Sorry, to finish - the old line remains true, it’s the economy, stupid (and don’t forget healthcare)
the memo will will be interesting, a potential game changer
Lots of things about Trump’s presidency worry me. Whilevheadkines are grabbed by speculation as to whether Trump has an IQ that’s bigly or if he bothers to read his briefing notes, there’s a lot going on behind the scenes with a skeleton government and a cut to the bone diplomatic corps. In addition, we’ve Pruitt rewriting the remit of climate science to the extent that climate scientists are being gagged and that scientific panels are being weighted with equal numbers of skeptics. Why would the GOP deliberately hobble scientific advisors?
There’s some huge geopolitical changes going on in the background, authoritarian regimes over the world are becoming more prominent - Turkey, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Russia, The Philippines, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Israel, China to name but a few. America is in the midst of rewriting its nuclear doctrine which will take decades to bring to conclusion (new doctrine means new weapons, means new rules of engagement etc). Clearly there is a long term strategic plan in the offering.
At the risk of appearing to single out Ninfan again, how far would you agree with the above and how does the lurch towards looser human rights, consumer protection and away from secularism concern you, if at all?
And I would like to add that there’s no right or wrong answer - I’m looking for honest thoughts and analysis.
I think the “stripped to the core government” is, however, something that, particularly at federal level, very much a core ethos of many Americans (not just republicans). It’s alien to us but central to them (I’ve pointed out how alien the firearms as the last defence to government is alien to us, but less strange when you consider the history of immigration to the us, particularly post WW2, and that when you grown up at your granny’s knee hearing tales of totalitarian persecution and genocide it looks different)
Regards totalitarian states abroad, I ask you only this, what thanks or benefi has the US ever had for being the worlds policeman for the last seventy years? Is Trumps objection to other countries freeloading on US defence spending to build their own countries (see eg. Germany’s NATO spending) really unreasonable?
Ps, scientific advisers etc. Sorry, I think they dug their own hole through years of thoroughly partisan behaviour... much like the FBI have (and it’s worth looking carefully at the history of the FBI under Hoover to see how federal agencies can act when left unchecked)
Assuming there are "hysteria types" on both sides one has to remember one is a quest for equality for all and the other the quest for the mater race/racial purity. Given this there is no way your statement ca be true.there’s far more hysteria, hatred and bile from the centre left mass than the centre right mass
One hates those who are racists and bigots [ this goes all the way to the far left with people such as Merkel and May BTW] the other hates anyone with the wrong skin colour. Hating fascists is what everyone but fascists do. History will explain to you why this is the case if you morality cannot.
I wish the blocking script was working
No, please, go on Counter, please tell me. why the quote above is racist – I’d genuinely appreciate it
Who’s ‘Counter’ when he’s at home, then?
Can’t be arsed to spend time and effort for zero reward, there’s a programme about the moon that’s of far greater interest to me than your unhealthy obsession with the Super Callous Fragile Sexist Racist Lying POTUS.
No, come on countzero (counter was autocorrect and we all know editing isn’t working) pony up and back up your words.
its easy to cast people you don’t like as a racist to score points - it seems to have fallen down when it comes to backing up your claims.
:choke:
so come on, what was racist about that quote?
To be fair to Zulu, during the Charlottesville thread, he exhorted us all to wait and see what came out at trial - while at the same time spreading fake news - the source of which he wouldn’t divulge that evening. Perhaps he’d like to now? I remember searching about for it that evening, but I assume Zulu does gets his “news” from more specialist sites.
Well, the trial was held recently and hey ho, I’ll leave Zulu to go and google “what cake out” himself.
Imagine Zulu trying to fabricate extenuating circumstances for a nitcase that drives into a crowd of “leftie” protestors, killing one and maiming others! That would never happen would it?
<span style="color: #444444; font-size: 16px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;">“one has to remember one is a quest for equality”</span>
<span style="color: #444444; font-size: 16px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;">Like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were seeking?</span>
Interesting observations Ninfan, I’m aware that a tenet of Reaganism/Thatcherism is that small government is tax efficient and unintrusive and that three generations of separation from WW2 paints a different perspective. I also see your point on the conduct of climate scientists, I don’t agree as climate scientists were able to operate in relative safely from corporate lobbying under one party than the other but point noted and taken.
