I approve of that "Machiavellian shrewdness". The tax thing is now wonderful for Trump. It wasn't before, now it is.
Printable View
I approve of that "Machiavellian shrewdness". The tax thing is now wonderful for Trump. It wasn't before, now it is.
Maddow, MSNBC, standard shitlibbery BTFO themselves.
I doubt it. Showing that he made a good sum of money and paid taxes one year out of the last twelve begs the question of why he isn't sharing the other years.
If that's good for Trump then the wiretapping thing being shown to be false is good for Obama.
Neither of those is as good for the person in question as having never had the respective issue brought up in the first place.
For some people. Most are much more detached and see only the surface. The main message they receive is that Trump's taxes are a supposed enormous deal and then when released he paid loads of taxes and there was nothing bad.
It will be fun to watch all the cognitive dissonance play out. It was immediately apparent that this was a huge Trump win and that Maddow fucked up big, and it was only after the initial impact when rationalizations came about and we began seeing these cognitive dissonance responses. Remember Trump IS STUPID and Trump's taxes ARE HIDING SOMETHING TERRIBLE and he IS A FOOLISH PERSON WHO COULD NEVER ORCHESTRATE SOMETHING THAT HURTS GODDESS MADDOW; therefore Trump's antagonists have only two choices: acknowledge that they are wrong and have been wrong for a long time, or find some sort of dismissive explaining-away cognitive dissonance rationalization that allows them to maintain their self-image and worldview.
You're missing my point. According to the logic people use when Trump does something dumb, Trump's enemies at NBC aren't worried about looking stupid themselves, their goal was to get people talking about Trump's taxes in general.
It was 'last night in Sweden' for the MSM.
Still talking about Trump's taxes?
NBC 1-0 Wuf
hehe
Above I'm on record saying the more we talk about Trump's taxes now the better for Trump. The release turned the tables. I'm happy that MSNBC tried to up it's game from tic-tac-toe-with-just-one-box-and-Trump-goes-first, but 3d chess is just too big a jump for them.
Please, more Trump tax talk. More more more.
Where's the rest of his tax returns for the other years? When do we find out where all his business conflicts of interests lay? What is he hiding?
NBC 2-0 Wuf
All but those who hate Trump no matter what view that as beating a dead horse after the Maddow fiasco. We were told for many months that he was hiding something, we were made to anticipate anything at all that could lead to uncovering the secret, we then got exactly that, and it made Trump look great. We (meaning, all people who don't hate Trump no matter what) now no longer care, we think MSNBC was possibly lying to us for a long time (or just being terrible journos), and we're tired of the issue. The more it's in the news, the more shitlibs btfo themselves.
If that's true then the more it was talked about that 'last night in Sweden' never happened, the more Trump btfo himself.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either it's a good move when Trump does it and good when NBC does it, or it's bad when either does it.
What do people think about now when they think of "last night in Sweden"? They think about all the horrible shit that's going on in Sweden. That statement is an example of pre-suasion, of an anchor with predictive power. It got eyes on Sweden in a way that reporting actual facts on Sweden does not, and then later it was "confirmed" to many people the truth about Sweden the next time something bad happened.
That was also a Trump win. If I could go back in time, I would have him say the same thing. Shit, the very next day, riots broke out in Sweden. Guess what every person who isn't lockstep anti-Trump already thought about that? "I guess he was right, Sweden's a mess..."
Ok, let's say the riots were viewed differently because he said that.
You can make the same argument about the NBC report. It had no substance, but it drew attention to his taxes specifically and his finances in general. So the next time there's some news about a conflict of interest or some shady deal (and we know there will be) it's going to make people who aren't lockstep pro-Trump think "I guess they were right, Trump's a crook..."
It's precisely the same logic as you've used explain Trump's stupid pronouncements. The difference is now you are the one saying it's stupid and I am the one saying there's a method to their madness.
I agree with that, as long as there's credibility in the claim and it's during the "pre-suasion window". If, for example, tomorrow a new tax story broke with some nasty shit revealed in his taxes, it would probably more powerfully make Trump look bad than if it just appeared on its own.
If it appeared on its own, a lot of defenders or people on the fence would just say "but what did we expect, we already figured if his taxes were released they would look bad." So, a bad release is already baked into public opinion. However, in your scenario, it would be a lot of people saying "there's nothing to see here, you showed us, we listened, nothing to see....BOOM omg he REALLY was hiding something all along." This scenario could influence people that wouldn't be influenced by the others.
That's my guess at least.
Covered interesting theory that is (afaict) derived from the supply and demand model: the efficiency wage. A derivative element of the theory is that reductions in employment increases efficiency of firms. I certainly remember seeing this discussed quite a lot in the media during 09. There was a lot of "people are working harder so they don't get fired" type stuff.
