|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 22 2019 04:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2019 03:59 iamthedave wrote:On February 22 2019 03:46 xDaunt wrote:On February 22 2019 03:31 iamthedave wrote:On February 22 2019 01:58 xDaunt wrote:On February 22 2019 01:46 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2019 01:41 xDaunt wrote:On February 22 2019 01:26 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2019 01:21 xDaunt wrote:On February 22 2019 00:30 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]Yes, all that unjust damage to his reputation...
Oh wait he admitted on Twitter that Jr. went to the meeting to get dirt on Hillary from the Russian government.
And we've had people lie infront of congress that Trump wasn't in discussions about a Trump tower in Moscow during the campaign.
Not to mention all the other indictements that have already come out of the investigation.
I thought we moved past "it didn't happen" unto "but it wasn't illegal".
Guess we've gone back a step again. You do realize that all of the "dirt" on Trump and his team came from the Russians (as well as the NSA database, but we'll deal with that later), right? A nd you do also realize not only that Hillary paid for that information, but also that she has had business dealings (not prospective business dealings, actual business dealings) with many of the same Russians that are involved in this mess? The Trump Tower meeting is a comparative nothing burger, just as all of the indictments to come out of the investigation are nothing burgers as they pertain to Trump and his campaign. She did this personally? Did she wear one of those big coats and glasses, like in the movies? Did it come in a weird envelope that was still labeled “Super Top Secret” in Russian? If by "personally" you mean "through the Clinton Foundation and her husband's paid speaking engagements," yep. Is this the alternative reality Bizzaro Steel Dossier that is origin the foundation of the investigation(which it is not, Carter Page’s antics pre-date it by quite a while) and wasn’t paid for as opposition research by the DNC(after the RNC stopped paying for it)? Is Bizzaro Trump a good president who understands men’s fashion? I guess I wasn't addressing the dossier with my response so much as the business dealings with Russians. But on the point of the dossier, it was initially funded by Singer before the Clinton campaign took it over. As a relevant aside because you have done it twice now this morning, you have a very bad habit of inaccurately presuming that republicans are firmly supporting Trump. A large segment of the republican establishment, and potentially a majority of the big-money interests, oppose Trump. Didn't you yourself proclaim 'The GOP is now the party of Trump' and that 'all of the dissenting voices have now been voted out of power'? Did you mis-speak then? Or is this a specific and different part of the establishment? No, I did not mis-speak. The GOP is effectively the party of Trump, and most of the openly Never-Trumper politicians are out of office and out of favor. There are very few republican politicians remaining who are openly hostile to Trump. However, this does not mean that there is no dissident faction. There are still huge money conservative interests who are opposed to Trump, particularly on immigration, trade, and foreign policy. These interests are powerful and exert quite a bit of influence on many important republican politicians. In short, there are still a lot of republicans who have a vested interest in getting rid of Trump notwithstanding the fact that Trump is clearly the leader of and most influential person in the republican party. Who are they? I'm not trolling or anything, I'm genuinely curious. I'd have thought Trump would enthusiastically call these people out if they were undermining him. He sure doesn't spare anyone else. So what we see is temporary alliance of convenience where each side tries to get what it can out of the other. But when you actually talk with the people in the know in the big money political circles, there is a ton of animosity for Trump. And that is why people don't take them seriously.
The man is taking a dump on America that will take decades to recover from but meh I'll work with him and try to get something out of it.
No.
Not good enough.
|
To be fair p6 the story in Chicago involves a TV actor and racism in it of itself and something actually happened. To say that the attention on it and not the coast guard terrorist is because everyone's racist doesn't stick well with me. The guy is never going to be on television again and will go to jail for some time. The coast guard guy didn't do anything and will also spend time in jail.
|
On February 22 2019 04:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2019 03:59 iamthedave wrote:On February 22 2019 03:46 xDaunt wrote:On February 22 2019 03:31 iamthedave wrote:On February 22 2019 01:58 xDaunt wrote:On February 22 2019 01:46 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2019 01:41 xDaunt wrote:On February 22 2019 01:26 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2019 01:21 xDaunt wrote:On February 22 2019 00:30 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]Yes, all that unjust damage to his reputation...
Oh wait he admitted on Twitter that Jr. went to the meeting to get dirt on Hillary from the Russian government.
And we've had people lie infront of congress that Trump wasn't in discussions about a Trump tower in Moscow during the campaign.
Not to mention all the other indictements that have already come out of the investigation.
I thought we moved past "it didn't happen" unto "but it wasn't illegal".