But you didn’t fully see that I was alluding to Trump’s USA also lurching towards an autocratic government style, I would call into question why the presidency would openly declare war on the media (while keeping fringe allied media outlets close), why there’s a decree about transgender soldiers for example. Why would climate scientists - who’ve a near universal consensus of what’s happening to our climate - need to be muzzled by unnecessary bureaucracy?
And perhaps most importantly, you didn’t give any indication as to how the above scenario might make you feel?
It's the contrasts that are interesting. Trump wants to create jobs so big fan of coal, a shrinking industry with no real future but an industry like solar panels that is growing and generating jobs he cripples. If he genuinely wanted to create jobs and support Americans this makes no sense.
To repeat my earlier post, Ninfan, <span style="background-color: #eeeeee; color: #444444; font-size: 16px;">What makes you think there’s anything racist about being against illegal immigration? </span>
(Daredn't quote it just yet! )
No mate they were totalitarian dictators and all of them are bad whether its one like those or Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet etc. Dictators are just bad irrespective of political leaning.Like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were seeking?
Are you worried the equality movement may be planning a totalitarian regime. If you dont mind me saying so, its a little far fetched, even for you to try.
The reality, in this millennia remains one side wants equality one side wants racial purity. Its not a hard choice.
Are you worried the equality movement may be planning a totalitarian regime. If you dont mind me saying so, its a little far fetched, even for you to try.
It's not like Trump just tried to start legislation to be able to remove government officials who don't agree with him...
So we have blaming foreigners for everything
Trying to get rid of people who don't agree with you
Expanding the military
What Next?
<span style="color: #444444; font-size: 16px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;">But you didn’t fully see that I was alluding to Trump’s USA also lurching towards an autocratic government style, I would call into question why the presidency would openly declare war on the media (while keeping fringe allied media outlets close), why there’s a decree about transgender soldiers for example. Why would climate scientists – who’ve a near universal consensus of what’s happening to our climate – need to be muzzled by unnecessary bureaucracy?</span>
Arguably the most autocratic government the US ever had was the one that refused to allow 13 states to secede from the union and went to war on its own people.
As for declaring war on the media? Don’t you think it was them eho declared war on Trump? It was the media who set themselves against a democratic system as the arbiters of what was “right” regardless of the Democratic outcome - all the wa6 back to the primaries.
climate scientists (etc. It’s not limited to them)? https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/8/government-scientists-leak-climate-change-study-to/ (there were later questions as to how much of a leak this actually was) but what you see is a consistent trait across several federal departments where they appear to think they are above democratic oversight and the rule of law - that it’s OK to break the rules wherever and whenever you feel you are ‘morally justified’ in doing so. That way utter chaos reins, it’s ultimatley anti democratic. We all have to operate within the law, and cannot rely on “oh well, the rules are flexible if you are doing it for the right cause” because that’s exactly the defence that tyrants would use
I’m still grappling with the notion that a state with an ideological goal of ultra-small government and minimilisation of costs would simultaneously threaten to withdraw from unilateral military obligations because fellow member states were alleged to be putting fewer Euros/Dollars in the pot whilst slashing social programmes from budgets would need to drastically expand its’ military spending and scope?
Eh what....
Scientists can only release what the President agrees with?
Utter BS, What you are proposing is a totalitarian regime.
The press did not declare war on Trump they held him to account, he just doesn't like to be reminded of what he has said or done.
For instance http://trumpgolfcount.com/
Do you think it's healthy government to be asking for lists of those scientists that are with the world consensus on climate?
“Scientists can only release what the president agrees with”
no, federal employees and federal funds are (rightly) subject to democratic oversight (by senate/congress) not free to do and say whatever they want
“The press did not declare war on Trump, they held him to account”
Then why do they keep getting caught out manipulating the news, lying about him and publishing unverified stories (later proven false)
Arguably the most autocratic government the US ever had was the one that refused to allow 13 states to secede from the union and went to war on its own people.
You could but you would have to have no recollection of history and be absurdly stupid.
Trump is an out and out imbecile /racist/insert other
We can wax lyrical over semantics as long as we like but it does not change the fact that he's a discracefull specimen of the human race.
