You were saying Savy?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Honestly though I'm fine with letting others talk.
Printable View
You were saying Savy?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Honestly though I'm fine with letting others talk.
That wasn't me having a go I do the exact same thing I just think it's sub optimal at times. If you're getting a kick out of it go for it.
Also Wuf has hardly posted recently he used to make 3/4 posts ITT.
I have nothing to add on any topic regardless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32LIGgZKabI
Actual relevant story begins at 6:12
Too little too late CNN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eljjocJ0978
Election night, Jake Tapper: "Key states that we really need...uh...that Hillary Clinton really needs to maintain...let's just put this on the board. Uh we need to ma...uh...Hillary Clinton needs to keep Pennsylvania..."
Should CNN finally admit that it works for the Democratic Party?
What's funny is that the demographic of where the advertising money is coming from actually makes that statement miles more true than if it were working for a political party. I think we forget the difference coming from $$$$$$.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Also at most it's bad reporting to keep saying things you believe in as we, like when supporting a sports team, than anything else.
CNN and many other MSM companies receiving orders from the DNC/Clinton campaign, as well as coordinating amongst each other, has been confirmed.
Could be I was totally wrong about the supposed Trump mistake. Could be that the plan was all along to get Flynn on his team only to have him "take the fall" in order to expose the deep state.
In one day, just one fucking day, the "deep state" went from something that could be blown off as conspiracy to totally out in the open.
Could be a coincidence, or could be Trump playing 12d chess while everybody else plays pin the tail on the donkey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The only thing 12d about this is the contortions some people are twisting themselves into to make this look like a win for Trump.
Seems to me that the Anti-Trump agenda here consists of two things
1) Prove that Trump ordered Flynn to discuss the sanctions with the Russian Ambassador
2) Prove that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to hack the DNC/Podesta
Is that pretty much it?
In regards to #1 - There doesn't seem to be any indication, evidence, or even a suggestion that Flynn talked about the sanctions in any meaningful detail. Why would Trump bother ordering Flynn to back-channel about nothing? Furthermore, can a Democrat please explain to me why you care about this so much while simultaneously not really giving a shit about whether or not Obama ordered Lois Lerner to target conservative charities? If this is such an outrageous crime (and I've heard it compared to watergate, and Iran-Contra) why did Obama get a pass?
In regards to #2 - From what I understand, Podesta was caught by a phishing scam that could be executed by a high school kid. If I recall correctly, Assange said that Podesta's password was "password". So, if a candidate were inclined to go about hacking, he certainly wouldn't need to seek out the assistance of a foreign government's intelligence network. Trump likely has the resources and the network to get this done on his own.
To the Anti-Trump-ers out there, I ask:
-Do you think we should declare war on Russia in retaliation for this? If not, then how is this cyber-attack comparable to 9/11, or Pearl Harbor?
-Is it possible that the Russians just wanted to weaken Hillary because they expected her to win? Is it possible that Trump is just a collateral beneficiary of these hacks?
Obama was caught in 2012 on a hot mic telling the Russian Amabassador "Tell Vladimir I'll have more flexibility after the election". That's ten times worse than anything Flynn did. So for the media to have such a disproportionate response, is hypocrisy. To liken it to watergate, or Iran-Contra, is hysterical.
The media response to this is so out of step with the facts that it's clear that there is an agenda here. I really don't blame Trump for having a beef with CNN at this point. Jake Tapper should quit being such a whiny bitch.
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
That last sentence seems intentionally misleading. Sounds like Russia would have had a clear preference for a pickle-barrel. Trump just happened to be sitting in the GOP nominee chair.Quote:
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US
presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process,
denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess
Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump
The three intelligence agencies disagree over the level of confidence in this conclusion.Quote:
We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s
election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her
unfavorably to him
In other words, the operation was against Hillary, not for Trump. There's a difference.Quote:
Moscow’s approach evolved over the course of the campaign based on Russia’s understanding of the
electoral prospects of the two main candidates. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton
was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign began to focus more on undermining
her future presidency
In other words, this has nothing to do with Trump.Quote:
In trying to influence the US election, we assess
the Kremlin sought to advance its longstanding
desire to undermine the US-led liberal
democratic order, the promotion of which
Putin and other senior Russian leaders view as
a threat to Russia and Putin’s regime
So Obama started it.Quote:
Putin publicly pointed to the Panama Papers
disclosure and the Olympic doping scandal as
US-directed efforts to defame Russia,
suggesting he sought to use disclosures to
discredit the image of the United States and
cast it as hypocritical.