Anyways, derivative from this, we can suggest that a way to create a better government is to make it smaller than it wants to be. Cuts in a department may just make that department more effective by incentivizing better results from its employees.
There's news, fake news, and clever propaganda.
You've clearly been brainwashed by the facts.
http://constitution.com/trump-approv...ance-movement/
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-s...loyed-isolated
TOld you that autistic adults are much more likely to be unemployed. I've already established I've been fired from most jobs. So, you get to speak from a position of privilege, in that you don't have autism.
I've provided sources, you've provided none.
I went to a meeting for autistic adults last night, and I asked the therapist, what the unemployment rate for autistic adults is, and she said roughly 70%. So should I listen to some blowhard on flopturnriver, or a psychologist with a PHD on this matter?
I never said I didn't believe you. What I don't believe, is most people who say they have autism.
Why did you get fired?
You haven't explained why you got fired.
So you got confirmation bias from someone with a profit motive. Amazing.
Look man, you obviously have the mental capacity to deal drugs. there's no reason you can't get yourself a job and keep it. If you can't get up in the morning, get a better alarm clock. If you have trouble taking orders....too fucking bad.
At age 31, you've already thrown in the towel and given up on ever advancing yourself through your own efforts.
What's amazing to me, is that you rage against the republicans. the Democrats did this to you. They've spoon fed you excuses and safety nets and provided you with a villain. You've been literally enslaved by a political party that bought your allegiance with government entitlement programs.
I had deliberately avoided using the word "slavery" to describe a system in which people are bullied into a life of work, because I recognise that the word is too strong to accurately describe the system, and it would be an insult to those who have suffered actual slavery.
But here you not only use the word, but with the caveat "literally". Made me laugh. Am I enslaved? Why is the person who goes to work every day to justify his existence not enslaved, but the person who has no job literally enslaved? I'm confused, I thought slavery was something to do with being forced to work, either for nothing, or basic provisions. That why I know the system we live in is not slavery. At least people generally get paid a living which allows a healthy and happy life. Someone who relies on government to survive, they're not enslaved, such a word seems wholly inappropriate to me, especially considering I accept it's inappropriate for me to use it in a slightly more accurate context. Slavery is far too powerful a word to think it even remotely applies to the vast majority of people in first world countries.
Given that a legal authority granting a minimum provision is one of the key features of the slave plantation, it's a compelling point to make.
That's the only reason the Democratic party exists.
It's not surprising that the vast vast vast majority of successful working people are Republicans.
If there were no entitlement programs for those able to work, then the most popular political ideas would be the ones that create jobs, raise wages, encourage investment and innovation, and tax less.
Instead people are given a check and suddenly problems like taxes, unemployment, wages, etc are not problems anymore. It's all solved by the check. ANd the only problem to worry about, is republicans looking to give out fewer checks
Indeed. The urban plantation hypothesis* is an atypical situation in which the promises are kept. We've seen for several decades this symbiotic relationship play out in some parts of the country. The promise is more handouts in exchange for the vote, and both happen.
*I prefer calling it neo-plantation because "urban" triggers some. "Urban" is more correct, though.
Some say that without the urban plantation deal, the Democrats could only win a handful of districts and states.
Middle-upper class folk tend to provide the capital and intellectual defenses for Democrats, but it's the strategic use of the neo-slaves that vote Democrat at >90% that keeps the party breathing.
Yeah I wonder what his source is. My guess is there's probably little difference, but maybe some.
It's still a million miles away from slavery. I mean, is the voter under contract and obliged to vote for the party giving him money? Or does he just make the vote because he knows it is the best chance of him continuing his lifestyle? He is not compelled by anyone to vote a particular way, he is only compelled by his own ideology.
A slave has no choice in the matter at all. The use of the word "slave" to describe someone who votes for a party who pays him to do fuck all is offensive, to be honest. You really should find a better word.
fwiw, I've used the word "slavery" in my arguments against work in the past, but I knew I was misusing the word, and I agree with those who told me that I was insulting those who have suffered slavery. That is why I have tried very hard to stop using that word in that context. If I am compelled to get a job, then so long as I can go home, and so long as I am paid a "fair" wage (meaning a competetive wage relative to the job), I am not a slave.
I sympathize with your position. The use of "slavery" in the urban plantation context takes great literary liberties. It's calling being "brainwashed" being "enslaved" and pointing out parallels with the plantation.
On the literal plantation, who's the best slave master but the one who gives all his slaves "freedom" yet they remain with him and do his bidding (and sometimes even take a whipping)? If a slave master did that (IIRC it wasn't unheard of), would it be wrong to call the "enslaved" freemen "slaves" still? It's an interesting question.
"brainwashed" is another misused word.