Then why do they keep getting caught out manipulating the news, lying about him and publishing unverified stories (later proven false)
Is that 18 examples in total?
https://www.factcheck.org/person/donald-trump/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/30/opinion/fact-check-state-of-the-union-trump.html
From one count that is 247-18, I don't think the All Blacks have ever got that far ahead
no, federal employees and federal funds are (rightly) subject to democratic oversight (by senate/congress) not free to do and say whatever they want
They can be subject to oversight by Senate and Congress, they are but they can also dispute what the president says it should be on the record if the truth and facts are supressed. What you are proposing is a terrifying level of state control, we fund science and research to inform us, not to tell us what we want to hear. You accuse people of being in a leftie echo chamber but it appears Trump and possibly yourself fear the truth and will do anything to keep it secret.
If the US science community suddenly starts saying no comment when asked about it's research into climate or other areas it becomes the laughing stock of the world.
Hold on, is Ninny preparing the ground for defending slavery?
What Next?
A peoples car?
Arguably the most autocratic government the US ever had was the one that refused to allow 13 states to secede from the union
What a stupidly facile and childish thing to say
"“Scientists can only release what the president agrees with”
no, federal employees and federal funds are (rightly) subject to democratic oversight (by senate/congress) not free to do and say whatever they want"
Wow! You really are blind and dumb. Science is above politics, and must be to be effective. When the Government starts telling the scientists what they can and can't say, it is acting irresponsibly and not in the best interests of the Country, and the rest of the World.
Science is its own self-regulating industry: it doesn't need some arrogant, half-witted baffoon telling them what they can and can't publish. That is totalitarian.
This stupid forum won't let me edit, so here's a follow-up: Trump is only silencing the EPA and it's scientists so he can justify his misguided obsession with revitalising the oil and coal industries, so he and his mates can reap the financial rewards.
Anyway that Russian sanctions thing and that oligarch list
<span style="font-family: ff-tisa-web-pro, Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 18px; background-color: #f7f8f8;">The Trump administration informed lawmakers Monday that new Russia sanctions called for in a bipartisan bill passed last year are not necessary yet because the measure is already "serving as a deterrent."</span>
<span style="font-family: ff-tisa-web-pro, Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 18px; background-color: #f7f8f8;">The administration released the unclassified version of the oligarchs list late Monday, after its announcement on the non-issuance of new sanctions. The Treasury Department noted that the roster "is not a sanctions list" and that individuals listed do not "meet the criteria for designation under any sanctions program" as a result of their inclusion.</span>
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/29/russia-sanctions-white-house-congress-376813
Well seems the WH isn't keen on actually following thru and implementing it.
Hmm quoting and editing functionality seems a bit off ATM 🙂
<span style="color: #444444; font-size: 16px; background-color: #eeeeee;">Hold on, is Ninny preparing the ground for defending slavery?</span>
Clearly slavery was good for the slaves.
It removed them from countries that were shitholes and gave them the chance to contribute towards the then agriculture-based economy whilst being provided with all the corn they could eat.
Shirley?
Trump is only silencing the EPA and it’s scientists so he can justify his misguided obsession with revitalising the oil and coal industries, so he and his mates can reap the financial rewards
Most definately...
Pipelines all over natural parks and the big Russian Oil deal(thats currently blocked due to sanctions.)
" https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/29/russia-sanctions-white-house-congress-376813
<p style="padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; line-height: 1.2em; color: #444444; margin: 1rem 0px !important;">Well seems the WH isn’t keen on actually following thru and implementing it."</p>
Donny has looked at the list and realised there would be no-one left to pay freshly-laundered top dollar for his condos and apartments.