Was Trump a candidate in Late 2011?? The grudge was against Hillary, it didn't matter who she was running against.Quote:
Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary
Clinton because he has publicly blamed her
since 2011 for inciting mass protests against
his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and
because he holds a grudge for comments he
almost certainly saw as disparaging him
Seems reasonable to acknowledge that Russia exists, and there is a need to maintain a working relationship. Hardly evidence of a conspiracy.Quote:
Beginning in June, Putin’s public comments
about the US presidential race avoided directly
praising President-elect Trump, probably
because Kremlin officials thought that any
praise from Putin personally would backfire in
the United States. Nonetheless, Putin publicly
indicated a preference for President-elect
Trump’s stated policy to work with Russia, and
pro-Kremlin figures spoke highly about what
they saw as his Russia-friendly positions on
Syria and Ukraine. Putin publicly contrasted the
President-elect’s approach to Russia with
Secretary Clinton’s “aggressive rhetoric.”
Who here likes ISIS?Quote:
Moscow also saw the election of Presidentelect
Trump as a way to achieve an
international counterterrorism coalition against
the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
So the russians never really expected Trump to win. Wouldn't it be a waste of time to "help" him then? They must have had another motive all along.Quote:
Before the election, Russian diplomats had
publicly denounced the US electoral process
and were prepared to publicly call into
question the validity of the results. ProKremlin
bloggers had prepared a Twitter
campaign, #DemocracyRIP, on election night in
anticipation of Secretary Clinton’s victory,
judging from their social media activity
Never attribute to rationale that which can be explained by emotion.
Look how CNN characterized the document I linked above:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/politi...ine/index.htmlQuote:
January 6: A US intelligence report says Putin ordered a cyber campaign to help Trump beat Clinton in the US presidential election.
^Where's the crime?
Generation Z was already leaning conservative on issues without Fake News and SJWs making an enemy of Pewdiepie. Game fucking over now. That dude is more popular than anybody among teens, and all they're seeing now is the media and political elites falsely accuse him of being a Nazi. Red pill deliveries by the tanker load.
You have reduced yourself to a human echo chamber for anything that supports your new found faith in the gods of red-pill. I have a hard time responding to anything you say because you no longer say anything substantive. It's all vague terms, unsupported claims and a blind admiration for Donald Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Agreed. Wuf, you should have a serious self-reflection on why you switched from liberalism to conservatism, and why you switched from Cruz to Trump. These are btw not questions that I need answered by you, just putting them out there. Is it perhaps a need to be on the winning side? Are your discussions here about gaining knowledge or proving everyone, not least yourself, that you're right, that you're winning the arguments? You can have clever and compelling ideas, but for years I've among others complained how you don't provide proper sources of proof for your claims, nor do you explain why you've reached the conclusions you have. Instead of trying to provide those, you've now decided to stop giving any kind of justifications or explanations at all, since people haven't been convinced. Of course they haven't, people need proof, not just anecdotal evidence and appeals to emotions and authority. It is very hard to take you seriously nowadays. Sad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Bibi thinks the same, and laughed. Twice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_N-j37SGsxM
Just one thing though, it was an attack on Pewdiepie. Why I don't pretend to know, but that is what happened. They took Pewdiepie's vids out of context, and smeared him, made Disney and Youtube drop him, etc.
They took him out as clickbait, basically. I don't know if this was SJWs doing, or simply a dick move. More nuanced info (by a different party, not Pewdiepie himself who also put out a response vid):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtxG-ihiSfc
Another viewpoint on Pewdiepie. Try to not make everything political though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtlDC1sZFSg
I haven't watched the videos, and I didn't even know who PDP was before this week. And as of right now, all I know is that he's some kind of YouTube character that got axed for making skits about Jewish people. In other words, I know shit about this situation.
What I do know is that Disney was founded by Walt Disney...a notorious and unapologetic anti-semite. Considering the brand still bears his name, I suspect the company has made it a priority to squash any hint of that history. I'm sure there is a rule, spoken or unspoken, that says "don't even joke about Jews".
As I said, I know shit about this whole situation, but I can't imagine filling in the blanks with anything that leads me to the conclusion that he was fired unfairly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY1MiNfwcRg
Greenwald is completely right
Nowadays?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Back when I posted only substance, responses were the same. I've quit making substantive arguments due to coming to the realization that they're persuading nobody. As much as I would LOVE to have substantive discussions here, our attempts are fruitless. I've adopted a new presence of shitposting and rah rah.
