Trump Still Falsely Taking Credit For Sprint Jobs He Had Nothing To Do With
from the magic-man dept
Last month, we noted how Donald Trump proudly implied he was single-handedly responsible for Japan's Softbank bringing 50,000 jobs and $50 billion in investment to the United States. The problem, of course, is that it's not clear those numbers are entirely real, and there's absolutely no evidence suggesting they had anything to do with Donald Trump. The jobs were first unveiled back in October as part of a somewhat ambiguous $100 billion global investment investment fund between Softbank and Saudi Arabia aimed at boosting technology spending worldwide.Some of that money could end up in the United States in the form of investment and jobs, but it has never been entirely clear how much. It's even less clear given that Softbank's Sprint here in the states has been trimming thousands of jobs over the last few years as it struggles with soaring debt. Still, all it took was a Manhattan meeting with Softbank Chair Masayoshi Son -- and a few Tweets by the President-elect -- to have the newswires filled with stories about how Donald Trump was somehow already performing miracles before even taking office:
Masa (SoftBank) of Japan has agreed to invest $50 billion in the U.S. toward businesses and 50,000 new jobs....
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 6, 2016
Masa said he would never do this had we (Trump) not won the election!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 6, 2016
"We are excited to work with President-Elect Trump and his Administration to do our part to drive economic growth and create jobs in the U.S.,” said Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure. "We believe it is critical for business and government to partner together to create more job opportunities in the U.S. and ensure prosperity for all Americans."That allowed Trump to launch a new media event at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, again implying the jobs he had absolutely nothing to do with creating were somehow thanks to his incredible business accumen (even as the same reports now try to inform people this just isn't true):
"I was just called by the head people at Sprint, and they are going to be bringing 5,000 jobs back to the United States," Mr. Trump told reporters at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. "They have taken them from other countries. They are bringing them back to the United States."So what's actually happening here? And why would Sprint be encouraging the press to falsely give Trump credit for something he had nothing to do with? Because Masayoshi Son wants regulatory approval for the company's planned acquisition of T-Mobile, which was rejected by U.S. regulators in 2014 because it would have reduced sector competition (and, ironically, jobs). Son has been pushing for another chance ever since, and apparently sees feeding Trump's ego as a smart path to success. Of course, as the New York Times noted today, Softbank and Sprint aren't the only companies pursuing this particular strategy.
...Although Mr. Trump claimed credit for SoftBank’s $50 billion investment in the United States, those plans predated the election, and Mr. Son has owned a controlling stake in Sprint, among other companies, for several years.
Sure, it's possible that Trump is encouraging the false claims and undeserved press just for PR benefit and has no intention of giving Son what he wants.
But there's no real signs that's true. There's every indication that Trump intends to appoint revolving door regulators and telecom sector allies to the FCC. These folks have made it clear they intend to gut the agency and strip back numerous consumer protections, including net neutrality. They've also made it clear they don't think things like telecom monopolies are real, and they're unlikely to appoint any FCC Commissioner eager to use his regulatory authority to thwart job-killing mega-mergers like Sprint T-Mobile. Most analysts believe the telecom sector will soon be getting everything it wants, and then some.
The end result of these policies is going to be something decidedly less pleasant than is being sold, suggesting that everybody may want to keep their receipts.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: credit, donald trump, jobs, marcelo claure, masayhoshi son, pr, propaganda
Companies: sprint, t-mobile
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
whoops... don't drop that bias...
Why only call out the turd trump? Keep spinning TD, you are only going to drive views away. I hate trump too but damn I am getting sick of hearing about every little 'petty' fucking thing he does and how much you don't like it.
I actually want TD to stay around!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
Not like this. Even if true, wouldn't the fact that Trump supporters wanted a change to the establishment make the fact he's doing the same things worth commenting upon?
"Why only call out the turd trump"
Because nobody else is President Elect of the USA at this moment in time. As ever, it's always telling that nobody's ever able to defend or explain Trump's actions, they only try to deflect attention.
"Keep spinning TD, you are only going to drive views away"
You know what's more likely to drive views away? People having childish whining fits, spending more time coming up with stupid names to call people than making a relevant comment. Your words are more likely to drive away sensible commenters and lurkers interested in adult conversation more than anything Karl wrote in the article.