From that well-known organ of leftie hand-wringing libtardery, George Osborne's London Evening Standard:
"<span style="font-family: headlinefont; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold;">Ever the performer,</span><span style="font-family: headlinefont; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold;"> </span>Donald Trump<span style="font-family: headlinefont; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-family: headlinefont; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold;">delivered his</span><span style="font-family: headlinefont; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold;"> </span>first formal State of the Union address<span style="font-family: headlinefont; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-family: headlinefont; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold;">in the style of an Oscar winner. Under Article II, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution, the President is mandated “from time to time [to] give to the Congress information” on the wellbeing of the republic.</span>
<p style="font-family: bodyfont; font-size: 14px;">But Trump’s address — one of the longest on record — was less an exercise in statesmanship or policy navigation than emotional manipulation and pseudo-civic sentimentality: a long catalogue of anecdotes and personal tributes masquerading as a plan for government. It has become common practice for presidents to salute invited guests whose valour or sacrifice embodies the best of America. In this case, it often seemed that Trump was exploiting them, one after another, as human shields.</p>
<p style="font-family: bodyfont; font-size: 14px;">At the beginning of a year that will culminate in November’s mid-term elections, it was no surprise that the President should make so much of the US economy’s comparative strength. It was equally predictable that so many of his claims should be misleading or downright mendacious.</p>
<div id="mpu0" style="font-family: bodyfont;" align="center" data-google-query-id="CMiPzvTDhNkCFeUg0wodqmsPsg">
<div id="google_ads_iframe_/71347885/ES_App/ES_Comment_0_Article_0__container__" style="border: 0pt none;"><iframe id="google_ads_iframe_/71347885/ES_App/ES_Comment_0_Article_0" style="border-width: 0px; border-style: initial; vertical-align: bottom;" title="3rd party ad content" name="google_ads_iframe_/71347885/ES_App/ES_Comment_0_Article_0" width="300" height="250" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no"></iframe></div>
</div>
<p style="font-family: bodyfont; font-size: 14px;">It is true that 2.4 million jobs have been created in the US since the 2016 election — but the rate of hiring during his 11 months in the Oval Office has been the slowest since 2010. To date, America’s economic resurgence has been Trump’s political oxygen supply during his most perilous moments. But that resurgence has its roots in the Obama years and tough decisions taken by the US Federal Reserve.</p>
<p style="font-family: bodyfont; font-size: 14px;">Claim after claim crumbled as fact-checkers assessed the speech in real time. No, Trump has not “ended the war on beautiful, clean coal” — in fact, he is trying to cut the funding of the Department of Energy’s Office of Fuel Research, which oversees cleaner, safer energy technologies.</p>
<div class="inline-block inline-block-related-single inline-block-right" style="padding: 10px; font-family: bodyfont;" data-nid="/news/world/trump-boasts-of-extraordinary-success-in-state-of-the-union-speech-a3753936.html">
<div class="capsules">
<ul style="list-style: none; padding-left: 11px; margin: 0px;">
<li style="padding-left: 1em; text-indent: -0.7em;">
<div class="label context-capsule" style="position: absolute; top: -10px; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.15) 0px 1px 6px; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px; height: 20px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; padding: 2px 6px; text-transform: uppercase; font-family: appfont; margin-top: -5px;">READ MORE</div>
</div>
<div class="content" style="position: relative; padding: 10px;">
<p style="font-size: 22px; font-family: headlinefont; font-weight: bold;">Trump boasts of 'extraordinary success' in State of the Union speech</p>
</div>
</div>
<p style="font-family: bodyfont; font-size: 14px;">And no, he has not “eliminated more regulations in our first year than any administration in history” — according to the Office of Management and Budget, Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Barack Obama all did a better job at cutting red tape in their first months. And no, he has not “enacted the biggest tax cuts and reforms in American history” — that distinction belongs to Ronald Reagan, whose measures in 1981 amounted to 2.89 per cent of GP (compared with Trump’s 0.9 per cent).</p>
<p style="font-family: bodyfont; font-size: 14px;">And no, those cuts will not “provide tremendous relief for the middle classes and small business” — since by 2027 those earning less than $75,000 will experience tax increases while those who earn more will continue to make savings. Truly, this president’s infatuation with “alternative facts” is undimmed.</p>
<p style="font-family: bodyfont; font-size: 14px;">By convention, the State of the Union Address is an opportunity to nurture bipartisanship, to heal the wounds of the nation and to extend the hand of friendship as well as the fist of resolve. In this respect Trump went through the rhetorical motions, affecting to seek common ground on immigration and prescription drug prices, declaring that: “All of us, together, as one team, one people and one American family, can do anything.”</p>
<p style="font-family: bodyfont; font-size: 14px;">But, really, who was he trying to fool? Even as he mouthed these platitudes, his polarising temperament seethed implacably — and broke through. When Trump insisted that “Americans are dreamers too”, he was conspicuously appropriating the word applied to immigrants brought illegally to the US as children, protected by the much-contested Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) programme.</p>
