|
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. |
On July 04 2016 01:22 puerk wrote:
why do you percieve the ability to join unions to be devilish? The phrase refers not to satanic nature.
On July 04 2016 01:47 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2016 14:28 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2016 10:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 03 2016 06:55 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2016 06:43 Nyxisto wrote:
Don't exactly need to be a conspiracy theorist to assume that a David star on a pile of money isn't exactly smart imagery, especially given the fact that Trump's campaign is already full of "the globalist Jewish cabal is ruining the life of the glorious worker" types Oh are they full of them now? Hahaha. Pathetic claim, you're better off returning to "they're all racists," it has more pull. I refuse to believe someone that looks at it before being told what to look for comes up with something other than--Hillary's most corrupt ever says Trump. I love watching you try so hard to convince yourself that everything Trump does is totally fine. His detractors can switch to regular criticisms instead of absurd criticisms any time now. God knows if you call him idiotic to pan NAFTA, I will join you. Libel laws, his campaign's refusal to define principles behind the policy/pronouncements, supporter ground game ... those are just off the top of my head. I suspect you, on the other hand, want to push all illegitimate criticism through sans analysis. Because it's Trump and you oppose him (perhaps religiously, who knows)! But everybody with a brain already agrees that his 'policies' are terrible, so all we really can do is talk about his silly antics. Trump himself has not yet started to actually engage anybody on politics and instead opted to call everybody a liar or crooked. How is anybody supposed to discuss this? Or in this case, instead of talk, you engage in silly antics to make the remaining body of his campaign more serious.
|
On July 04 2016 02:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2016 01:22 puerk wrote:
why do you percieve the ability to join unions to be devilish? The phrase refers not to satanic nature. Show nested quote +On July 04 2016 01:47 Nyxisto wrote:On July 03 2016 14:28 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2016 10:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 03 2016 06:55 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2016 06:43 Nyxisto wrote:
Don't exactly need to be a conspiracy theorist to assume that a David star on a pile of money isn't exactly smart imagery, especially given the fact that Trump's campaign is already full of "the globalist Jewish cabal is ruining the life of the glorious worker" types Oh are they full of them now? Hahaha. Pathetic claim, you're better off returning to "they're all racists," it has more pull. I refuse to believe someone that looks at it before being told what to look for comes up with something other than--Hillary's most corrupt ever says Trump. I love watching you try so hard to convince yourself that everything Trump does is totally fine. His detractors can switch to regular criticisms instead of absurd criticisms any time now. God knows if you call him idiotic to pan NAFTA, I will join you. Libel laws, his campaign's refusal to define principles behind the policy/pronouncements, supporter ground game ... those are just off the top of my head. I suspect you, on the other hand, want to push all illegitimate criticism through sans analysis. Because it's Trump and you oppose him (perhaps religiously, who knows)! But everybody with a brain already agrees that his 'policies' are terrible, so all we really can do is talk about his silly antics. Trump himself has not yet started to actually engage anybody on politics and instead opted to call everybody a liar or crooked. How is anybody supposed to discuss this? Or in this case, instead of talk, you engage in silly antics to make the remaining body of his campaign more serious.
I of course know the phrase, that does not detract from the fact it is a negative connotation.
You implied the possibility of attaining union membership is a bad thing, so i took the phrase to ask you "why" in light humor.
Can you answer this question, or is a little play on words too much for you?
Chewbacca:
so you are saying you work for a company that would be forced out of business if its staff could collectivly bargain on pay with the company instead of individually
to me this implies that the firm is paying sub market wages, and is only able to do so through use of a power and information asymmetry
the whole purpose of government regulated collective bargaining for workers is exactly to remedy those assymetries and their negative effects on societal outcomes
to be blunt: i do not believe you that your firm would fail because of unionized workers in general, as enough german companies around here are able to work together with unions and are profitable
the concept can work, and its success a matter of implementation
|
On July 04 2016 01:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:And CNN is paying this guy... Show nested quote +Former Donald Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski on Sunday blamed the blowup over his former campaign's use of imagery some saw as anti-Semitic on "political correctness."
The controversy follows a tweet on Saturday with a graphic labeling Hillary Clinton the "most corrupt candidate ever." The text was laid over a six-pointed star and on a pile of money. Trump deleted the tweet hours later. The Clinton campaign questioned the use of the six-pointed star, which resembles the Star of David, an important Jewish symbol. In the past, Trump has faced criticism for anti-Semitic remarks from his supporters, and the candidate's support for Israel has been called into question.