"damn I am getting sick of hearing about every little 'petty' fucking thing he does and how much you don't like it"
Then why are you clicking through to read and comment upon articles discussing those things rather then scrolling past to an article you are interested in? The only thing you've done is increased traffic, making it more likely that further articles on the subject will be written.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
Because trolls are self-important and believe they are endowing the world with their highly valuable b.s. and without such a bestowment the world would flounder in ignorance and meaninglessness. It's all about ego. TD has a forum, the troll has to shit on it because he doesn't have a forum of his own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
Is this some kind of right back at you deflection or defense? If you don't like it then leave? How many times do I need to tell you and TD that this type of attitude only harms TD. That is the childishness going on around here! I am trying to tell TD to stop having the childish whining fits. It is my opinion that Trump is the same as Bush as same as Obama as Same as Hillary.
The only difference is that Trump seems to come without a filter and that just tears your little asses right up for some reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
"If you don't like it then leave?"
Because there are adults in the room I'm trying to have a conversation with. If someone comes into a room and starts being an ass, the correct response is to tell the ass to leave, not empty the room of everyone else.
"How many times do I need to tell you"
Since you insist on commenting anonymously, I have no way of knowing. Once? Twice? Every day? Who knows? Have we spoken before?
Hint: if you want people to treat you based on your past comments, don't hide who you are.
"It is my opinion that Trump is the same as Bush as same as Obama as Same as Hillary."
It's my opinion that they are not. Yet, you won't discuss that, you only spend your effort on making up silly names. I wonder why?
"The only difference is that Trump seems to come without a filter and that just tears your little asses right up for some reason."
Yeah, same as it would with any lying 6 year old I wasn't allowed to discuss lest his defenders get rowdy. You just seem proud you elected one to lead you for some reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
You insist on accusing me what I am trying to tell you that YOU sound like. TD's Trump tirades are what is getting childish. I don't like Trump but damn!
O yea, right... keep forgetting. It is okay for you to disparage people, but not others. Hypocrisy seems to be a bed fellow for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
If you become so enamored with the beauty of the words being used instead of the beauty of the 'message' being relayed then you can be endlessly fooled.
There is no beauty in a lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/995/436/e5c.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every President does it
Trump is much more open and current. At least you know what he's thinking NOW !
I don't like Trump either -- but there's a huge double-standard in his treatment by the media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Every President does it
I agree that I am likely to trust trump more than Hillary because he can't keep his big mouth shut, however... the media and the democrats can't stand it. They absolutely hate it the most when someone has a bigger voice than they do and it drives them batshit as witnessed in this thread.
Sure, I have to admit that I do stir the pot by calling some of them out on it, but it's really hard to not call a bunch of butt hurt hypocritical dipshits a few names. I mean, they can call me names back if they like, but I will never cry over getting called names, the way some of them do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Every President does it
But I can't and DON'T want to believe he is that daft so I tend to think his tweets may all be part of his "negotiation strategy". But if that is the case then it isn't really the transparency at all.
I see Trump in the same light as the fan theory that Jar Jar Binks was really a Sith operative. He was distracting everyone with his bumbling antics while furthering his secret objectives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Every President does it
I think the real problem is how do you approach someone that does not put up with baloney? He does not appear to have any ulterior motives in the immediate sense thought I think the has an agenda of some kind regardless.
What are his secret objectives? I would definitely like to know so I can add my comments on those as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Every President does it
Yes, I hate blowhards, especially when they're mouthing off in ways that actually reduces the effectiveness of what they're trying to do. Even if I did agree with him (and I certainly don't), I'd want someone else in the position because they'd be better at the job.
That's reality in my mind, though. I've had bosses who were egotistical blowhards who sabotaged their own companies with their words and ignorance, scummy micromanagers who chased away all their talent and people who I didn't really like or trust but were effective leaders who got results. I'd rather have the likeable leader who knew what they were doing over any of those guys, but the egotist really was the worst of the worst.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
Get ready for 4 years of this on steroids, caffeine and meth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
will pass on the meth and steroids though, you dopers can have all that stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
Why is TD focused on Trump now? [b]Because he is now the President-Elect.[/b] We should be critical of him now, as we should be of any of our leaders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
I know I make mistakes, but I could not find one, and this is my position at the moment!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
But on the flip side, I have to chuckle how the original AC drilled down to a specific thing (pointing out a politician taking credit for something he wasn't really involved in), when the tone of the original post was obviously trying to say we shouldn't criticize Trump because we somehow didn't criticize Obama enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
This entire threat sums up my collective disgust for most people in American political parties today. My side and do no wrong, and your side sucks.
