EPTDo you have a quote of the exact headline the Post used? Trump certainly implied Obama may have been involved iirc
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4084
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
Do you have a quote of the exact headline the Post used? Trump certainly implied Obama may have been involved iirc | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
Trump accused him of siding with extremism because he's more concerned with attacking Trump and fighting 'islamophobia' after a violent terrorist attack than the perpetrators of the attack and islamoterrorism which is an actual problem. Where did he say that? Because the last time i checked, literally all he said was "i let people figure it out, i'm just saying". Thanks in advance for linking the source in your next post. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 19 2016 07:03 Introvert wrote: He's doing himself no favors on gun control. Obama and the rest from day one connected the terrorist attack to attacking second amendment rights for law-abiding citizens. In the minds of GOP voters, that's one more compromise Trump's now willing to make for the art of the deal.It's because Trump has no principles. That became obvious to me late last year. And now he wants to reach Bernie people but not, say, Cruz people. Oh, and he endorsed Elmers in NC because she endorsed him. There was a story or two (I don't know how accurate) that Trump never intended to actually win the nomination. He didn't plan for any of this, and he has no desire to start. I would say it's silly but I'm watching it happen. I agree with the criticisms of GOP immigration donor base and Priebus, but all Trump has done is give them cover with his recent antics. Remember when Paul Manafort told GOP people that Trump would start acting more presidential? Trump came out and axed that idea. I don't think Trump cares enough to try and win. When he loses he'll just blame the party so the failure of his will be someone else's fault. That senate speech is the type of thing Trump should have done, not taking congratulations while claiming to not take congratulations. EDit: Hey, look! http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/284017-trump-says-those-on-terror-watch-list-should-be-barred Trump first addressed the Orlando massacre. "What happened was an assault on our country; it was an assault on the gay community," he said. He also said the mass shooting was not about guns; it was about terrorism. AZThe hot topic issue of immigration came up next. "We want people to come into our country...legally, legally," Trump said. Trump made an appeal to female voters, saying, "We want women for Trump!" He promised to bring jobs back, cut taxes and repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. He also pledged to knock out Common Core. He might already be rescinding the goof. On June 19 2016 07:38 oBlade wrote: He only needs to scrape by electorally, which I think will be possible if the team (or him) at some level accepts it, even if not publicly. He doesn't need to win the popular vote; that is, CA and IL and NY could pile 100% against him and it doesn't matter. That's where national polling can mislead. Here's my starting point: http://www.270towin.com/maps/5LbyE I think those 12 gray/light states are the most likely ones that right not we can't be sure how they'll end up voting. But it'll change also, depending on where the G.E. campaigns start to take off, for example, MI could be more competitive than NJ. There are a couple states that should come in pairs if a candidate won the "harder" one of them. Like if he got NJ, I'd also expect him to pick up PA, and I wouldn't expect him to win VA but lose NC, but that's not set in stone. In 2000 GWB managed with Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Virginia, and New Hampshire. Trump's clearest win would be getting PA and FL (big states, doesn't even need VA, he can also lose NC and replace it with CO+NM and make it). It's uphill for him of course, but I think it'll be quite close. I don't think it's accurate to say this was ever about the Trump brand or whatever. Ben Carson was definitely doing a book tour, but Trump has been thinking about this forever, maybe longer than HRC has (if anyone thought that was even possible): + Show Spoiler + You can ignore the soundtrack and the obvious message of support, the point is he may have a huge ego, but he's not running just to run. Everybody I've talked to from NJ hates Trump for Atlantic City business. All these hopes are too far-out looking at things right now. I'm more looking at something like RCP's map and the fight of his life even in states Bush won easily. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
California is now the sixth largest economy in the world, surpassing France thanks to a robust state economy and the strength of the U.S. dollar. California was the world's eighth-largest economy as of last year, according to Irena Asmundson, chief economist of the California Department of Finance. "California did exceptionally well in 2015," said Asmundson. "Lots of sectors did well." California is home to diverse strong economies, including Silicon Valley and Hollywood. Manufacturing has performed well, as has the agriculture sector, despite a severe drought, said Asmundson. The nation's most populous state has outpaced the rest of the U.S. on job growth. Its gross state product was $2.46 trillion, with 4.1 percent of state growth this year in real terms, according to the state's finance department. Nationally, gross domestic product grew by 2.4 percent in 2015. Growth slowed to 0.8 percent in the first quarter of 2016. Source | ||
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 19 2016 09:31 zlefin wrote: W Post isn't a joke last I checked; it has its biases, but it's still a credible and decent place of journalism. Do you have a quote of the exact headline the Post used? Trump certainly implied Obama may have been involved iirc https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/13/donald-trump-suggests-president-obama-was-involved-with-orlando-shooting/ You decide if that's a fair interpretation of what Trump was saying. I consider it a website of campaign attack-ads, not a legitimate source of journalism. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 19 2016 09:31 m4ini wrote: Where did he say that? Because the last time i checked, literally all he said was "i let people figure it out, i'm just saying". Thanks in advance for linking the source in your next post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/13/donald-trump-suggests-president-obama-was-involved-with-orlando-shooting/ I just googled 'washington post trump obama orlando' wasn't too hard. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On June 19 2016 09:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/13/donald-trump-suggests-president-obama-was-involved-with-orlando-shooting/ You decide if that's a fair interpretation of what Trump was saying. I consider it a website of campaign attack-ads, not a legitimate source of journalism. kind of hilarious comming from the right side considering all the shit about facebook and how censoring media is intolerable. But the other way around is just fine. Ban them all if you don't like what they write~ On June 19 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote: [...] Good riddance getting their press pass revoked. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On June 19 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I don't think it's even debatable. The W. Post wrote a headline accusing Trump of saying Obama was literally involved. Trump did no such thing. Trump accused him of siding with extremism because he's more concerned with attacking Trump and fighting 'islamophobia' after a violent terrorist attack than the perpetrators of the attack and islamoterrorism which is an actual problem. It's assbackwards and the W. Post is a joke to begin with. Good riddance getting their press pass revoked. Do you realize the problem with the bolded part | ||