"The bottom line is this is political correctness run amok. If this were to be a star next to Hillary Clinton without the cash behind it, no one would be questioning this," Lewandowski said during an interview on "State of the Union" on Sunday. (Lewandowski was recently hired by CNN following his departure from the Trump campaign.)
Lewandowski claimed the image was meant to evoke law enforcement.
"This is the same star that sheriff's departments all over the country use to represent law enforcement," he said. "You're reading into something that isn't there.
"They put a new tweet up with the circle," he added. "The message is the same. Let's look at the message. The message is that Hillary Clinton is corrupt." Source
Why exactly is that a bad thing?
|
Because they report the news and they hired a guy to talk about politics who is legally prohibited from saying anything bad about Trumps presidential run. Literally biased.
|
On July 04 2016 04:15 Plansix wrote:
Because they report the news and they hired a guy to talk about politics who is legally prohibited from saying anything bad about Trumps presidential run. Literally biased.
At least people know about the connection. CNN has paid Hillary supporters on all the time without mentioning the whole "paid to support her" part.
|
On July 04 2016 04:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2016 04:15 Plansix wrote:
Because they report the news and they hired a guy to talk about politics who is legally prohibited from saying anything bad about Trumps presidential run. Literally biased. At least people know about the connection. CNN has paid Hillary supporters on all the time without mentioning the whole "paid to support her" part.
Those are called interviews GH. News agencies have been doing them since the dawn of reporting the news.
|
On July 04 2016 04:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2016 04:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2016 04:15 Plansix wrote:
Because they report the news and they hired a guy to talk about politics who is legally prohibited from saying anything bad about Trumps presidential run. Literally biased. At least people know about the connection. CNN has paid Hillary supporters on all the time without mentioning the whole "paid to support her" part. Those are called interviews GH. News agencies have been doing them since the dawn of reporting the news.
I'm not talking about interviews, though they should mention "this person is being paid to support candidate X" there as well.
EDIT: The reasoning for disclosure (regardless of whether it's an interview. Just replace "product" with "presidential candidate" and "meet someone" with "watch someone on the news").
+ Show Spoiler +Suppose you meet someone who tells you about a great new product. She tells you it performs wonderfully and offers fantastic new features that nobody else has. Would that recommendation factor into your decision to buy the product? Probably.
Now suppose the person works for the company that sells the product – or has been paid by the company to tout the product. Would you want to know that when you’re evaluating the endorser’s glowing recommendation? You bet. That common-sense premise is at the heart of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Endorsement Guides.
The Guides, at their core, reflect the basic truth-in-advertising principle that endorsements must be honest and not misleading. An endorsement must reflect the honest opinion of the endorser and can’t be used to make a claim that the product’s marketer couldn’t legally make.
In addition, the Guides say if there’s a connection between an endorser and the marketer that consumers would not expect and it would affect how consumers evaluate the endorsement, that connection should be disclosed. For example, if an ad features an endorser who’s a relative or employee of the marketer, the ad is misleading unless the connection is made clear. The same is usually true if the endorser has been paid or given something of value to tout the product. The reason is obvious: Knowing about the connection is important information for anyone evaluating the endorsement.
Source
|
On July 04 2016 04:15 Plansix wrote:
Because they report the news and they hired a guy to talk about politics who is legally prohibited from saying anything bad about Trumps presidential run. Literally biased.
Bold part is laughable. We're talking about CNN here right?
|
On July 04 2016 05:29 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2016 04:15 Plansix wrote:
Because they report the news and they hired a guy to talk about politics who is legally prohibited from saying anything bad about Trumps presidential run. Literally biased. Bold part is laughable. We're talking about CNN here right?
Right they just had Corey on as a "political commentator" who said it was the MSM media making something out of nothing, then ended the segment by saying "The Trump campaign has not responded".
I mean, I'm sure Plansix can see the problem with that. So he should be able to see what's wrong with it when it's a Hillary supporter.
|
On July 04 2016 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2016 05:29 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 04 2016 04:15 Plansix wrote:
Because they report the news and they hired a guy to talk about politics who is legally prohibited from saying anything bad about Trumps presidential run. Literally biased. Bold part is laughable. We're talking about CNN here right? Right they just had Corey on as a "political commentator" who said it was the MSM media making something out of nothing, then ended the segment by saying "The Trump campaign has not responded". I mean, I'm sure Plansix can see the problem with that. So he should be able to see what's wrong with it when it's a Hillary supporter.
Were any people in the employ of CNN former members of Hillary's campaign team and commenting on something Hillary did?
