the Western nations. I give Trump credit for (correctly) identifying China as the greatest existential threat to America, but he is going about countering that threat in entirely the wrong way. Posting on Twitter (on April 9th of this year) "President Xi and I will always be friends, no matter what happens with our dispute on trade" was such an indescribably fucking stupid thing to write, and it shows he has absolutely no idea what Xi's intentions for America are.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Dave_Manchester on July 26, 2018, 03:51:30 PM
Sorry for the triple post, but this just conveniently came up on the BBC website 10 minutes ago. An Iranian general issues a warning to Trump:

Major General Qassem Soleimani vowed that if Mr Trump started a war, the Islamic Republic would end it, Iranian news agency Tasnim reported.

It follows Mr Trump's all-caps-lock tweet warning Iran's president to "never, ever" threaten the US.

Maj Gen Soleimani - who leads the Quds Force of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards - was quoted on Thursday as saying: "As a soldier, it is my duty to respond to your threats.

"Talk to me, not to the president [Hassan Rouhani]. It is not in our president's dignity to respond to you.

"We are near you, where you can't even imagine. Come. We are ready.

"If you begin the war, we will end the war. You know that this war will destroy all that you possess."

He also accused the US president of using the language of "night clubs and gambling halls".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44973696


And believe it or not, despite all of America's military, the Iranian general is correct in what he says. America will not and cannot win a war with Iran, because the set of powers that would presently stand against the US in that war can't be matched. Iran knows this. The world knows it. Trump presumably knows it. His base don't, which is why he plays the big tough guy on Twitter to compensate for soiling himself on camera when he was standing next to Putin.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Adami on July 26, 2018, 06:25:36 PM
Also, if wanting to be a fascist dictator made you a fascist dictator, then every leader in the world and every CEO on the planet, and probably Stadler, is a fascist dictator.

Bro, what about me??

You’re The Great Dictator.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: jingle.boy on July 26, 2018, 06:32:32 PM
Man I love reading your posts.

Your strength is your wealth, and the foundations of that wealth. It is also a kind of political intelligence that made other, more civilised countries put their trust in America to act as their leader on the world stage. In my opinion, Trump is in very real danger of fucking over your economy and your position as centre of the global financial structure, and also of abdicating America's role as 'leader' of the Western nations.

Along those lines, here's what he's also doing....  For a long time, the US capital and democratic basis of society was seen by the world as a beacon, especially for every nation that was in a storm - land of the free, home of the brave shit; life-liberty-and happiness shit.  All those koolaid catchphrases.  I don't believe that's the case anymore.  The US political environment is closer to a three ringed circus than a three-branch system of checks an balances.  The (im)balance of wealth could be used as evidence to confirm that communism is the better system. 

A lot of Canadians are 'boycotting' the US - I won't go there unless I have to for business (and I've already booked a concert weekend in October with a handful of fellow DTFrs).  But as for any other kind of vacation, we'll take our money elsewhere thankyouverymuch.  The distaste for the US runs deep and wide at this point, and I've no interest to get into that circus first hand.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: El Barto on July 26, 2018, 09:30:03 PM
Sorry for the triple post, but this just conveniently came up on the BBC website 10 minutes ago. An Iranian general issues a warning to Trump:

Major General Qassem Soleimani vowed that if Mr Trump started a war, the Islamic Republic would end it, Iranian news agency Tasnim reported.

It follows Mr Trump's all-caps-lock tweet warning Iran's president to "never, ever" threaten the US.

Maj Gen Soleimani - who leads the Quds Force of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards - was quoted on Thursday as saying: "As a soldier, it is my duty to respond to your threats.

"Talk to me, not to the president [Hassan Rouhani]. It is not in our president's dignity to respond to you.

"We are near you, where you can't even imagine. Come. We are ready.

"If you begin the war, we will end the war. You know that this war will destroy all that you possess."

He also accused the US president of using the language of "night clubs and gambling halls".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44973696


And believe it or not, despite all of America's military, the Iranian general is correct in what he says. America will not and cannot win a war with Iran, because the set of powers that would presently stand against the US in that war can't be matched. Iran knows this. The world knows it. Trump presumably knows it. His base don't, which is why he plays the big tough guy on Twitter to compensate for soiling himself on camera when he was standing next to Putin.
Wargaming US military scenarios is always interesting to me. I'm not sure I agree with you here, though. For one thing, do China and Russia engage in a direct war with us over Iran? I gather that's what you're referring to, though I could be mistaken. Also, Israel represents a fascinating wildcard in this whole scenario. Sonny Corleone with nuclear weapons and an irrational conviction that he's morally justified in all his actions. It's conceivable that we take on good cop/bad cop roles, as Israel has nothing to lose by being the bad guy.

Having said that, oh boy would it be a dipshit move. NATO would very likely abandon us, so we're essentially talking about Israel, Saudi Arabia, and maybe Turkey on our side. Moreover, Iran is marginally equipped for naval warfare. High-speed boats toting around Chinese anti-ship missiles can make for some very bad press. Your folks could attest to what losing a major combat vessel to a third rate military can do to morale.

My estimate would be either a US victory with a bloody nose, or WWIII in which all bets are off.
Title: Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
Post by: Dave_Manchester on July 27, 2018, 08:06:41 AM