|
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. |
Estonia4504 Posts
On January 27 2017 00:23 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 00:21 mustaju wrote:
There's at least contradiction between your statements here. But I'll ask whether you agree that:
a) Manning wants a progressive leader who acts like Trump? He wants someone uncompromising in pursuit of progressive goals - which is like Trump except for a different cause.
Your claim implies an agreement over Trump's methods, whereas I think there's a lot of meaningful difference in form that can be had between an uncompromising progressive and a lying progressive advocating government agency censorship. Hence the false equivalency. It might make sense in your head, but it's a toxic biased interpretation that serves your own purposes.
On January 27 2017 00:23 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 00:21 mustaju wrote:
c) Trump does not misrepresent Manning's argument? Trump isn't really interpreting Manning's argument one way or the other - he is just calling him a traitor for complaining about the guy who commuted his sentence.
You are representing the argument as a complaint about Obama. This is harsher than criticism, and the article was more against the Republican created-atmosphere.
|
On January 27 2017 00:23 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 00:21 mustaju wrote:
c) Trump does not misrepresent Manning's argument? Trump isn't really interpreting Manning's argument one way or the other - he is just calling him a traitor for complaining about the guy who commuted his sentence.
Nah, you must be naive if you think Trump cares two hoots about Manning. He is just using the opportunity to paint Obama as a weak leader using Manning's piece as a proxy to claim that even liberals were disappointed in his presidency. He just added "TRAITOR" in there to make sure that his base doesn't misinterpret the tweet as a support of Manning's actions.
|
I'm so glad that even after the election is over we will still have people posting individual tracking poll results in this thread without any context about results of other polls.
(for some reference, Trump started a full +12% higher on his net approval on the Rasmussen presidential tracking poll than he did on the Gallup one)
(also, the "gains" reflected in the article are partly based on shifts from "approve" to "strongly approve" from what I can tell; he's gone from +12 to +18 in overall net approval for Rasmussen, but their metric is only strongly approve - strongly disapprove for...literally no reason? They also don't seem to have a "no opinion" option which is probably the dumbest thing I can imagine for a presidential approval poll)
|
On January 27 2017 00:15 xDaunt wrote:Looks like the people are starting to warm to the Donald. This is what happens when the opposition sets the bar for him comically low with absurd attack strategies. Show nested quote +The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 59% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-one percent (41%) disapprove.
The latest figures include 44% who Strongly Approve of the way Trump is performing and 31% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of +13 (see trends).
Regular updates are posted Monday through Friday at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update).
In the latest of this week’s executive orders, Trump has begun a crackdown on illegal immigration, adding thousands of Border Patrol agents, starting the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and cutting federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce immigration law. He also has imposed a temporary ban on refugees from and visas for citizens of several Middle Eastern countries until the U.S. government can do a better job screening out possible terrorists.
Stopping illegal immigration has long been voters’ number one immigration priority.
Most also support Trump’s plan for temporarily restricting immigration from countries with a history of terrorism and for testing to screen out newcomers who don’t share America’s values.
The new president has pulled the United States out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership mega-trade deal and promises to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico. We’ll tell what voters think at 10:30 a.m. EST.
Trump this week also told business leaders that he hopes to cut regulations on corporations by 75% or more because current regulations “make it impossible to get anything built.” Few voters defend the current level of government regulation. Source.