In the case of someone voting for a party that will grant them a survival without condition, there is no "aopting radically different beliefs", not necessarily anyway. I can see how some people might vote for a party for no reason other than getting their benefits, and where that party otherwise represent views that the voter opposes, than yes, maybe we can use the word "brainwashed" in its proper context. But how many people that rely on state handouts meet this criterion? I certainly wouldn't vote for a party that would bring in the death penalty, and a unconditional unemployment benefit. I could overlook minor political differences, but unless we find a political party that exactly matches our own ideology, then we all make these compromises when voting.Quote:
Originally Posted by google definition
A party's policy on state handouts is but one aspect of their electability. Those who fail to realise this, well I'd hope they're in the minority, but truth be told, I have no idea how many people we're talking about here.
There are some relationships in politics I don't know how to describe except by brainwashing.
Yeah I mean fair enough if the caveat is not "literally", but "for lack of a better word".
I'm a slave to weed.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...alk-about.html
I really hope we get to see this new ball game.Quote:
All members of the committee realize that if Comey states there is no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and if he confirms that FISA warrants were requested, it’s a whole new ball game.
My guess though, Comey will find some way to punt. Maybe claim the FISA stuff is classified and he can't confirm or deny.
Here we go....Quote:
Comey won't comment one way or another if a FISA request by the Obama administration to wiretap Trump Tower was turned down.
Why have these congressional hearings if no one will answer a question!
Did Russia really want Trump to win? Or did they just prefer a 'softened' Hillary Clinton that they felt could be bulliedQuote:
Comey says it was a "fairly easy judgment for the [intelligence] community" that Putin preferred Trump to Clinton. Comey's logic being that Putin did not like Hillary Clinton. Therefore, Putin wanted Trump to win, Comey reasoned. He says the two assessments are inseparable. Rep. Conaway does not agree
What even is the evidence of Russia hacking? That Ukranian software was used? Big LOL
I believe that Russia did the hacking. multiple intelligence agencies agree wholeheartedly on that, and have stated so publicly many times, not the least of which was the January report from the DNI
What's totally absent is any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Literally zilch, and the DNI himself has stated exactly that, publicly. Comey said this morning that the investigation has been going on since July. Don't you think that's enough time to determine if there was a connection. If they haven't found it by now, they aren't going to find it.
I also find it completely unbelievable that they have found even circumstantial evidence. We would have heard about it by now in this age of leaks we live in.
Yet the investigation grinds on, and as long as it remains open, the democrats can keep raising this specter of Russia to undermine anything the President does.
The other side of the coin here is that there are reports, though yet unconfirmed, that there was a FISA warrant authorizing monitoring of the Trump organization. Comey would not confirm or deny the existence of such a warrant today. But, if there were no warrant, he wouldn't be commenting on anything classified by denying its existence. So my inference here is that there was a warrant issued.
Those warrants are supposed to be used in situations of dire urgency related to matters of significant national security. And they require a high standard of cause in order to be issued in the first place. When you're using them to monitor a major party political candidate for president, the standard should be even higher.
So there must have been a really really really good reason to monitor Trump right? Yet after 9 months of investigations by every intelligence agency we have....there's not even a whisper of evidence against Trump suggesting he colluded with the Russians.
So, if the FISA monitoring was authorized without that high level of proof.....then it means it was a fishing expedition launched by Obama against his political opposition. That's wicked wicked wicked bad!
So, either Obama acted because there was enough evidence to suggest Trump was in collusion with Russia, or he abused his power for partisan political interests.
So weighing the state of affairs right now, on one side I see Trump who owns nothing in Russia, owes no one in Russia, and has nothing more to gain by employing Russia than he does by employing Argentina or Bahrain. On the other side you have Obama, who has already demonstrated that he is capable of abusing his power to harass his political opponents (remember the IRS scandal???)
Who do you believe??
I guess there is a third option where there was no FISA warrant and there was no monitoring of the Trump campaign.
But I find that exceedingly difficult to believe since we know, most definitely, that somebody wire tapped Michael Flynn
It's not so much the lying and cheating that bothers me, there's plenty of that on both sides. But it's the fact that this Trump/Russia thing seems to become more prominent as time goes on, despite there being less and less potential for any evidence.
It's gone now, but earlier today, the headline on CNN.com was "Trump-Russia: Yes, Obama Wiretapping: 'No Evidence'"
Seemingly they are referring to Comey's confirmation that Russia preferred Trump to Hillary, and his narrow statement that he has no information supporting Trump's tweeted accusations.
This is why Trump calls CNN fake news. Anyone who is a casual observer of the news, reading that headline would surely think that Comey confirmed the Trump-Russia connection and categorically absolved Obama. Neither are even close to true.