<div class="inline-block inline-block-related-single inline-block-right" style="padding: 10px; font-family: bodyfont;" data-nid="/news/world/donald-trump-overturns-barack-obamas-decision-to-shut-guantanamo-bay-prison-camp-a3753841.html">
<div class="capsules">
<ul style="list-style: none; padding-left: 11px; margin: 0px;">
<li style="padding-left: 1em; text-indent: -0.7em;">
<div class="label context-capsule" style="position: absolute; top: -10px; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.15) 0px 1px 6px; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px; height: 20px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; padding: 2px 6px; text-transform: uppercase; font-family: appfont; margin-top: -5px;">READ MORE
<div class="content" style="position: relative; padding: 10px; display: inline !important;">
<p style="font-size: 22px; font-family: headlinefont; font-weight: bold; display: inline !important;"></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p style="font-family: bodyfont; font-size: 14px;">When he said so pointedly that “we proudly stand for the national anthem”, he was yet again reproaching those NFL players who have knelt while it is sung in protest at police brutality against black citizens. In making so much of the Salvadoran-American gang MS-13, he sought, as he has since he launched his presidential campaign, to equate undocumented immigration with violent crime.</p>
<p style="font-family: bodyfont; font-size: 14px;">In announcing that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp was to stay open, he was telling the world that America can, and will, do as it pleases. This was Trump at his most deplorable, using a great occasion of state to peddle the ugliest populism.</p>
<p style="font-family: bodyfont; font-size: 14px;">Yet for this president the congressional pulpit is just another stage —another venue for his polarising oratory and strychnine-laced theatricality. The wrestling ring, campaign rallies, social media: all are platforms for his unchecked ego and limitless caprice.</p>
<p style="font-family: bodyfont; font-size: 14px;">Richard Nixon at least understood the subtleties of the US Constitution, even as he subverted them. But Trump is simply indifferent to its content, solemnity and significance (according to Michael Wolff’s Fire and Fury, the campaign aide deputed to explain the text to him reported back: “I got as far as the Fourth Amendment before his finger is pulling down on his lip and his eyes are rolling back in his head.”)</p>
<p style="font-family: bodyfont; font-size: 14px;">Pay no heed to those who claim — even now — that Trump can still be tamed by the institutions and conventions of Washington. He has not retreated an inch from the spirit of his inaugural address and its invocation of “American carnage”. He is still the man who claimed that “very fine people” marched alongside the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville; who has scorned Britain’s response to Islamist terrorism; who tried to sack Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating the Trump campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia; who was vexed by the judiciary’s resistance to his proposed immigration ban from seven countries.</p>
<p style="font-family: bodyfont; font-size: 14px;">Soon he will be back on Twitter, raging in cyberspace at enemies real and imagined, reducing his great office to trolling with nuclear weapons. From time to time his duties compel him to wear the fancy dress of a real president. But — as last night’s masquerade made painfully clear — the illusion never lasts.</p>
Sorry about that. I tried editing five seconds later but had already been timed out.
Is it me, or is the site getting even worse?
I don't want to be an Eyore about it, but I wish whatever finger is at rest on the issue, would get itself extracted...
And as a message to PJM1974, how nice to have an adult conversation on here about stuff - and the above (childish and over simplified attempts at points scoring) response demonstrate the point completely, don’t they? We could have had an adult conversation about the parallels between Lincoln’s response to the Supreme Court judgement in Dred Scott v Stanford and Trump’s response to court judgements on his executive orders... we could have discussed how Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus compared with Roosevelt’s executive order 9066, or Bush Jr’s use of Guantánamo Bay and extraordinary rendition (woe before we should mention Obama’s abandoned pledge to close Guantanamo)..
but no intelligent conversations like this that might seek to put concerns over president Trump’s approach to government into context can’t happen, because one mention of Lincoln = defending slavery
ho hum, back to normal it is then... 🙁
Troll whinges that because he's a massive troll no-one treats what he says with any seriousness.
In other news; dog bites man
Why bother when so few of the lefties on here have the intelligence to hold a halfway decent conversation?
@PJM - you may find this interesting, I read it some time ago but it may give some context to my comments above: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/20/lincoln-versus-judicial-supremacy/?utm_term=.d466b2c9a162
(quote)@PJM – you may find this interesting, I read it some time ago but it may give some context to my comments above: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/20/lincoln-versus-judicial-supremacy/?utm_term=.d466b2c9a162(/quote)
Which aspect of modern America are you comparing the eradication of slavery to?
[b]Mr Woppit[/b] :
Sorry about that. I tried editing five seconds later but had already been timed out.