I have yet to find a single honest or decent political party in existence. Everyone one of them likes to say "I can't think of any examples where my guy is wrong, but I can find plenty of examples for your guy". TD is acting too much like the main stream media which is one of many reasons why started coming here and now it is starting to appear here. I hope it does not become a common theme.
If I had my way I would abolish all political parties under the threat that anyone associated with out cannot hold political office of any kind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
NO, the point is do not criticize others while giving out passes as well.
So then how exactly would reporting on anything work in your world?
Would criticism of Trump taking credit for something he had nothing to do with be accompanied by an obligatory mention of Hillary's emails?
Would criticism of Obamacare have to be accompanied by a footnote about the unfunded Iraq/Afghanistan wars and recession under Bush?
Seems like the trolls come out of the woodwork with claims about free passes and bias (despite "winning") every time there's a mention of Trump. Should there be no reporting at all on him for the next 4 years, just to avoid upsetting people who think that any negative press is "biased?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
I generally like TD's articles, but this one is over the top in bias. What about the rest of Trump's bombastic claims? Hell Trump is having too much power in the economy which is a very big deal and TD is not saying "Hey Congress!!!! You gonna reign this assclown in or what?" Where is that article? If they are going to focus on something this pointless and petty, I have to call it out! But like Mike said... I can go suck eggs cause I don't run TD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
Hell Trump is having too much power in the economy which is a very big deal and TD is not saying "Hey Congress!!!! You gonna reign this assclown in or what?" Where is that article?
Given that Republicans control both houses, I'd imagine that the article would be your question followed by a response of "No."
Not even newsworthy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
TD is not saying "Hey Congress!!!! You gonna reign this assclown in or what?" Where is that article?
That article (or our version of it) is here. And we wrote about it during the Obama administration. So, you can apologize now.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160306/07562633815/abuse-power-laws-should-be-designed-as-i f-people-we-distrust-most-are-power.shtml
My problem with you is not that you are criticizing us, but that you are doing so in such a ridiculous manner. You don't like this post, fine, but you don't give any reason other than that 1. that we apparently didn't criticize Obama (we did) and 2. this is "petty".
That's your opinion and we disagree. Things related to telcos and jobs and mergers is very much what we talk about here, so this is very, very relevant. And that's my point.
I apologize if I was flip before in my response before. Perhaps it was because you started this off with such a ridiculous criticism, and you continue to use stupid nicknames for Presidents, which tends to be a sign of someone who is trolling, not serious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
Perhaps part of the reason is how Trump is presenting his involvement. He doesn't work by simple and quiet press releases and press conferences. He shoots out posts on Twitter, loudly proclaiming his deeds with a proverbial bullhorn. TD has posted an article about it because Trump made it a talking point.
However, I still contend that TD has not given out free passes. They've poked at whatever grevious talking points other politicians created (for example, Obama's promised transparency that never came to be).
I completely and wholeheartedly agree with you on this point. It's not just politics, but society in general that has galvanized into an "Us vs. Them."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
Why only call out the turd trump?
You're so right.
TD should start calling out the other president-elect as well.
For shame, TechDirt!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
Good riddance!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
I said that out of concern that TD is driving people away. Combine this with their earnings and you guys are not concerned either?
Go ahead work for that Pyrrhic victory, it seems to be your bread and butter.
I do not want TD to fail, but many of you, including members of TD, have told me and others to leave. I want you idiots to stop that shit. It is as divisive as fuck and you will only cause TD to fail as people leave because of the hostile environment. It has been happening so much lately that I am concerned about it.
It looks like my comment got flagged by the community though. Talk about a bunch of snowflakes that cannot handle criticism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
But from what I can have read here I think they are "asking you to leave" because you have shown the tendency to attack the commenters and it is taking away from the message you are trying to get across.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
That said, I find dissonance in your logic. I only attacked them in response. My first volley was on the article not the commenters. Why am I the only one required to observe decorum while they are not?
It appears that only passive aggressive insults are allowed despite being every bit as insulting as a direct one. An insult is still an insult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
I just answered one of your other comments with a similar topic... So here I will simply leave that I have trouble accepting the logic "If everyone else is not playing nicely why do I have to" as being a valid reason devolve into a lower standard of response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
The time I was just as foul defending Obama no one had much to say... do it for Trump and it all comes out of the wood works. It appears there is now a reddit like hive mind effort to flag several of my comments while others of equal value remain. It is my desire to prove a point that this mentality brings division and lost viewership to TD.
Have you ever been to a situation that has to be stirred to prove what it's end result will be? That is me.