Guess we've gone back a step again. You do realize that all of the "dirt" on Trump and his team came from the Russians (as well as the NSA database, but we'll deal with that later), right? A nd you do also realize not only that Hillary paid for that information, but also that she has had business dealings (not prospective business dealings, actual business dealings) with many of the same Russians that are involved in this mess? The Trump Tower meeting is a comparative nothing burger, just as all of the indictments to come out of the investigation are nothing burgers as they pertain to Trump and his campaign. She did this personally? Did she wear one of those big coats and glasses, like in the movies? Did it come in a weird envelope that was still labeled “Super Top Secret” in Russian? If by "personally" you mean "through the Clinton Foundation and her husband's paid speaking engagements," yep. Is this the alternative reality Bizzaro Steel Dossier that is origin the foundation of the investigation(which it is not, Carter Page’s antics pre-date it by quite a while) and wasn’t paid for as opposition research by the DNC(after the RNC stopped paying for it)? Is Bizzaro Trump a good president who understands men’s fashion? I guess I wasn't addressing the dossier with my response so much as the business dealings with Russians. But on the point of the dossier, it was initially funded by Singer before the Clinton campaign took it over. As a relevant aside because you have done it twice now this morning, you have a very bad habit of inaccurately presuming that republicans are firmly supporting Trump. A large segment of the republican establishment, and potentially a majority of the big-money interests, oppose Trump. Didn't you yourself proclaim 'The GOP is now the party of Trump' and that 'all of the dissenting voices have now been voted out of power'? Did you mis-speak then? Or is this a specific and different part of the establishment? No, I did not mis-speak. The GOP is effectively the party of Trump, and most of the openly Never-Trumper politicians are out of office and out of favor. There are very few republican politicians remaining who are openly hostile to Trump. However, this does not mean that there is no dissident faction. There are still huge money conservative interests who are opposed to Trump, particularly on immigration, trade, and foreign policy. These interests are powerful and exert quite a bit of influence on many important republican politicians. In short, there are still a lot of republicans who have a vested interest in getting rid of Trump notwithstanding the fact that Trump is clearly the leader of and most influential person in the republican party. Who are they? I'm not trolling or anything, I'm genuinely curious. I'd have thought Trump would enthusiastically call these people out if they were undermining him. He sure doesn't spare anyone else. Pretty much any of the republican billionaires. Trump doesn't openly antagonize these people because most of these people don't openly antagonize him. So what we see is temporary alliance of convenience where each side tries to get what it can out of the other. But when you actually talk with the people in the know in the big money political circles, there is a ton of animosity for Trump. What surprises me is that a lot of it is irrational. I certainly understand the people who oppose Trump because Trump's policies threaten their economic interests. What I don't understand is the class of Never Trumper who loathes Trump and seeks to undermine him for reasons unrelated to policy, even when these very same people purport to be champions and advocates of conservative policy (which Trump has delivered more of than any president since Reagan).
Honestly it seems more like conservatism has come in line with Trumpism, not the other way around. Sure he's appointed some right wingers to the Court, but he's also blown up the deficit and started a trade war with no game plan for ending it.
He certainly hits all the culture war notes, but I wouldn't say his policy is especially "conservative" in the traditional sense.
|
Trump has delivered almost no conservative policy (that won't be undone on the first day of the next president regardless of their party affiliation) and has done more damage to the future prospects of conservative policy then Bush did.
If you are an advocate for or want conservative ideals in any form you'd be trying to undermine trump as well.