This is actually a very recent development. I spent a great deal of time substantiating everything up until recently. I discovered that my posts were not being read and sources not being examined, largely due to others' entry and exit from the discussions.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Ironic: a few years ago somebody on this board told me that my economics posts sucked because they were nothing but me citing what other economists say. Can't win...
It's all good though. Just explaining the circumstances.
You guys are right though, I should focus solely on shitposting and not intermix it with any sort of explicit point-making.
In my experience, shitposting is pretty persuasive. I wonder why. I think one element is that it aids the "liking" element of Cialdini's influencers, because it's a bunch of joking around and eventually some things land to even the haterist of haters, thereby humanizing and entertain-izing that which the hateroids haterate.
My shitposting is not that good. I should up my game. Perhaps.
To provide an explanation:Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
The switch was from authoritarianism to libertarianism. That happened a few years ago, and it happened due to studying economics and history.
The labels used in modern political discourse are very messy, so messy that some are flat-out wrong (example of the wrong: fascism is right-wing). "Liberal" and "conservative" are super misused in modern discourse. Even though I know better, I still do it. Regarding what "liberal" and "conservative" actually mean, I am both and I will always be both. Those ideals are directional pressure on an ideology, one being keeping things traditional and the other being incorporating new things. You can be liberal or conservative under any political ideology. You can be a liberal communist (one who wants to expand what communism is) or a conservative communist (one who wants to rely on tradition regarding communism).
The reason the "conservative" descriptor is more appropriate for me these days is that the pressure towards liberalism of society has gotten too out of hand. I believe people are better served now to be conservative about things. That wasn't the case during some parts of the Bush administration, and it won't be true at some point in the future. Remember how during the 00's Christian conservatism went too far by forcing their views on everybody else so intensely that they even got online poker banned? That was a time when there was too much conservatism and we needed more liberalism. Liberalism was the source of freedom then. Today, it's flipped. Liberalism of America is so extreme today that it's anti-freedom, and if somebody wants to promote freedom they do so by having conservative views.
It's like Milo said. He's a tailor-made liberal. But liberalism is so out of hand today that in order to defend things like freedom of speech, religion, etc., he has to be conservative.
Because Cruz lost.Quote:
and why you switched from Cruz to Trump.
I was always going to vote Republican even if I had to hold my nose for Crust Crustie. I have a hard time finding anything in the Democratic Party's agenda that is not at its core about authoritarianism under government. In the GOP, there is at least some semblance of liberty from government.
I was thinking that the other day. Are people really willing to undermine such incredibly important civic traditions just to get rid of Trump, going against what they claimed just a few years ago? I think it's probably a product of the Trump=Hitler narrative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
This never happened. What you consider evidence is not what we consider evidence. Your anecdotes and metaphors are not evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
No. Your lack of trying to persuade us is what's changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Before, you at least shared with us your reasons for believing what you believe.
We tended to point out that your reasons are entirely subjective and are not compelling to us, and should not be considered as "evidence" of anything aside from your current circumstances.
We were reading your posts and clicking your links. It's not correct to assume that since those things which you thought were convincing did not convince us means that we aren't paying attention. We're paying attention and trying to explain why your sources are subjective and not remotely compelling.
During which time your most frequent criticism of other people's points was that they were making an "appeal to authority."Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Then, you were right that an appeal to authority is not evidence for other people to cite as a counter-point to your point.
Now you're wrong to say that citing what other economists have said should count as evidence that supports your point.
With a world view that paints us as stubborn and argumentative for the sport of it, and ignores that we are that way to YOU, because your evidence is... what's the phrase the kids are using?... weak sauce.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
There was a time when my cited sources for arguments was robust. I've posted many dozens of articles written by economists that never got any discussion (and that I suspect nobody even clicked). After multiple reposts over time, still nothing regarding them. Same with dozens of hours of video (though I understand people not watching/listening to those). And it never included appealing to economists due to authority but due to their arguments.
I'm not interested in arguing on this. It will get nowhere.
I usually click and don't read.
Must have been before my time, then again I've only been here since 2007.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Aw schucks was Dec 31, 2006.