Like Genghis is believed to have once said...
“I am the punishment of God...If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.”
“Conquering the world on horseback is easy; it is dismounting and governing that is hard.”
This is the type of honesty I like. Something that many people do not like. Genghis was honest to a fault, most people would always know where they stand with him. Unlike most whom like to turn into frenemies where they wait for you to turn your back and stab it. Genghis was not just good at murdering people... or he would have been no kind of a leader, yet he has some very wise things to say in very terrible ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
It looks like my comment got flagged by the community though. Talk about a bunch of snowflakes that cannot handle criticism.
Looking over the comments that got flagged, that doesn't seem to be the case at all. Many of your comments (and those of people who agree with you) did not get flagged. The ones that did appear to have gratuitous insults.
From what we've seen gratuitous insults and extreme red team/blue teamism seem to get flagged. Maybe avoid those things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: whoops... don't drop that bias...
I said that out of concern that TD is driving people away.
OR, it could be that people understand what actually is bias and what isn't - some people even manage that when the author doesn't share their opinion.
Do you get that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The reason people talk about "every little petty .. thing" is because the trumpster keeps tweeting his every little stupid thought to the world. Which prior president elect has done anything similar?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I always love this game, it proves how ignorant some people are, and how bad it is that the US has turned politics into a team sport. Facts never get through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Until you realize that you are guilty as well, then there is no path forward for a hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Intelligent descriptive terms? It's a shame that the system is so corrupted that a foreigner using such terms is assumed to be on an opposing team to be ignored then, I think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I address the facts in front of me, which always includes people deflecting attention away from Trump and never being able to defend his actions. provide me with something that's not deflection, and I won't use the term that offends you when it correctly describe things.
"I pointed out that not a peep is made when media supports liberals"
In your opinion. But there's never adult discussion, only whining that your perceived side is being called out for their bullshit. There's plenty to discuss, but lie and deflection always seem to come in before adult debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I always read flagged posts to see what they said and ask... why was that flagged? They should realize that flagging a post might have the Streisand effect instead.
If I had any faith that only posts about selling something were flagged I would avoid them, but nope, I have to enable scripts and see what is there. I am always interested in someone elses opinion, even if I am about to take it to task for it. I am a very big believer in Freedom of Speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those are not my thoughts, that's a random phrase. Did you have an actual question or something I've said to address? You've just inserted a random assumption because you're dumb enough to believe there's only 2 "teams" and even people without an American political affiliation has to be on one "team" so you have to assign them one.
This is why you're treated like fools, you're not addressing the real world and having to make things up about others before you talk to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A passive aggressive insult is still an insult. Hubris is an ugly thing, as pride goes before the fall. What where you step, it's a real fall in every direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You use passive aggressive insults extensively and pass off anyone that does not agree with your logic as nothing but children to be ignored. Did you vote yes for Brexit or no? I am betting you voted a no! Am I on target? You seem like a dead ringer for a globalist elite type.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"pass off anyone that does not agree with your logic as nothing but children to be ignored"
No, just the ones who act like children. Plus, you claim I think you should be ignored, but you've done nothing but whine about how I address you. I bet you don't even see the contradiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
While you are right that it has become a "Team" sport, remember that only ONE team like to use terms such as... Deflecting to attempt to counter an argument without any substance.
If you have something to counter Trump's bullshit other than saying "Hillary this" isn't calling it deflecting accurate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
anyone can just do what you did for every post on the internet right? Or are yo just wanting to send that website traffic in hopes it might go down in a flood?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Point. Point. Point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, which "team"? As an Englishman living in Europe who trends to post here when bored but has an interested in the rest of the world around him... which team am I on? I'll admit I'm on the "not electing egotistical morons" team, but that doesn't necessarily mean I support anyone else.
I'm more likely to poke fun at the ignorant assumptions of anonymous cowards than support any American political "team", but I am always genuinely fascinated as to which fictional version of me people are hallucinating at any given moment in time when they think they have a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
do tell us which side you are on. It does not matter what we think right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes I could be wrong about the team he is on, but he is on one. It's like Bias, you got it, I have it, he has it, everyone has it. They are just facts of life that cannot be avoided. Anyone saying they don't have them are deceitful and cannot be trusted on its face.
While all his Teams may not be diametrically opposed to mine, there are sure to be a team or two he is on that is oppositional to a few of mine and likely a few teams we find mutual agreement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, you are one of those idiots. OK.