If you're interested in editing that to make it readable, http://singletrackworld.com/forum/reply/9810178/edit/ should do it
ho hum, back to normal it is then…
U ok hun?
I should point out that Obama had pledged to close Guantanamo Bay has not been upheld for reasons are not necessarily due to presidential obfuscation:
http://time.com/4179278/state-of-the-union-guantanamo-bay-president-obama/
In the meantime I thank Ninfan for his response and hope that he gives due consideration to the points I've raised about the Trump presidency's policy change direction, the apparent muzzling of the scientific community and the increased risk of an escalating nuclear confrontation resulting from doctrinal change and why some of us forumites may be alarmed and concerned as to not only the implications for the future, but about how our some high profile members of our current government seem to be aligning themselves along similar ideological lines to the GOP.
Ninfan is no troll in any sense of the word. He may be hurting your feelings and enraging your inner safe spaces but that's your lookout not his. Just quit throwing the childish insults, they may keep the lefty echo chamber in motion but they're a complete waste of time. Remember kids, facts over feelings.
That's the problem though, Trump puts of lies as facts. He claims his SOTU was the most watched ever, but it wasn't. Ten seconds on Google and you find Obama, Clinton and Bush had higher figures, while this lie in itself doesn't really matter it's the general total disregard for truth that is worrying.
sorry enfht, to win today's "Rightwinger's batty bullshit bingo" post you need to include the words "snowflake" and "groupthink"
Please try harder if you'd like to play again.
Enfht - You're absolutely free to add your own considered response to the concerns that many forum members have about the trajectory of the Trump presidency's policies. How do you feel about the way that climate scientists are being muzzled in a nation that takes freedom of speech very seriously? Would you not agree that putting avowed climate sceptics in equal number on any panel of scientists - as well as by appointing Scott Pruitt to head the EPA - amounts to censorship and a pig-headed unwillingness of GOP policymakers to take heed of climate change?
And regardless of whether you feel that the above is justifiable or not, are you concerned as to what the outcome felt beyond America's borders might be?
No right or wrong answer - just interested in your actual thoughts on the matter.
<span style="font-family: UICTFontTextStyleTallBody; font-size: 17px;">“That’s the problem though, Trump puts of lies as facts. He claims his SOTU was the most watched ever, but it wasn’t. Ten seconds on Google and you find Obama, Clinton and Bush had higher figures, while this lie in itself doesn’t really matter it’s the general total disregard for truth that is worrying”</span>
The problem here is that that’s nonsense - your ‘rebuttal’ to Trumps suggestion that it was the most viewed relies on (good old MSM reportage) interpretation of his claim and them rebutting it with ‘Neilsen’ live TV viewing figures, comparing Trump with previous SOTU, nobody stops and asked ‘ok, what have you based your claim on’ or ‘show us your numbers’ but instead the “lie” bandwagon starts up and repeats the same old false rebuttals, even the CNN coverage accepts that IF Trump is including web viewing then “There is no reliable data for live streaming” - and equally no way to monitor people like me who watched it afterwards on the internet (hey, guess what, how many people watched Reagan’s SOTU on the Internet?)
instead of saying “not proven” you called it not true - that make you FAKE NEWS.
Now, back to @PJM1974 - I refer you on the nuclear issue back to history, that this “increasing risk of an escalating nuclear confrontation resulting from doctrinal change” is almost the exact same allegation levelled against Reagan with the expansion of theatre nuclear weapons in Europe (Cruise and Pershing 2) and the discussions about SDI and limited nuclear war/flexible response. - essentially I’m saying ‘we’ve heard all this before’ about how it would inevetable lead us into disaster... truth was it didn’t and in fact ended up with the collapse of the SU and the START1 and START2 treaties
Ninny, don’t you get dizzy trying to repeatedly spin things to fit your own version of the ‘facts’?
https://boingboing.net/2018/02/01/donald-trump-sadly-mistaken-ab.html
Seems pretty clear-cut to me, but I don’t let my obsession blind me to reality.
Oh, and have you and enfht booked yourselves a room yet?
Count%ero, it’s like you read my points above on the weakness of the Neilsen live television viewing figures in the age of recorded and global live-stream internet viewing, webcasts, YouTube and twitter... and <i>literally</i> absorbed none of them
<div>
<div>
<div>Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
Ninfan is no troll in any sense of the word. He may be hurting your feelings and enraging your inner safe spaces but that’s your lookout not his.