For someone as persuasive as you it sure is curious that absolutely no one seems to agree with you.
lol don't I fucking know it.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
it'll take like six years of a/b testing to get a handle of this shit.
http://time.com/4675860/donald-trump-fake-news-attacks/
Quote:
If a public figure tells a whopping lie once in his life, it’ll haunt him into his grave. If he lies morning, noon and night, it will become almost impossible to remember any one particular lie. Outrage will fall victim to its own ubiquity. It’s the same truth contained in Stalin’s famous remark that the death of one man is a tragedy but the death of a million is a statistic.
Pretty sure someone's keeping a list somewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
An equally famous remark that seems more fitting is "If you repeat a lie enough times, people will believe it."
In case anybody interested, interesting stuff on tax. Relevance to an argument regarding taxes that I make from time to time: reference of an economist claiming that the economic consensus is that legal tax incidence doesn't matter. This means that things like corporate taxes that legally target wealth don't actually do so, and are instead passed onto consumers. Whenever popular journalists cover tax plans from politicians, they incorrectly interpret the oft proposed reduction in the corporate tax rate as benefiting the rich and hurting the poor. Just one example.
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/..._think_ab.html
BTW the author of that article fucking haaaaaaaaaaaaaates Trump. So y'all should love him.
Hey I just want to point all to all of you liberal pussies that I called Trump winning in 2015, so eat a dick up til you hiccup.
Also I see wuf has been drinking the t_d Kool Aid something fucking heavy.
Also you can't stump the fucking Trump pussies
only place for adult congregationQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
where in the shit have you been. missed all the fun.
#prayforSweden
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj0U-9Z86t8
That video is a lesson in why Trump keeps winning. It is because he tells itty bitty falsehoods that get people to cover important topics they otherwise do not.
What's going on in Sweden is a fucking disaster, and yet it is ignored and whitewashed by the media and a vast quantity of people. If you tell the truth about Sweden, the horribleness going on in Sweden does not get covered. But if you tell a teeny tiny lie then it does.
All the coverage I've seen has been everyone, even non-swedes, coming out with a collective "Sweden last night, huh?". There have been incidents in some suburbs in Sweden recently, where police have been attacked or unable to control protests, which is of course worrying but I wouldn't call it an outright disaster or a failed policy. There's also been a lot of talk about their rape rates, but those went up when they changed the laws regarding sexual assault some years back. It didn't start with immigration, they just have much more strict laws regarding it than most countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
It's an open question whether Trump said what he did because he wanted to draw attention to the situation in Sweden or because he is delusional. He certainly gives the appearance of having a very tenuous grip on reality. I mean the guy thinks he's actually doing a good job and has the country behind him, so...
And the only ones calling Sweden a disaster are the websites Trump gets his news from. I know people in Sweden and they just shake their heads at this propaganda crap.
There's obviously going to be problems when you take in a large group of war refugees and displace them to a new country with little prep time and a vastly different culture. Sweden decided it was worth the risks, and guess what? The country is still there, it's not Sharia Law, bombs going off daily, or rape central or any of the other bullshit that certain people have been feeding you.
Next we'll be hearing about a Montreal Massacre from the boy who cried terror.
Trump only harms himself when he plays these little tricks. The people who were willing to give him a chance are getting fewer and fewer.
sup spoon?
Never thought I'd see this happen. Conservative on conservative violence. Even FOX of all entities is feeling threatened now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRj_HuL8CXA
Of all people, Chris motherfucking Wallace does not like the precedence that is being set right now
Oh wait, Trump mistook a documentary for news.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0xxCYUilpsQuote:
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 3h3 hours ago
My statement as to what's happening in Sweden was in reference to a story that was broadcast on @FoxNews concerning immigrants & Sweden.
I'll read Huffpaint for two months if you promise to read thedonald for two months.
It's either that or I have to stop all arguing and focus solely on persuasion tactics. You don't want that. I don't want that. Nobody wants that.
I've been reading it occasionally for months, though two minutes at a time is enough to make my brain hurt.
I do admit though it might be a good way to avoid cognitive dissonance by avoiding any medium that might publish something against one's beliefs.
I like wuf's views on economics and politics more than I used to. His thinking seems to be the product of logic, rather than hatred of an individual.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
If you want the President to not be hateful toward the media, you gotta stop fueling narratives like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
All he did was confuse his wording somewhat between what he 'saw last night about what's happening in Sweden', and 'what's happening in sweden last night'. That's common for a guy who is bombastic, hyperbolic, and doesn't read the teleprompter. It was a minor slip, he corrected it the next morning. It really shouldn't be a big deal.