|
On February 22 2019 04:13 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2019 02:38 JimmiC wrote:On February 22 2019 02:13 hunts wrote:On February 22 2019 01:32 Logo wrote:On February 22 2019 00:48 hunts wrote:
I didn't expect there to be that many people here that would support sanders 2020, I honestly don't get why. It's not like he magically learned how to be a good politician, he's still the same one trick pony he was in 2016, except even older. And when people talk about "outside interference in the primary" I sure hope they remember that while most of the claims of "rigged in hillary's favor" are nebulous and without any proof, the one type of interference we DO have proof of, is russian interference in favor of bernie. Honestly I hope he drops out before 2020, or becomes too sick to run, I have a feeling him and his supporters will do their best to tear the party apart from the inside, again. How is he a one trick pony? At a minimum he's tangibly accomplished two tricks over the past 4 years ($15 min wage, and Medicare for all becoming a mainstream platform). He's on 2 environmental committees this session of congress and a committee for veteran affairs. He's signed/cosigned bills expanding social security, making our election day a public holiday, and a joint resolution for the US to end our involvement in Yemen and that's all just *recent* legislation. None of that is a one trick pony. He's arguably accomplished more than any other dem federal-level politician over the last 4 years since he has at least one big actual tangible leftist wins under his belt (pressuring Amazon and Disney to pay $15/hr, the Yemen joint resolution passing). It's one of the most tired lies about Sanders to call him a one trick pony. By one trick pony I didn't mean only 1 issue. I meant he basically only has one trick he can do and that's be angry at things and make impossible promises. He has shown that he doesn't know much about what the president can and can't do. He is a one trick pony in that he is like the left version of trymp. Using outrage and promising the impossible. The other issue I have with him is that he has been very anti science or pro pseudoscience in the past. I'm on phone now so can't find links but there are write ups about his anti science history. That being said if he does manage to win? I will still vote for him in the final election unless the Republican party explodes and they manage to field an actual decent candidate but that's about as likely to happen as trump sprouting wings and flying away into the sunset away. Some of the things he thought might cause cancer are pretty out there. But it was also in the 60's then the 80's which is a long time ago. His thoughts on Acupuncture and massage are not anti science, science and research support it's health benefits. There is a reason many pro athletes swear by it. It seems more like a clutching at straws kind of thing rather then him being anti science. Unless there is much more that I didn't find. https://medium.com/the-method/bernie-sanders-in-2020-here-is-his-long-history-with-pseudoscience-204afbe830d7 The studies I've seen found no benefit to acupuncture, and I have not seen any credible peer reviewed studies that showed any benefit to accupuncture. Furthermore I recall Bernie being anti GMOs, and pro other homeopathic medicine. About the impossible things I don't mean universal healthcare, that's obviously possible with enough votes and Republicans kept out of power. But wanting to break up all the big banks without knowing how that would even work or that as president he wouldn't have the power. Changing universal minimum wage to $15 by itself will not do anything to change the shitty situation for the minimum wage employees as cost of living will just go up as well, without some legislation that limits that.
I’m confused by this argument. We know how anti-trusting companies works, the DOJ brings those cases. We know how to force banks to divide up their areas of practices into different businesses. And we know how to regulate banks and enforce white collar crime. This is not our first run in with dominate businesses that have become to massive to be regulated and to large to function in compliance with regulations. Sanders does not need to mechanically break down this shit to us on the campaign trail. It just needs to happen once he is in office. He just needs to direct the Justice Department to bring renewed force to anti-trust cases and white collar crime.
|
On February 22 2019 04:20 Sermokala wrote:
To be fair p6 the story in Chicago involves a TV actor and racism in it of itself and something actually happened. To say that the attention on it and not the coast guard terrorist is because everyone's racist doesn't stick well with me. The guy is never going to be on television again and will go to jail for some time. The coast guard guy didn't do anything and will also spend time in jail.
I didn’t say everyone was racist. I said the choices that of what the media decides to put on the air are part of systematic racist. The editors and producers of the news shows are not putting the story about the Black TV start making up a hate crime on because they are racists. They are putting it on because they know it will drive ratings and make their advertisers happy. And they believe the story about the white coast guard officer being dangerously close to murdering a lot of people won’t drive ratings. But it might if he were Muslim and had some connection to ISIS, because that drives rating. That doesn’t make them racist. But it might mean the ratings system and advertisers reward racist content.
|
|
|
On February 22 2019 04:08 xDaunt wrote:
Pretty much any of the republican billionaires. Trump doesn't openly antagonize these people because most of these people don't openly antagonize him. So what we see is temporary alliance of convenience where each side tries to get what it can out of the other. But when you actually talk with the people in the know in the big money political circles, there is a ton of animosity for Trump. What surprises me is that a lot of it is irrational. I certainly understand the people who oppose Trump because Trump's policies threaten their economic interests. What I don't understand is the class of Never Trumper who loathes Trump and seeks to undermine him for reasons unrelated to policy, even when these very same people purport to be champions and advocates of conservative policy (which Trump has delivered more of than any president since Reagan).
Oh jeez, now we got to "talk to people in the know" so xdaunt can answer the question.