Rasmussen was Trump skewed during the campaign and Gallup has him at 45%, the lowest ever from Gallup for an incoming president.
|
On January 27 2017 00:06 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 00:02 mustaju wrote:On January 26 2017 23:55 LegalLord wrote:On January 26 2017 23:46 mustaju wrote:On January 26 2017 23:35 LegalLord wrote:On January 26 2017 23:15 ChristianS wrote:Also unacceptable presidential behavior on Trump's part to be calling out individual citizens on Twitter as traitors, but I suppose it'd be quicker to point out when Trump does something that isn't obviously beneath the office of president. Manning wants an uncompromising, unapologetic progressive, so why not an uncompromising, unapologetic populist to counter him? Usually I let your toxic false equivalences slide, but this time I'll call you out. One person holds public office, the other is a private citizen expressing his political views. The force behind their statements is not even remotely equal and critics of Trump have been targeted with death threats before. They do not need encouragement. In addition, Trump completely misrepresented Manning's argument, and gains cheap political praise from his base for doing so. Let's quote Manning himself: We need someone who is unafraid to be criticized, since you will inevitably be criticized. We need someone willing to face all of the vitriol, hatred and dogged determination of those opposed to us. Our opponents will not support us nor will they stop thwarting the march toward a just system that gives people a fighting chance to live. Yes, it was used in a context more in line with progressive goals (equal rights for minorities) but what about that sounds like not-Trump? Trump is doing exactly what Manning thinks should be done. And if we want to talk about calling out toxic equivalencies... two can play at that game. But I'd rather not. You'd rather just call any opposing argument stupid without acknowledging their merits and bail. You playing your usual games is fine by me. Complain in the feedback thread if you like. It's off-topic here. I'm just as happy to drop it, but if you want to have it out then that's a better place to do it. Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 00:02 mustaju wrote:
"Being unafraid to be criticized" does not imply gag-orders on government researchers, lying, or being antagonistic with the press. This is clearly not an equivalency, especially not in context. That right there is a false equivalency as well, considering that the original post was in reply to him sending out a twit about calling Manning a traitor who shouldn't be criticizing the guy who released him from prison, not to Trump's policies as a whole (which you presume I support).
Okay, lets have a debate about what a president should and shouldn't do. Lets start by establishing that when the president speaks, or tweets, he speaks on behalf of his country. At least, I believe that's the way Trump is interpreting his presidency, because he uses his twitter feed for policy proposals. Note that I don't think there is anything wrong with that. He is allowed to say things that not everybody agrees with. E.g. Obama using his position as president to continuously hammer on about his desire for stricter gun laws. But do we at least agree that any time Trump opens his mouth or twitter, he speaks as the president of the USA, and not some pleb from New York who happens to own a few buildings?
Therefore, what this tweet says is that the president of the USA is taking the time to talk shit at Chelsea Manning, regardless of whether you agree or not with what she has to say. Why the fuck is the president even bothered with that? It seems particularly unpresidential. In fact, Berlusconi was more presidential than that. And he threw fucking bunga bunga parties.
|
On January 27 2017 00:35 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 00:23 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 00:21 mustaju wrote:
There's at least contradiction between your statements here. But I'll ask whether you agree that:
a) Manning wants a progressive leader who acts like Trump? He wants someone uncompromising in pursuit of progressive goals - which is like Trump except for a different cause. Your claim implies an agreement over Trump's methods, whereas I think there's a lot of meaningful difference in form that can be had between an uncompromising progressive and a lying progressive advocating government agency censorship. Hence the false equivalency. It might make sense in your head, but it's a toxic biased interpretation that serves your own purposes.
This. There is Trump is a habitual liar, philanderer and pretty much represents everything that is the antithesis of staunch conservatism (aside from being an unapologetic capitalist). Its laughable that LegaLord would claim that Trump is an unapologetic conservative while there were actual ideologues like Rand Paul in the primary.
|
On January 27 2017 00:23 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 00:21 mustaju wrote:
There's at least contradiction between your statements here. But I'll ask whether you agree that:
a) Manning wants a progressive leader who acts like Trump? He wants someone uncompromising in pursuit of progressive goals - which is like Trump except for a different cause..