Supporter and month old ex-campaign organizer are two very different things
|
On July 04 2016 03:09 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2016 02:35 Danglars wrote:On July 04 2016 01:22 puerk wrote:
why do you percieve the ability to join unions to be devilish? The phrase refers not to satanic nature. On July 04 2016 01:47 Nyxisto wrote:On July 03 2016 14:28 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2016 10:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 03 2016 06:55 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2016 06:43 Nyxisto wrote:
Don't exactly need to be a conspiracy theorist to assume that a David star on a pile of money isn't exactly smart imagery, especially given the fact that Trump's campaign is already full of "the globalist Jewish cabal is ruining the life of the glorious worker" types Oh are they full of them now? Hahaha. Pathetic claim, you're better off returning to "they're all racists," it has more pull. I refuse to believe someone that looks at it before being told what to look for comes up with something other than--Hillary's most corrupt ever says Trump. I love watching you try so hard to convince yourself that everything Trump does is totally fine. His detractors can switch to regular criticisms instead of absurd criticisms any time now. God knows if you call him idiotic to pan NAFTA, I will join you. Libel laws, his campaign's refusal to define principles behind the policy/pronouncements, supporter ground game ... those are just off the top of my head. I suspect you, on the other hand, want to push all illegitimate criticism through sans analysis. Because it's Trump and you oppose him (perhaps religiously, who knows)! But everybody with a brain already agrees that his 'policies' are terrible, so all we really can do is talk about his silly antics. Trump himself has not yet started to actually engage anybody on politics and instead opted to call everybody a liar or crooked. How is anybody supposed to discuss this? Or in this case, instead of talk, you engage in silly antics to make the remaining body of his campaign more serious. I of course know the phrase, that does not detract from the fact it is a negative connotation. You implied the possibility of attaining union membership is a bad thing, so i took the phrase to ask you "why" in light humor. Can you answer this question, or is a little play on words too much for you? I'll bite. The phrase is neutral, you may look it up at your pleasure. The means of implementation and its intersection with card-check, secret ballot, and right to work states is where the true question lies. If the Democrats do well, it could be an unalloyed good.
|
On July 04 2016 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2016 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2016 05:29 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 04 2016 04:15 Plansix wrote:
Because they report the news and they hired a guy to talk about politics who is legally prohibited from saying anything bad about Trumps presidential run. Literally biased. Bold part is laughable. We're talking about CNN here right? Right they just had Corey on as a "political commentator" who said it was the MSM media making something out of nothing, then ended the segment by saying "The Trump campaign has not responded". I mean, I'm sure Plansix can see the problem with that. So he should be able to see what's wrong with it when it's a Hillary supporter. Were any people in the employ of CNN former members of Hillary's campaign team and commenting on something Hillary did? Supporter and month old ex-campaign organizer are two very different things
I don't know about "in the employ of CNN" (whether they were also being paid by CNN to be on air) but Maria Cardona is one example, Stephanie Cutter would be another though I don't think she was on CNN in particular. Admittedly what they are doing with Corey is especially bold (I didn't realize they weren't saying his former job).
I mean the Corey thing is blatant propaganda in my view, but it's not just CNN and Trump engaging in this stuff.
|
Are people suggesting that cnn has a bias in favor of trump?
That is just ridiculous lol.
Cnn is as pro democrats and anti trump as all the other mainstream media,though they at least try give 2 perspectives on many occasions (but still biased)
Trump even complained about it and did threaten to revoke their press lisence for his events.
Clinton supporters have become completely paranoid.
|
I don't really understand how anybody can claim that the media is "pro democrat" given how much airtime they have given Trump since the whole election cycle started. Without the constant attention the Trump candidacy wouldn't be a thing. If anything viewer numbers and outrage seem to be the only relevant metric.
|
On July 04 2016 14:39 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't really understand how anybody can claim that the media is "pro democrat" given how much airtime they have given Trump since the whole election cycle started. Without the constant attention the Trump candidacy wouldn't be a thing. If anything viewer numbers and outrage seem to be the only relevant metric.
They probably air trump-related things for attention and views because people want to see it. As for the pro-democrat thing, I cant really say, but there are some that lean more GOP like Fox News or WSJ and others that lean democrat like NYT or MSNBC.
|
If the media was anti trump they could have just blacked out coverage of him and he would have been screwed because of his terrible fundraising and lack of staff. They probably kickstarted his fundraising for him just by running those stories because his campaign sure as hell wasn't on top of it.
|
On July 04 2016 15:37 CobaltBlu wrote:
If the media was anti trump they could have just blacked out coverage of him and he would have been screwed because of his terrible fundraising and lack of staff. They probably kickstarted his fundraising for him just by running those stories because his campaign sure as hell wasn't on top of it.