On February 22 2019 04:34 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2019 04:13 hunts wrote:On February 22 2019 02:38 JimmiC wrote:On February 22 2019 02:13 hunts wrote:On February 22 2019 01:32 Logo wrote:On February 22 2019 00:48 hunts wrote:
I didn't expect there to be that many people here that would support sanders 2020, I honestly don't get why. It's not like he magically learned how to be a good politician, he's still the same one trick pony he was in 2016, except even older. And when people talk about "outside interference in the primary" I sure hope they remember that while most of the claims of "rigged in hillary's favor" are nebulous and without any proof, the one type of interference we DO have proof of, is russian interference in favor of bernie. Honestly I hope he drops out before 2020, or becomes too sick to run, I have a feeling him and his supporters will do their best to tear the party apart from the inside, again. How is he a one trick pony? At a minimum he's tangibly accomplished two tricks over the past 4 years ($15 min wage, and Medicare for all becoming a mainstream platform). He's on 2 environmental committees this session of congress and a committee for veteran affairs. He's signed/cosigned bills expanding social security, making our election day a public holiday, and a joint resolution for the US to end our involvement in Yemen and that's all just *recent* legislation. None of that is a one trick pony. He's arguably accomplished more than any other dem federal-level politician over the last 4 years since he has at least one big actual tangible leftist wins under his belt (pressuring Amazon and Disney to pay $15/hr, the Yemen joint resolution passing). It's one of the most tired lies about Sanders to call him a one trick pony. By one trick pony I didn't mean only 1 issue. I meant he basically only has one trick he can do and that's be angry at things and make impossible promises. He has shown that he doesn't know much about what the president can and can't do. He is a one trick pony in that he is like the left version of trymp. Using outrage and promising the impossible. The other issue I have with him is that he has been very anti science or pro pseudoscience in the past. I'm on phone now so can't find links but there are write ups about his anti science history. That being said if he does manage to win? I will still vote for him in the final election unless the Republican party explodes and they manage to field an actual decent candidate but that's about as likely to happen as trump sprouting wings and flying away into the sunset away. Some of the things he thought might cause cancer are pretty out there. But it was also in the 60's then the 80's which is a long time ago. His thoughts on Acupuncture and massage are not anti science, science and research support it's health benefits. There is a reason many pro athletes swear by it. It seems more like a clutching at straws kind of thing rather then him being anti science. Unless there is much more that I didn't find. https://medium.com/the-method/bernie-sanders-in-2020-here-is-his-long-history-with-pseudoscience-204afbe830d7 The studies I've seen found no benefit to acupuncture, and I have not seen any credible peer reviewed studies that showed any benefit to accupuncture. Furthermore I recall Bernie being anti GMOs, and pro other homeopathic medicine. About the impossible things I don't mean universal healthcare, that's obviously possible with enough votes and Republicans kept out of power. But wanting to break up all the big banks without knowing how that would even work or that as president he wouldn't have the power. Changing universal minimum wage to $15 by itself will not do anything to change the shitty situation for the minimum wage employees as cost of living will just go up as well, without some legislation that limits that. It is pretty impossible to have a control group when it comes to acupuncture. I mean what is your placebo? But also if the people who use it feel better, healthier and so on. And there is basically no side effects whats the downside? As to massage there is just no question. https://www.womenshealth.northwestern.edu/blog/understanding-science-acupuncture
The downside would be time and money wasted. And presumably people using acupuncture instead of more effective and proven treatments. But no-one is (hopefully) using it to treat heart disease and broken bones, so it's not really that important I suppose.
|
On February 22 2019 04:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2019 03:59 iamthedave wrote:On February 22 2019 03:46 xDaunt wrote:On February 22 2019 03:31 iamthedave wrote:On February 22 2019 01:58 xDaunt wrote:On February 22 2019 01:46 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2019 01:41 xDaunt wrote:On February 22 2019 01:26 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2019 01:21 xDaunt wrote:On February 22 2019 00:30 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]Yes, all that unjust damage to his reputation...
Oh wait he admitted on Twitter that Jr. went to the meeting to get dirt on Hillary from the Russian government.
And we've had people lie infront of congress that Trump wasn't in discussions about a Trump tower in Moscow during the campaign.
Not to mention all the other indictements that have already come out of the investigation.
I thought we moved past "it didn't happen" unto "but it wasn't illegal".