That's not even remotely the same thing. Whether or not you support Trump, surely you have the intellectual capacity to acknowledge this, so why argue otherwise?
|
On January 27 2017 00:35 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 00:23 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 00:21 mustaju wrote:
There's at least contradiction between your statements here. But I'll ask whether you agree that:
a) Manning wants a progressive leader who acts like Trump? He wants someone uncompromising in pursuit of progressive goals - which is like Trump except for a different cause. Your claim implies an agreement over Trump's methods
No it doesn't. It's just Manning making an idiotic argument, and Trump responding in the kind of way that Manning's idiotic argument would imply is appropriate.
They're both wrong - but one is president.
|
Estonia4504 Posts
On January 27 2017 00:57 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 00:35 mustaju wrote:On January 27 2017 00:23 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 00:21 mustaju wrote:
There's at least contradiction between your statements here. But I'll ask whether you agree that:
a) Manning wants a progressive leader who acts like Trump? He wants someone uncompromising in pursuit of progressive goals - which is like Trump except for a different cause. Your claim implies an agreement over Trump's methods No it doesn't. It's just Manning making an idiotic argument, and Trump responding in the kind of way that Manning's idiotic argument would imply is appropriate. They're both wrong - but one is president.
You live in a different reality from me, as you both see into Mannings mind and are able to interpret his claims accurately without room for criticism, while also in control of objective reality. I would like to address content in your post, but there is none.
|
On January 27 2017 00:57 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 00:35 mustaju wrote:On January 27 2017 00:23 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 00:21 mustaju wrote:
There's at least contradiction between your statements here. But I'll ask whether you agree that:
a) Manning wants a progressive leader who acts like Trump? He wants someone uncompromising in pursuit of progressive goals - which is like Trump except for a different cause. Your claim implies an agreement over Trump's methods No it doesn't. It's just Manning making an idiotic argument, and Trump responding in the kind of way that Manning's idiotic argument would imply is appropriate. They're both wrong - but one is president.
Your first statement was an implication that Trump's response is not beneath the office of the president.
|
Alex Jones claiming he's been offered WH press credentials lol. Let's be clear - Trump believes a decent portion of the stuff he says.
|
On January 27 2017 01:12 Doodsmack wrote:
Alex Jones claiming he's been offered WH press credentials lol. Let's be clear - Trump believes a decent portion of the stuff he says.
Is anyone actually surprised that the 'media' that accepts Trumps blatant lies is given WH press access?
|
On January 27 2017 01:11 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 00:57 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 00:35 mustaju wrote:On January 27 2017 00:23 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 00:21 mustaju wrote:
There's at least contradiction between your statements here. But I'll ask whether you agree that:
a) Manning wants a progressive leader who acts like Trump? He wants someone uncompromising in pursuit of progressive goals - which is like Trump except for a different cause. Your claim implies an agreement over Trump's methods No it doesn't. It's just Manning making an idiotic argument, and Trump responding in the kind of way that Manning's idiotic argument would imply is appropriate. They're both wrong - but one is president. Your first statement was an implication that Trump's response is not beneath the office of the president.
No, it isn't.
By that I mean: it's not an implication of any such thing.
|
On January 27 2017 01:28 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 01:12 Doodsmack wrote:
Alex Jones claiming he's been offered WH press credentials lol. Let's be clear - Trump believes a decent portion of the stuff he says. Is anyone actually surprised that the 'media' that accepts Trumps blatant lies is given WH press access?
Whether Trump agrees with Infowars is besides the point. Trump's goal is to relentlessly antagonize the legacy press and dilute their influence. Giving Infowars press credentials is one means to this end. Others are doing things like breaking 170 years of the tradition of giving the AP the first question at press briefings.
|
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s job running the State Department just got considerably more difficult. The entire senior level of management officials resigned Wednesday, part of an ongoing mass exodus of senior foreign service officers who don’t want to stick around for the Trump era.
...
That amounts to a near-complete housecleaning of all the senior officials that deal with managing the State Department, its overseas posts and its people.