|
oBlade
United States6476 Posts
On June 19 2016 09:37 Danglars wrote: Everybody I've talked to from NJ hates Trump for Atlantic City business. All these hopes are too far-out looking at things right now. I'm more looking at something like RCP's map and the fight of his life even in states Bush won easily. It's definitely not the most likely state to be competitive for him, but he doesn't need it to win anyway. But RCP's map doesn't even follow their own polls. Graying Michigan and Georgia? It's not in the evidence so far that Clinton and Trump are in any danger there. AZ is a red staple and I don't see evidence yet that would reverse that, not sure why NH is marked toss-up either. On June 19 2016 09:56 Toadesstern wrote: kind of hilarious comming from the right side considering all the shit about facebook and how censoring media is intolerable. But the other way around is just fine. Ban them all if you don't like what they write~ But nobody's taking their right to publish - in fact, they've promised to cover Trump even more. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 19 2016 09:56 Toadesstern wrote: kind of hilarious comming from the right side considering all the shit about facebook and how censoring media is intolerable. But the other way around is just fine. Ban them all if you don't like what they write~ One is literal censorship, the other is revoking a press pass for incompetence in journalism. How is that even remotely similar? Does celebs weekly deserve a press pass if they want to write about the election? Is it censorship if they are denied one? Cmon be smart and fair here even if you don't like trump that's a joke of an argument | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 19 2016 09:58 Doodsmack wrote: Do you realize the problem with the bolded part You can bring a horse to water but you can't force it to drink. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On June 19 2016 10:00 GGTeMpLaR wrote: One is literal censorship, the other is revoking a press pass for incompetence in journalism. How is that even remotely similar? Does celebs weekly deserve a press pass if they want to right about the election? Is it censorship if we deny them? Cmon be smart and fair here even if you don't like trump that's a joke of an argument the guy is literally running for president. What if they're not allowed in the White House anymore if he so happens to win? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 19 2016 10:04 Toadesstern wrote: the guy is literally running for president. What if they're not allowed in the White House anymore if he so happens to win? Not everyone is entitled to be allowed into the White House. Are you paranoid of him revoking free press in America and seizing control in a tyrannical government? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 19 2016 09:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/13/donald-trump-suggests-president-obama-was-involved-with-orlando-shooting/ You decide if that's a fair interpretation of what Trump was saying. I consider it a website of campaign attack-ads, not a legitimate source of journalism. and their headline is accurate; donald trump did suggest/imply a connection. He didn't state it; but he made a clear implication; less so with orlando specifically than that Obama is in league with terrorists generally. He intentionally made the statement vague and open to multiple interpretations, leaving room to imply that, while being able to claim he was saying something more innocuous. If you don't consider it a source of legitimate journalism, then your sense of journalism detection seems poor to me. As there's more than enough other analyses to reasonably determine that Washing Post is legitimate journalism. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On June 19 2016 10:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Not everyone is entitled to be allowed into the White House. Are you paranoid of him revoking free press in America and seizing control in a tyrannical government? You said you think of WaPo as an attack-site. I'd say the same about most far right-wing media out there. Take Breitbart as an example. That's easily worse when it comes to bias and yet I'd still want them to get a press pass if they want to do their "journalism" no matter how much I don't like it and come on... comparing it to Celebs weekly... | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 19 2016 10:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Not everyone is entitled to be allowed into the White House. Are you paranoid of him revoking free press in America and seizing control in a tyrannical government? Yep. That how it starts. There are no rules that say the press has to be given access to the white house. He could just close down the press briefing room. And I have zero doubt in my mind he would and only only allow press to access the white house if he approved of their coverage. Breitbart gets a press pass. Vanity Fair gets one too. They would give on to Play Boy if they asked. They revoke the press passes for people, not entire news agencies. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On June 19 2016 10:01 GGTeMpLaR wrote: You can bring a horse to water but you can't force it to drink. I'll pretend that made sense. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 19 2016 10:07 Toadesstern wrote: You said you think of WaPo as an attack-site. I'd say the same about most far right-wing media out there. Take Breitbart as an example. That's easily worse when it comes to bias and yet I'd still want them to get a press pass if they want to do their "journalism" no matter how much I don't like it Disagreements aside about which is better at controlling for bias, does Breitbart even have the same press passes W. Post does? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 19 2016 10:12 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Disagreements aside about which is better at controlling for bias, does Breitbart even have the same press passes W. Post does? Yes. | ||
| ||