Instead, the MSM and others are going bonkers. Did he invent a terrorist attack? Did he deliberately lie to distract from something else? What is he smoking? That's all a symptom of a butt-hurt press that wants to play "gotchya". It's not cool.
The same goes for the business about crowd size, or his claim during last week's press conference that he had the 'largest electoral college victory'. He's an egotistical, stubborn, eccentric old man. Who cares if he thinks his margin of victory was bigger than George W's. What does that matter to anyone?
This "style" that Trump has, is not new. He's done it his whole life, he's done it the whole campaign, and he still won the election. That means that the general public doesn't care enough about this stuff. Yet the press seems intent on trolling the president over it at every turn.
Alraight alright alright, bananastand, look. Let's try to reach a consensus here. Would you agree with me that if you were the president, what you say and do would matter a hell of a lot more than if you were a regular joe?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Alright man, I'll try.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
And then: http://imgur.com/a/Z7jbO
I got bad (fake) news for ya
Well, I would argue that Trump was never a regular joe. But I think I get what you mean. However...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Trump stopped being a regular joe when he announced his candidacy. After that, everything he said and did mattered a hell of a lot more. So yes, I agree with you. It matters more.
But after 15 months of it, the American public decided that it doesn't matter enough to keep him from being a good president. To me, that should be the end of it. After that, every time he does or says something that is totally consistent with his character and behavior to this point....the non-Trump fans need to just suck it up. Playing "gotchya" on minor, hair splitting, details on irrelevant matters is petty, sore-loser-ness.
We have people like Poop running rampant through the MSM who like to zero-in on literal inconsistencies and blow that up into an accusation of stupidity, insanity, or delusion.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...cold-sane.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Thank you for understanding my point and trying to reach a consensus. Now, would you agree with me that there are more players in today’s game than just TrumpFans? Of course that there are those that no matter what Trump does or says they will give him a pass, but would you agree with me that, e.g.:
• Bibi Netanyahu
• Kim Jong-Un
• Rodrigo Duterte
• Vlad “The Impaler” Putin
• Angela Merkel
• Theresa May
• Jacob Zuma
• Joko Widodo
• Shinzo Abe
• Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud
• Mauricio Macri
• Michel Temer
• François Hollande
• Narendra Modi
• Enrique Peña Nieto
• Paolo Gentiloni
• Xi Jinping
• Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
… are all very important in today’s game?
Sure. But this is where I think we're going to diverge on opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I feel that an unreasonably brutal press hurts Trump's position, and thus America's position, when it comes to negotiating with the world leaders you've mentioned. He'll never get Russia, or anyone, to respect anything he says if he's constantly dealing with press taunting him for not being able to count. That's the dangerous game the media is playing, all in the name of "accountability" over issues that no one really cares about.
The Denmark thing was pulled completely out of thin air to support political views of certain people, but that seems to be the modus operandi of certain groups lately. But let's focus on Sweden for a minute, as there seems to be more news on it.
When a WORLD LEADER™ says something, people tend to take it seriously. Say things about another country, and that country has no recourse but to take you seriously and at your word. Now, when you say something like Trump said, and then pull the Triumpian DoubleDown™, and you get this reaction from the relevant country itself, through diplomatic channels to your country:
Quote:
No incident occurred in Sweden and the country's baffled government asked the U.S. State Department to explain.
Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN15Y0QH (an actual news organisation's site and not someone's blog btw)
You leave people scratching their heads. Like money, world leaders have their word to dish out RESPECT™ on the world stage. Lose your word with one too many MY WORD YOUR WORD statements (Kim Jong-Un-esque if you may) and you land in the literal international hot waters.
former Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt wrote on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/carlbildt/status/833219648044855296
Quote:
Sweden? Terror attack? What has he been smoking? Questions abound,
The reason people hone in on his falsehoods is that the guy is constantly raving about Fake News, all the while continuously generating it. And when he isn't, his team is. It's beyond hypocritical at this point. Pointing that out isn't playing 'gotcha', it's simply pointing out a serious and ongoing issue with the guy's credibility.
If Trump were an honest broker being unfairly vilified by Fake News, he might have a case to make. But to many people, it appears instead that he is trying to discredit the press for his own gain, which many compare to the actions of a wannabe dictator.