“It’s the single biggest simultaneous departure of institutional memory that anyone can remember, and that’s incredibly difficult to replicate,” said David Wade, who served as State Department chief of staff under Secretary of State John Kerry. “Department expertise in security, management, administrative and consular positions in particular are very difficult to replicate and particularly difficult to find in the private sector.”
...
Ambassador Richard Boucher, who served as State Department spokesman for Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, said that while there’s always a lot of turnover around the time a new administration takes office, traditionally senior officials work with the new team to see who should stay on in their roles and what other jobs might be available. But that’s not what happened this time.
Washington Post
|
On January 27 2017 01:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 01:28 Gorsameth wrote:On January 27 2017 01:12 Doodsmack wrote:
Alex Jones claiming he's been offered WH press credentials lol. Let's be clear - Trump believes a decent portion of the stuff he says. Is anyone actually surprised that the 'media' that accepts Trumps blatant lies is given WH press access? Whether Trump agrees with Infowars is besides the point. Trump's goal is to relentlessly antagonize the legacy press and dilute their influence. Giving Infowars press credentials is one means to this end. Others are doing things like breaking 170 years of the tradition of giving the AP the first question at press briefings.
Personally if I was seeking to dilute the influence of the press I would not be involving Infowars...especially if I had a record of agreeing with them.
|
On January 27 2017 01:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 01:28 Gorsameth wrote:On January 27 2017 01:12 Doodsmack wrote:
Alex Jones claiming he's been offered WH press credentials lol. Let's be clear - Trump believes a decent portion of the stuff he says. Is anyone actually surprised that the 'media' that accepts Trumps blatant lies is given WH press access? Whether Trump agrees with Infowars is besides the point. Trump's goal is to relentlessly antagonize the legacy press and dilute their influence. Giving Infowars press credentials is one means to this end. Others are doing things like breaking 170 years of the tradition of giving the AP the first question at press briefings.
I will happily accept your point when Trump gives the far left alternative press access. So long as his "diluting" is limited to those who accept his lies I'm calling it what it is.
|
On January 27 2017 01:11 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 00:57 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 00:35 mustaju wrote:On January 27 2017 00:23 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 00:21 mustaju wrote:
There's at least contradiction between your statements here. But I'll ask whether you agree that:
a) Manning wants a progressive leader who acts like Trump? He wants someone uncompromising in pursuit of progressive goals - which is like Trump except for a different cause. Your claim implies an agreement over Trump's methods No it doesn't. It's just Manning making an idiotic argument, and Trump responding in the kind of way that Manning's idiotic argument would imply is appropriate. They're both wrong - but one is president. You live in a different reality from me, as you both see into Mannings mind and are able to interpret his claims accurately without room for criticism, while also in control of objective reality. I would like to address content in your post, but there is none.
He's directly quoting the article that you keep ignoring to continue your narrative. Is anyone has no content it's the guy who's stretching his insult to fill space. Half of your posts have no bearing on what your even quoting.
|
mustaju isn't ignoring anything, he's illustrating a point that you've clearly missed.
|
On January 27 2017 01:46 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s job running the State Department just got considerably more difficult. The entire senior level of management officials resigned Wednesday, part of an ongoing mass exodus of senior foreign service officers who don’t want to stick around for the Trump era.
...
That amounts to a near-complete housecleaning of all the senior officials that deal with managing the State Department, its overseas posts and its people.
“It’s the single biggest simultaneous departure of institutional memory that anyone can remember, and that’s incredibly difficult to replicate,” said David Wade, who served as State Department chief of staff under Secretary of State John Kerry. “Department expertise in security, management, administrative and consular positions in particular are very difficult to replicate and particularly difficult to find in the private sector.”
...
Ambassador Richard Boucher, who served as State Department spokesman for Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, said that while there’s always a lot of turnover around the time a new administration takes office, traditionally senior officials work with the new team to see who should stay on in their roles and what other jobs might be available. But that’s not what happened this time. Washington Post
Sounds like some much-needed housekeeping, without the ugliness that resembles a purge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