And Comey hates the Patriots
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...-patriots.html
Security theater at its finest
http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/21/14...ountries-trumpQuote:
US bans tablets and laptops on flights from eight Muslim-majority countries
I have no problem with this.
Obviously they are aware of some terrorist activity, from some specific area(s), and are trying to protect people. The idea that this is "theater", or worse, a deliberate act of hostility toward muslims, seems totally farfetched.Quote:
Senior administration officials are calling the measure an active-emergency amendment based on “evaluated intelligence”
People act like they should be treated like kings on airplanes, and it's pathetic. Once upon a time, if you wanted to get from Kuwait to the US, you'd have to travel for like, 9 years, and you'd probably die. Today, we have this magic mechanical beast that will get you there in half a day. All you have to do is ride on a chair in the sky.
"waaaaahhhhh, but I can't play angry birds now!"
I hope someone pushes that guy out of the plane.
For more about how flying is awesome, and no one is happy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbCoe3vIskA
Can someone tell me how Trump's claim of being wire-tapped by the Obama administration has been "debunked", "torpedoed", "discredited", "denied", "unfounded", and "false" but the claim that Trump colluded with Russia is none of those things?
Does it matter that the amount of evidence supporting each of those claims is exactly the same?
They haven't been debunked, and the Russian claims are still bollocks. Only, that's not what MSM is telling people.
We're at the stage now where whatever you want to believe is real news, and whatever you don't want to believe is fake news.
It's fucking great. People are finally being forced to think for themselves.
Says the idiot moaning about things on the internet? You're just massively missing the point. Unfortunately this is a recurring theme with you so I can only conclude that you're stupid. So will resort to just calling you stupid rather than trying to say anything of worth.
It will result in people thinking for themselves. It has to. Even the masses are starting to wake up to the fact that the MSM cannot be trusted to give impartial and honest information. More and more people are reading news and asking themselves "is this fake or not" and doing the required research to determine its authenticity. The more this "fake news" tactic from the MSM plays out, the less people will trust ANY news source.
Literally noone is real life gives a flying fuck? I think you're doing a banana with that use of the word "literally".
I suspect that the reason they want large electronics in checked luggage, is to give security personnel more time to search/evaluate them for threats.
I'm not a security expert, but I would guess that it's easier to hide weapons, explosives, or other contraband within a larger unit.
It's obvious they are acting based on some intelligence that tells them bad guys are using, or are seeking to use, large electronics to do something bad.
My only point is.....why is that a problem? Why do people think they have so many "rights" on an airplane?
Well we've had bombs hidden in shoes before, I think belts and underwear pose a risk too. It's not like a large bomb is required to bring down an aircraft, a small bomb would suffice, especially if detonated near a window.Quote:
I'm not a security expert, but I would guess that it's easier to hide weapons, explosives, or other contraband within a larger unit.
To you, that might seem "obvious". To me, it's obvious they're trying to further the climate of fear.Quote:
It's obvious they are acting based on some intelligence that tells them bad guys are using, or are seeking to use, large electronics to do something bad.
If security was the issue, then smartphones would be banned too. Who needs a phone on a flight? I'm not arguing in favour of people's rights on planes, I'm arguing for honest and relevant policy, instead of project fear.Quote:
My only point is.....why is that a problem? Why do people think they have so many "rights" on an airplane?
You seem to be ignoring the underlying fact here, that there is intelligence suggesting that the bad guys will use large electronics, not small ones, to do something bad.
Apparently, that "evaluated intelligence" said phones are ok, bigger stuff is not. I'm not privy to that intelligence, so I can't comment on its conclusion. But at the same time, on what basis could I challenge it?Quote:
Senior administration officials are calling the measure an active-emergency amendment based on “evaluated intelligence”
how are you concluding that the policy is not honest, nor relevant? How are you determining that it has no basis in security, but is "obviously" a fear-mongering tactic?
I'm not ignoring this "fact", I'm disregarding it as fear mongering. It's obviously fear mongering. For a start, if I were the leader of Al-dieameriqa, I'd be instructing my adherants to analyse many different methods of hiding weapons. This is clearly what they're doing, because hiding a bomb in a shoe is creative and goes to show that trying to predict their methods is an act of futility. Did anyone have intelligence about shoes? No they fucking didn't, and has anyone said since that we have to take our shoes off when going onto flights? No.Quote:
You seem to be ignoring the underlying fact here, that there is intelligence suggesting that the bad guys will use large electronics, not small ones, to do something bad.
Because smartphones are good. If you think smartphones can't bring down an aircraft, but shoes can, well you're right where they fucking want you.Quote:
how are you concluding that the policy is not honest, nor relevant? How are you determining that it has no basis in security, but is "obviously" a fear-mongering tactic?