Well media outlets are motivated by money so they wouldnt cut coverage on trump because thats what is in demand. At the same time, they critisize him because it is in demand so you could conclude that they dont really care about trump, they just want the money.
|
United States41117 Posts
The Libertarian candidate for president, Gary Johnson, said on Sunday Donald Trump’s recent comments were “clearly” racist, a day after the presumptive Republican nominee faced accusations of antisemitism and in the same week that he said he would consider firing government employees who wear hijabs.
“He has said 100 things that would disqualify anyone else from running for president but it doesn’t seem to affect him,” Johnson told CNN’s State of the Union. “The stuff he’s saying is just incendiary. It’s racist.”
Earlier this week, a New Hampshire woman asked Trump at one of his rallies whether, as president, he would replace Transportation Security Administration workers who wear “heebeejabbies” – apparently a reference to Muslim headscarves called hijabs.
“We are looking at that,” Trump replied. “We’re looking at a lot of things.”
At the same rally, Trump pointed to a plane flying overhead and declared: “That could be a Mexican plane up there. They’re getting ready to attack.”
On Saturday, Trump posted online an image of the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, superimposed over a pile of cash and a six-pointed star carrying the text “most corrupt candidate ever”.
He was quickly accused of antisemitism, for the image and his use of the phrase “America first”, which the Anti-Defamation League has urged him not to use because of its history with Nazi sympathizers in the 1930s.
The news site Mic traced the image to a white supremacist message board, where on Sunday commenters celebrated the death of Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor and Nobel peace laureate.
Trump or his campaign deleted the tweet after several hours and posted a new image featuring a circle instead of a star. His campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
Source
|
On July 04 2016 02:31 Chewbacca. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2016 01:42 Gorsameth wrote:On July 04 2016 01:39 Chewbacca. wrote:
The day everyone is allowed to join a union is the day all 24/7 manufacturing jobs die. The rest of the world seems to do fine with unions and round the clock manufacturing. Tho I will admit that US unions tend to miss the part about the good of the whole company rather then enriching the employees at all costs. Maybe, but I can guarantee you that my company would shut down immediately if they had to start paying salaried employees the type of benefits that the hourly unions get. If we got over-time/"call-time pay" for every time we had to come in during the middle of the night my salary would probably be doubled. Not to mention I'd be getting like 3x the vacation through just calling off.
Do you realize that Germany has the strongest unions in the Western world and is also the most industrialized (and mùost successful one in that regard?).
In Norway where I live, unions are also very strong (in my company, all employees are members) and the country functions very well. Don't mention oil, the same applies to Sweden and Denmark.
Of course, it's also convenient when employees and workers don't have a voice at all.
|
On July 04 2016 20:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The Libertarian candidate for president, Gary Johnson, said on Sunday Donald Trump’s recent comments were “clearly” racist, a day after the presumptive Republican nominee faced accusations of antisemitism and in the same week that he said he would consider firing government employees who wear hijabs.
“He has said 100 things that would disqualify anyone else from running for president but it doesn’t seem to affect him,” Johnson told CNN’s State of the Union. “The stuff he’s saying is just incendiary. It’s racist.”
Earlier this week, a New Hampshire woman asked Trump at one of his rallies whether, as president, he would replace Transportation Security Administration workers who wear “heebeejabbies” – apparently a reference to Muslim headscarves called hijabs.
“We are looking at that,” Trump replied. “We’re looking at a lot of things.”
At the same rally, Trump pointed to a plane flying overhead and declared: “That could be a Mexican plane up there. They’re getting ready to attack.”
On Saturday, Trump posted online an image of the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, superimposed over a pile of cash and a six-pointed star carrying the text “most corrupt candidate ever”.
He was quickly accused of antisemitism, for the image and his use of the phrase “America first”, which the Anti-Defamation League has urged him not to use because of its history with Nazi sympathizers in the 1930s.
The news site Mic traced the image to a white supremacist message board, where on Sunday commenters celebrated the death of Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor and Nobel peace laureate.
Trump or his campaign deleted the tweet after several hours and posted a new image featuring a circle instead of a star. His campaign did not respond to a request for comment. Source
Is that plane quote real or an exaggeration by the reporter? What is the logic behind that? How are Mexicans attacking with planes? Why am I trying to understand him?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