The only thing that hurts is my sides and the occasional glass injury when the irony meter blows...
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
Count%ero, it’s like you read my points above on the weakness of the Neilsen live television viewing figures in the age of recorded and global live-stream internet viewing, webcasts, YouTube and twitter… and <i>literally</i> absorbed none of them
But I assume Trump has actual figures with a solid explanation of how they were calculated? Or are they just bigley huge like his ego that is getting bruised on a daily basis?
</div>
<div>
</div>
rebuttal’ to Trumps suggestion that it was the most viewed relies on (good old MSM reportage) interpretation of his claim and them rebutting it with ‘Neilsen’ live TV viewing figures
Your glaring weakness is his tweet/claim states those figures, ad they are surpassed by many other presidents, so you , and he, are the fake news here as anyone who uses facts understands Its amusing to argue those figures are wrong when they are the ones he used.
instead of saying “not proven” you called it not true – that make you FAKE NEWS
so Trump himself is guilty of fake news then even according to trolls who try to support him
A progress of sorts I guess there
<span style="color: #444444; font-size: 12px;">even the CNN coverage accepts that IF Trump is including web viewing</span>
But Trump isn't claiming that, he's claimed in a tweet that 45 million watched it, which he then goes onto say "was the highest number in history" he doesn't say "plus some other folk who streamed it, or watched it later", or anything, just says 45 million, highest number, which it isn't.
So anyway you cut it, his statement is wrong. Fake News, if you like...
And you still don’t get it do you?
Trumps said something that’s quite literally true (would you really dispute that including global interest, internet viewing etc. the numbers surpass previous figures) but put it out there with a disputed figure behind it.
again making the story about “actually, a hell of a lot lot of people saw Trump SOU, and in essence the story is true, even if you want to quibble on the nature of the figures’
What happened with £350 million?
getting it yet
it reaches far more people this way than otherwise - because it dominates the conversation. Just like 350m kept people talking about how much money was sent to the EU
So if Trump uses the figures and lies it's fine, if anyone else uses the same figures to tell the truth it's fake news. Okay think I'm up to speed now. Maybe he's just not good at numbers? It would explain a lot.
Hold it, the figures that you can't tell us because there is no way to verify them are definitely higher than the other figures you don't know as there's no way to verify them? You pitching for a job as Press Secretary?
Just to remind you:
it massively offends/upsets al, the people who already hate trump
the people who are ambivalent shrug their shoulders, it’s “Donald being Donald”
the people who support trump see through the figure to the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">underlying</span> message
the media is dominated by Trump coverage
after the furore over the inauguration viewership you would have to be stupid not to see the pattern. (Once is a mistake...) . It’s utterly deliberate, remember This is the guy who won the election despite having zero chance of winning - and this is how he did it.
Clip clop,clip clop.
By lying, yes we know that's how he won it. Not sure what your point is.
“By lying”
Name a president who didn’t
Name one who lied more?
ninfanMember
“By lying”Name a president who didn’t
Name a POTUS who was as blatant and shameless about it, while accusing his critics of pushing ‘fake news’.
Nixon is possibly the closest.
“Name one who lied more”
Ok, so now it’s ok to lie if you only do it occasionally, or limit it a few particuarly egregious whoppers? (”you’ll be able to your health care plan”, “there is no spying on Americans”, and that’s before we even mention WMD...)
I wonder if Trump gets to use the IRS to go after his political opponents now he's the boss?
Yes or no answer, please Ninfan.
Does The Donald lie?
From a December 2017 article published in the New York Times
They don't call them lies, but in the first 10 months of his presidency Donald Trump told almost 6 times as many falsehoods as Barack Obama did in 8 years.
resubmitted the image because I've not got to grips with the forum changes and I couldn't edit the original post. Trump is the red line, Obama the blue
Did they include the 37 times he said you can keep your care plan as one lie or as individual ones?
They only included distinct and clearcut falsehoods for both presidents. They didn't include misleading statements, mild exaggerations or anything that could be open to reasonable interpretation but stated that if they had the divide between the two presidents would have been even greater.
Sorry, I can only find video of 36 - wouldn’t want to be accused of lying about the numbers...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=soxiEoHyZq0
Do they include every time Trump golfs after saying he wouldn't have time for golfing?