Guess we've gone back a step again. You do realize that all of the "dirt" on Trump and his team came from the Russians (as well as the NSA database, but we'll deal with that later), right? A nd you do also realize not only that Hillary paid for that information, but also that she has had business dealings (not prospective business dealings, actual business dealings) with many of the same Russians that are involved in this mess? The Trump Tower meeting is a comparative nothing burger, just as all of the indictments to come out of the investigation are nothing burgers as they pertain to Trump and his campaign. She did this personally? Did she wear one of those big coats and glasses, like in the movies? Did it come in a weird envelope that was still labeled “Super Top Secret” in Russian? If by "personally" you mean "through the Clinton Foundation and her husband's paid speaking engagements," yep. Is this the alternative reality Bizzaro Steel Dossier that is origin the foundation of the investigation(which it is not, Carter Page’s antics pre-date it by quite a while) and wasn’t paid for as opposition research by the DNC(after the RNC stopped paying for it)? Is Bizzaro Trump a good president who understands men’s fashion? I guess I wasn't addressing the dossier with my response so much as the business dealings with Russians. But on the point of the dossier, it was initially funded by Singer before the Clinton campaign took it over. As a relevant aside because you have done it twice now this morning, you have a very bad habit of inaccurately presuming that republicans are firmly supporting Trump. A large segment of the republican establishment, and potentially a majority of the big-money interests, oppose Trump. Didn't you yourself proclaim 'The GOP is now the party of Trump' and that 'all of the dissenting voices have now been voted out of power'? Did you mis-speak then? Or is this a specific and different part of the establishment? No, I did not mis-speak. The GOP is effectively the party of Trump, and most of the openly Never-Trumper politicians are out of office and out of favor. There are very few republican politicians remaining who are openly hostile to Trump. However, this does not mean that there is no dissident faction. There are still huge money conservative interests who are opposed to Trump, particularly on immigration, trade, and foreign policy. These interests are powerful and exert quite a bit of influence on many important republican politicians. In short, there are still a lot of republicans who have a vested interest in getting rid of Trump notwithstanding the fact that Trump is clearly the leader of and most influential person in the republican party. Who are they? I'm not trolling or anything, I'm genuinely curious. I'd have thought Trump would enthusiastically call these people out if they were undermining him. He sure doesn't spare anyone else. Pretty much any of the republican billionaires. Trump doesn't openly antagonize these people because most of these people don't openly antagonize him. So what we see is temporary alliance of convenience where each side tries to get what it can out of the other. But when you actually talk with the people in the know in the big money political circles, there is a ton of animosity for Trump. What surprises me is that a lot of it is irrational. I certainly understand the people who oppose Trump because Trump's policies threaten their economic interests. What I don't understand is the class of Never Trumper who loathes Trump and seeks to undermine him for reasons unrelated to policy, even when these very same people purport to be champions and advocates of conservative policy (which Trump has delivered more of than any president since Reagan).
Doesn't it seem likely that these people just know Trump personally and don't like him? And you surely are aware that there are conservatives who feel Trump isn't a 'true' conservative for [INSERT REASON HERE] and so oppose him on moral grounds. I seem to recall Ben Shapiro was in this category at one point but I don't know if he still is.
|
On February 22 2019 04:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2019 04:20 Sermokala wrote:
To be fair p6 the story in Chicago involves a TV actor and racism in it of itself and something actually happened. To say that the attention on it and not the coast guard terrorist is because everyone's racist doesn't stick well with me. The guy is never going to be on television again and will go to jail for some time. The coast guard guy didn't do anything and will also spend time in jail. I didn’t say everyone was racist. I said the choices that of what the media decides to put on the air are part of systematic racist. The editors and producers of the news shows are not putting the story about the Black TV start making up a hate crime on because they are racists. They are putting it on because they know it will drive ratings and make their advertisers happy. And they believe the story about the white coast guard officer being dangerously close to murdering a lot of people won’t drive ratings. But it might if he were Muslim and had some connection to ISIS, because that drives rating. That doesn’t make them racist. But it might mean the ratings system and advertisers reward racist content.
The story will drive ratings and make their advertisers happy because the guy was a TV actor who did crimes vs a guy who no one even knows the name of who was just planning to do crimes. Trying to connect this to a broader trend is stretching the facts in order to support a larger narrative.
|
United States41989 Posts
Trump’s policy goals have almost universally ended in failure. The trade deficit with China is bigger than ever, Mexico isn’t paying for any walls (and suggestions like taxing remittances went nowhere), government debt is up, America’s image abroad is so bad that leaders of foreign nations are parodying his mannerisms for cheap laughs, Hillary is still free, the forever war in the Middle East rages on.
His only success has been making poor conservatives feel that someone is sticking it to the libs as he pisses freely over both groups.
|
On February 22 2019 04:48 KwarK wrote:
Trump’s policy goals have almost universally ended in failure. The trade deficit with China is bigger than ever, Mexico isn’t paying for any walls (and suggestions like taxing remittances went nowhere), government debt is up, America’s image abroad is so bad that leaders of foreign nations are parodying his mannerisms for cheap laughs, Hillary is still free, the forever war in the Middle East rages on.