And sorry, the argument that people knew what they were getting and enough still voted for him to give him the election, and therefore you can't complain about him now, is just bullshit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The press is not brutal. The press is not adversarial. The press is just reacting to HIS WORDS all the time. Every statement Trump makes needs to apparently have an asterisk attached to it. If he would stop lying/misspeaking/keep pulling out unconfirmed bullshit out of his ass because he saw it on TV or on the internet or some other crap, it would all stop and continue being business as usual.
We have already agreed to the conclusion that as a WORLD LEADER™ you need to be very careful of your statements. Your every word can have massive consequences. The stakes are very, very high now; everyone cares about every silly little thing that comes out of your mouth. Not just your voters, not just your fans, but also all of those who you now rule, and whole countries you have partnerships with.
You are speaking for not for 62,979,879 Americans, nor for 128,824,833 Americans, but for each and everyone of the 326,474,013 (as of Jan. 2017, as we know people keep fucking and dying so this number fluctuates) Americans you are now the LEADER of.
It’s time to start acting PRESIDENTIAL. Forget how he was before this, he must now be presidential. There are certain standards that you have to adhere to, else you will become the laughingstock on an international stage.
A thin-skinned laughingstock with nukes.
What "double down"? He clarified his comments. Sweden got the explanation it asked for. This should be over now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Yet if you turn on CNN right now, you'll find someone pounding their fist on the table wanting to know if Trump lied on purpose, or if the's just stupid.
The truth is, he's a little bit stupid. Words got mixed up in his head while delivering an impassioned speech. I don't like it. I don't think it's great that he does this. But we KNEW IT all along, and he still got elected. Harping on it now, after the election is long over, is only hurting America's interests on the world stage. Not just Trump's.
And it's a little disingenuous to say that this is important because it mentions another country. The reaction was the same with regards to crowd-size-gate, and electoral-vote-count-gate.
I wouldn't go this far; they can be both brutal and adversarial. I think they are genuinely anti-Trump (apart from Fox, which seems to waver between butt-kissing and relatively mild criticism). BUT, that doesn't mean they don't have some valid points to make, or that they're just complaining about irrelevant matters like a typo in a speech or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Further, the adversarial posture of the press has only been increased by Trump's constant denouncing of them. He's largely responsible for the fact that the press hates him. It seems he treats them as unfairly as they treat him.
It's important because it reinforces the impression in a foreign place that you have a serial liar running your country. You don't think that's bad for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Trump never said it didn't happen. He said, and I quote: "I saw it on Fox News“.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS3tGIy9jqU
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
As poopadoop said, this is the weakest sauce excuse of all time. If I’m not qualified for a job and still somehow landed it, I can’t go around saying “BUT THEy ARE POINTING OUT MY SHORTCOMINGS” mixed in with “THE SKY IS PURPLE”, “DOGS CAN FUCK BEES” and “I’M THE GREATEST [INSERT PROFESSION I LANDED HERE] EVARRRR!!!”
Someone will call me out on my bullshit eventually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
He lied there too. It were verifiable facts, and yet he lied, constantly, over and over, *Misspoke*. And then he executed the patented Trumpian DoubleDown™ there as well. He’s starting to sound like my goddamned ex-girlfriend, no matter how many times you catch her lying, she will keep maintaining it was actually true. Truly sad.
oh puh-leeze. You're making up facts if you think Trump is actually arguing that a Terrorist attack occurred in Sweden two nights ago.[/QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Not even in the same universe man. Your job interview probably involved at most...5 people. Trump's job interview was broadcast world wide, and some 128 million people had a say in it. He's not perfect. No candidate is. But once he's elected, you take the good with the bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
You keep saying "lied". That's fake news/alternative facts. It's entirely possible he really thought his margin of victory was the largest, based on something he heard or read, and believed it. Who cares? He was corrected, during the press conference, and his response was (paraphrasing) "ok, well that's what somebody told me, if it's wrong, whatever, I still kicked ass in the election". Why then does the media go into defcon 2 ranting about how he "lied". What's the point of that? Shephard Smith (who works for FOX) threw a fucking tantrum over it. Why so much anger?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
SOunds like my ex too. Imagine where we'd be if we elected a woman president!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
In my opinion, adversarial press would make up stories and run with them over and over, not take something that you said which made no sense and repeat it over and over trying to make the point that you seem to say a lot of things which make no sense.
Adversarial is what happened between PewDiePie and Disney because of the WSJ. There seemed to be actual beef there, and apparently that was because they felt PewDiePie was like a competitor to them in terms of views.