Come back when you're ready to talk like an adult about various political beliefs, where some agree and some do agree but we all have unique stances. Not the childish game you're playing where you think you'll win if you can just pretend you're arguing against another "team".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please do us a favor and stop distracting the conversation with trying to force us into 'schoolyard level team picking'.
I read the comments for alternate viewpoints to strengthen my own understanding of the issues (all sides) and come here be because this site generally has less of the "what side are you" on bickering... except in this case I am sorely disappointed.
And anybody who has ever been on a debate team knows that the best way to 'win a debate' is to argue the side you are NOT on. But here to "win" is to understand what we are dealing with and make the future better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why do I have to be on a "side"? How many "sides" do you think there are? There's more than 2 in the real world.
Define the parameters of what you're talking about. If you want me to say ""left" or "right" or "republican" or "democrat", you've reduced the real world down to a ridiculous fiction and I won't play that game. But, then, if you were discussing reality you wouldn't be blathering on about "sides"
"It does not matter what we think right?"
Not if you're playing the stupid team game where there's only 2 teams and you have to defend your side at all costs, no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh-huh, right
"Exactly. The MSM let Obama and Hillary create a false narrative and should not do this for Trump."
which was your response to
".. he's not merely trolling. He's creating a narrative"
So Paul says trump creates a narrative, to which you reply that MSM let Obama and Hillary create a narrative. And you do not consider this to be something covered by the definition of the word "deflection"? In the political usage, this is the very definition of the word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
dont be a hypocrit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I haven't found one liberal that can even fake concern for the media's behavior this election cycle. But they can cry fron the roof tops when it comes to Trump
So then did the media cause Trump to lose the election?
I don't understand what you are talking about with the media. He won - are you arguing that the media somehow hurt Trump, causing him to win?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Par for the Shitty Course
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/995/829/909.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Breaking News!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Breaking News!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's like saying Obama takes credit for jobs he didn't create. When are people going to wake up and realize that our government does not create jobs, they never have. Last time I checked, companies like McDonalds, Sprint, Best Buy, Target, hotels, Casinos ... these are employers who create jobs, not the government. But what's fucked up is the liberals who are under the delusion that the government creates jobs. That is simply a fallacy perpetrated by Democrats spreading their liberal agenda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm positive you understand nothing at all.
Psst. Here's a hint: Civilian Conservation Corps. That's just a start on a loooooong journey of how wrong you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
get a clue fellow human.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jobs ACTUALLY created by the gov't. Omg!
kenichi, you're just plain stupid.
Only a dipshit would write a whole paragraph trying to make that point when it is easily disprovable. Try looking at the Civilian Conservation Corps for a starter.
When you're done with that, you can come back and say, "Ok, there was that ONE time," and I'll be happy to provide you with another example. We can keep doing that until you either get tired of being continually proven wrong or just admit you're talking out of your ass. K?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jobs ACTUALLY created by the gov't. Omg!
And I would hardly consider this even a positive example of "creating" jobs. This type of thing is just an emperors new clothes version of welfare.
I do not disagree with this kind of welfare, but when the source of the funds come from government... well it's welfare. Just like everyone on the Government Payroll up to and including the president. They receive Welfare as compensation for dealing with government issues. They really add a net negative to society to prevent worse negatives from befalling us. though often times they become the very negatives we seek to avoid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jobs ACTUALLY created by the gov't. Omg!
Those are JOBS. Created by the goverment.
Here's another (modern day) example of government created jobs.
I can do this all day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Jobs ACTUALLY created by the gov't. Omg!
In the scope of government, since the government cannot produce money to the benefit of society, I do not classify any agency or program it creates as creating jobs. I refer to it as creating largess. And as said in the past, this nation will survive until the people can vote themselves largess from the government.
So I do apologize for not making my intent clear in the beginning. Anything done by government is largess and I classify that as diametrically opposed to the general sense of jobs where GDP of the nation is improved.
I am not trying to say that your argument by its definition of job is wrong, just your idea of jobs in the scope of government involvement. In general when the market talks about job creation, it is outside of government activity and due to the unique nature of government, it cannot earn, it can only tax and spend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jobs ACTUALLY created by the gov't. Omg!
"Since 1971, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) has been a self-supporting government agency that covers its operating costs with revenues generated through the sales of postage and related products and services."
Like I said, I can do this all day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jobs ACTUALLY created by the gov't. Omg!