Quick maths estimates 980 lies against Obama's 18 if you extrapolate out. So pretty close. Obviously you can't verify these figures but apparently that doesn't matter.
Original article here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/14/opinion/sunday/trump-lies-obama-who-is-worse.html
and yes they do include Obama's comments on healthcare, in these two paragraphs:
"We have used the word “lies” again here, as we did in our original piece. If anything, though, the word is unfair to Obama and Bush. When they became aware that they had been saying something untrue, they stopped doing it. Obama didn’t continue to claim that all Americans would be able to keep their existing health insurance under Obamacare, for example, and Bush changed the way he spoke about Iraq’s weapons capability.
Trump is different. When he is caught lying, he will often try to discredit people telling the truth, be they judges, scientists, F.B.I. or C.I.A. officials, journalists or members of Congress. Trump is trying to make truth irrelevant. It is extremely damaging to democracy, and it’s not an accident. It’s core to his political strategy."
“Obama didn’t continue to claim that all Americans would be able to keep their existing health insurance under Obamacare”
No, he just lied about ever having made the promise in the first place 😆
[quote=Ninfan]Why bother when so few of the lefties on here have the intelligence to hold a halfway decent conversation?
Funny how a bad workman blames his tools eh! If everyone you try to converse with comes across as an idiot to you then one of the following is true:
1) Every single person on this forum you talk to is actually an idiot
2) You are actually an idiot yourself
I'll leave the reader to come to their own conclusion on the likely probability of each suggestion
That politifact website is rather good,
[url] http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/ [/url]
vs
[url] http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ [/url]
So the conclusion is others learn from their mistakes, Donald throws a strop and blames everyone else.
Next Batter Please....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42910377
A Republican-drafted memo alleging FBI bias against US President Donald Trump will be released on Friday, a senior White House official says.
Mr Trump is expected to declassify the document and send it to Congress for release, according to US media.
The FBI has voiced "grave concerns" about the release of the memo, which is expected to have redactions.
It reportedly says the FBI misled an intelligence court to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump election campaign.
Democrats say the memo is a ruse to discredit a federal inquiry into links between President Trump's presidential campaign and Russia.
A crude attempt to influence public opinion and undermine the investigation by the FBI. It's very obvious but his ever decreasing lunatic fringe base will lap it up along with the cuts to their healthcare and not getting anything from the tax cuts for the rich. Now does this revolution prefer the Guillotine or the Firing Squad?
[b]ninfan[/b] wrote:
And you still don’t get it do you?
Trumps said something that’s quite literally true (would you really dispute that including global interest, internet viewing etc. the numbers surpass previous figures) but put it out there with a disputed figure behind it.
Let me remind you what he wrote:
"45.6 million people watched, the highest number in history." The number is centre stage of his claim. Is that quite literally true? Do you quite literally understand what literally means?
Though of course this is just one example of the many times Donnie has blatantly lied and you've rushed in to defend him by obfuscating. Because you like obfuscating. I have to admit I'm surprised you're still here, I'd have expected you to go for the job when Spicer left - you'd do a much better job than Sanders.
This is well worth a read
http://www.stonekettle.com/2018/01/dirty-tricks.html
Before I comment - my personal opinion is that I hate Trump and everything he stands for.
However - ninfan has a point. It doesn’t matter whether he was wrong or not about the biggest audience ever. As ninfan quite rightly points out, the democrats/left will be enraged, the middle will shrug and the right will lap it up. Either way he’s got the coverage he wanted.
Having spent quite a bit of time in the US last year, the sentiment seems to be ‘he’s better than the alternative’. To most (me included) he’s a racist, sexist, corrupt man who is making a mockery of everything the whitehouse and US government stands for. Not to mention a danger to the rest of the world. But for the majority of people in the US he’s an improvement over what they had. He’s spun this so well that he could probably shoot a baby in the face and get away with it. Fake news. Corrupt media. To his supporters if he passes one bill out of 100 he’s a success.
We can’t get our head round it, similar to us not being able to understand their desire for guns. But to a lot of Americans, making America great again takes priority over building foreign relations or reducing environmental impact and on that front he’s golden.
He’ll make a second term unless the Russia stuff means he’s impeached or shot. If that happens it’ll be bedlam and he’ll go down as a martyr. Sadly I think we’re stuck with him for the foreseeable