His only success has been making poor conservatives feel that someone is sticking it to the libs as he pisses freely over both groups.
The tax cut was a policy goal and he got that through. Supreme Court appointments? Those are a big deal.
Not sure about other things.
|
|
|
On February 22 2019 04:50 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2019 04:48 KwarK wrote:
Trump’s policy goals have almost universally ended in failure. The trade deficit with China is bigger than ever, Mexico isn’t paying for any walls (and suggestions like taxing remittances went nowhere), government debt is up, America’s image abroad is so bad that leaders of foreign nations are parodying his mannerisms for cheap laughs, Hillary is still free, the forever war in the Middle East rages on.
His only success has been making poor conservatives feel that someone is sticking it to the libs as he pisses freely over both groups. The tax cut was a policy goal and he got that through. Supreme Court appointments? Those are a big deal. Not sure about other things. Except for the tax cut being a tax increase sold with a lollipop.
|
On February 22 2019 04:23 Sermokala wrote:
Trump has delivered almost no conservative policy (that won't be undone on the first day of the next president regardless of their party affiliation) and has done more damage to the future prospects of conservative policy then Bush did.
If you are an advocate for or want conservative ideals in any form you'd be trying to undermine trump as well.
Before I respond to this, I’m genuinely interested in what you think conservatism is.
|
On February 22 2019 04:46 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2019 04:32 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2019 04:20 Sermokala wrote:
To be fair p6 the story in Chicago involves a TV actor and racism in it of itself and something actually happened. To say that the attention on it and not the coast guard terrorist is because everyone's racist doesn't stick well with me. The guy is never going to be on television again and will go to jail for some time. The coast guard guy didn't do anything and will also spend time in jail. I didn’t say everyone was racist. I said the choices that of what the media decides to put on the air are part of systematic racist. The editors and producers of the news shows are not putting the story about the Black TV start making up a hate crime on because they are racists. They are putting it on because they know it will drive ratings and make their advertisers happy. And they believe the story about the white coast guard officer being dangerously close to murdering a lot of people won’t drive ratings. But it might if he were Muslim and had some connection to ISIS, because that drives rating. That doesn’t make them racist. But it might mean the ratings system and advertisers reward racist content. The story will drive ratings and make their advertisers happy because the guy was a TV actor who did crimes vs a guy who no one even knows the name of who was just planning to do crimes. Trying to connect this to a broader trend is stretching the facts in order to support a larger narrative.
One person’s narrative is another person’s observation. With the almost endless critiques of the quality of news, the one that always seems to draw the most ire is that broadcast news is prone to pandering to our worst racial biases to rating.
|
United States41989 Posts
On February 22 2019 04:50 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2019 04:48 KwarK wrote:
Trump’s policy goals have almost universally ended in failure. The trade deficit with China is bigger than ever, Mexico isn’t paying for any walls (and suggestions like taxing remittances went nowhere), government debt is up, America’s image abroad is so bad that leaders of foreign nations are parodying his mannerisms for cheap laughs, Hillary is still free, the forever war in the Middle East rages on.
His only success has been making poor conservatives feel that someone is sticking it to the libs as he pisses freely over both groups. The tax cut was a policy goal and he got that through. Supreme Court appointments? Those are a big deal. Not sure about other things.
Tax bill isn’t very much like the one promised. AMT stayed. HoH stayed. Estate tax stayed. Corporate tax rates didn’t get hiked.
Basically all they did was fucked with the forms (seriously, it’s a mess, I could go on at length), rolled exemptions into a bigger deduction, and cut rates on the rich.
It’s not the sweeping reform advertised, just a gift to the rich by driving up the deficit. Might as well promise a flat 2% tax rate next election.
|
The Stone hearing is from outer space :-D The reporting is available from this journalist :
Stone attorney says his client is a person who is "used to talking," but has learned his lesson. Lawyer says Stone wants a second chance. Again says Stone apologizes.
Lawyer: "It's not even close, it's indefensible."
Judge: "I agree with you there."
Stone claims he's having trouble putting food on the table and paying his rent.
Bets are on. Increased bail ? Gag order ? Jail ? The judge looked bewildered, incredulous that he actually did that.
|
Roger Stone pays rent? The dude is a millionaire several times over.
|
"I'm sorry I wont do it again" is a defence for jaywalking. Not witness tampering.
nvm this is something else it seems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