This is not adversarial what is happening to Trump. When he was running, he was getting the silk glove treatment. A few Billion dorrarrs in free promotion which undoubtedly helped get him elected. And he was still calling them “Adversarial” back then. Trump has a history of only liking the press when they kiss his ass. That should not happen to a president in any democracy. People have to call you out honestly on your shit. If you choose to LIE, and keep lying ad nauseam, you can not get angry that people are calling you out on your LIES.
Remember: Lying Is a Choice. If your tactic of choice to get people on your side is to lie, and it eventually backfires, don’t start whining like a 3-yr old who needs a pacifier.
The solution to this whole brouhaha is simple. Stop lying Trump, stop making up Alternative Facts™. Stick to regular facts, and the press will then only have the regular issues to call you out on. You know, unemployment, immigration, etc.
Sidenote: I linked a vid earlier on how Fox News of all people were calling Priebus out on his shit. You know it’s bad if motherfucking Fox News has to call any conservative out for his or her respective shit. So I tip my hat to them in this occasion.
Nothing changed, except the stakes of the game right now. We are on the proverbial final table. You can’t splash in pots anymore.
Oh damn. That's low though, but slowclap.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You mean like the single most prominent narrative in the mainstream media right now...the one that says Trump hired Russia to take down Hillary in exchange for favorable accommodations in future foreign policy negotiations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Since when has becoming POTUS meant someone can't be criticized?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It's amusing that some people are willing to give Trump credit for being stupid/misinformed as opposed to deliberately dishonest, like that's somehow makes it acceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I'm pretty much in agreement with the rest of what you said in this post about Trump bringing a lot of the bad press on himself, but this part I'm less convinced of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
It may or may not be that they actually make stuff up, but they certainly do tend to sensationalize and overblow things that are otherwise true, or at least that's the impression I have. It's not exactly 'fake news', but it certainly isn't impartial either.
Since never. But when that criticism is specifically directed at personality traits a guy has had his whole life, and were basically adjudicated through a fair election, then the criticism becomes a lot more like whiningQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
On issues that matter 0% to anything other than Trump's ego, I'm willing to accept it. He has a big ego, and he tends to like information that feeds that ego. Again, that's not new. The world had it's chance in November to take inventory of all of that and say "nope, that's not what a president should be". They lost. Try again in 2020.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I don’t know what to tell you man. I linked the video for your convenience, so I assume you saw it, saw the facts I presented in the now veritas Trump Tweets medium, and still say I’m somehow making up facts.
I’m flabbergasted. Appalled and flabbergasted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
That’s now how it goes. You see, there are a lot of actors that now have to deal with him who were not involved in any way, shape or form in the election.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Because it establishes a baseline. Imagine, well, let’s say Obama or W so I don’t use Trump again, claiming in a non-troll way that the earth is flat. There is verifiable evidence that it isn’t, and yet he, which one would only assume has an army (no pun intended ;)) of people at his disposal that can actually give him the numbers as to why the earth is not flat, and if you go past Antartica you will not fall off into some void, still claims it is. He comes on national television, which incidentally is broadcasted all over the world, saying that he knows with full confidence that the earth is flat.
It’s a verifiable fact, like the atomic mass of the element Aurum, like you will find Giraffes in African Savannas but not in Argentinean Pampas, like it may freeze in the Sahara at night during some parts of the year, like the current population of the US is over 300M, like a dollar nowadays has less purchasing power than a dollar in the 1970s due to inflation, like humans can not breathe on the moon, like the moon is actually there and we have landed on it.
Why would you keep claiming that the earth is flat? Why would you proclaim this nonsense? Why would you do this if particularly you are in the position to have literally everyone around you that can go and verify whatever you want to say before you do just so you can avoid this exact nonsense issue? If you in all earnestness believe this, keep it to yourself and no harm done.
What do you think would have happened if Obama/W pulled off a stunt like that? And then, when backed into a corner, he would say “well, I read it somewhere so it must be true”?
That's your opinion. To expect most people to just accept those personality traits, especially people who didn't vote for him, and that if they don't they're whiners, is lame. If anything it makes you look like a sore winner.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Willing to accept what? The being stupid/misinformed or the lying? Or are you saying it doesn't matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
And what about things that do matter? Is it ok for him to be stupid/misinformed or lying about the world in general?
And for the last time, no-one is buying that 'he won, therefore his negative traits are acceptable' is a valid argument.