You did find a good exception, so I will have to amend my stance to with the exception of departments like USPS the Government does not produce jobs only largess. Your other two examples are not acceptable in my opinion because taxes go into them. I need to watch making those absolute statements... tend to bite right on the ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jobs ACTUALLY created by the gov't. Omg!
Of course, they have a government-issued monopoly on delivering letters, which is why you can't send a letter through UPS unless you pay package rates.
It's also worth considering that although NASA may not be directly profitable, the actual value of the technologies they have developed and delivered to the American people far outstrips any private technology firm. https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jobs ACTUALLY created by the gov't. Omg!
Face Palm .... seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jobs ACTUALLY created by the gov't. Omg!
This needs responding to as well. Perhaps (in some distorted way of thinking) it was welfare, but it was only needed because of the greed of free market capitalists who caused the Great Depression. FFS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Jobs ACTUALLY created by the gov't. Omg!
But, what does the greed of the free market capitalists have to do with it? And no... the banks caused the depression, they are responsible for every depression in the past and the future.
Banks cause depressions until they get what they want, it is how it works. It is the reason fractional banking was invented. Like the Rothchilds said... give me control of a nations currency and I care not who makes its laws.
Another point, greed is not limited to the capitalists or the free-market folks so don't act like they own some majority over it. Greed exists everywhere including in the regulators which is why regulation often results in the very things they were created to prevent. Greed just is and laws need to be created with the idea in mind that the person wielding that law WILL BE GREEDY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jobs ACTUALLY created by the gov't. Omg!
And it seems that some folk are more capable of dealing with their impulses (greed is one of them) than are others. So do not try to say everyone is equally guilty of being greedy, because we all know that is bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jobs ACTUALLY created by the gov't. Omg!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Jobs ACTUALLY created by the gov't. Omg!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jobs ACTUALLY created by the gov't. Omg!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jobs ACTUALLY created by the gov't. Omg!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When are people going to wake up and realize that our government does not create jobs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks Trump!
The new meme is for everything good that happens we thank Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thanks Trump!
Trump was elected? THANKS OBAMA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thanks Trump!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thanks Trump!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Thanks Trump!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Trump!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Trump!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Trump!
while "the right" is so gooood.
Everything is left/right, black/white, right/wrong.
There is no grey, no middle ground and certainly no compromise, take no prisoners, everyone is a crook.
Do you ever get tired of this same old bullshit?
Ever get the feeling someone is lying to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Trump!
I choose to look at the big picture. The left is losing ground horribly, in all facets of government. Their narratives have lost steam and the people don't trust them anymore. IMO It's not because of the ideals or the "platform". It's because of they way they feel compelled to ram their policies down everyone's throat with little or no thought to the long term effects. Racist this, transgender that, immigration and globalization, these terms are like clubs the left continuously use to beat the crap out of anyone that disagrees or doesn't think like they do. The people are tired of it. The extreme Right have their issues too, but they didn't seem to be cramming it down everyone's throat quite as badly... well, until Trump that is.
Speaking of Trump; IMO The Left is responsible for Trump. They won't admit it, they won't (usually) acknowledge it, but they are. All they had to do was field a half assed candidate that was semi-likeable and they would have won easily. The Left did this. Now they, like the Right with Obama, get to live with it.
These are of course my opinions. Think what you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Trump!
Speaking of Trump; IMO The Left is responsible for Trump. They won't admit it, they won't (usually) acknowledge it, but they are. All they had to do was field a half assed candidate that was semi-likeable and they would have won easily.
As opposed to the right, who out of 16 or so candidates, couldn't run someone better?
Yeah, sure.
Funny how the "party of personal responsibility" seems to have none for anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Trump!
He won didn't he? I agree its a shame they couldn't field a better candidate, but if the goal was to win, they succeeded right?
You can point at the Right all you want. The Right should have lost. The Left screwed this one up bad. They had it, they new it, look at the amazement on the reporters, analysts, and political advisors faces when the tally came in. It was theirs to lose, and that's exactly what they did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Trump!
He won didn't he? I agree its a shame they couldn't field a better candidate, but if the goal was to win, they succeeded right?
And if that's the case, who voted for him?
Lemme guess...the left?
I'm going to continue to point at the right because that's where the blame lies. They wanted him, they voted for him, and now he's all theirs.
Own it.
Their votes made it happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Trump!
"he's all theirs. "
If your American, he's yours too. Like it or not, he is going to be your President.
"I'm going to continue to point at the right because that's where the blame lies. "
And the left will continue to lose. Almost a thousand state seats, the Presidency, both houses of Congress, and multiple SCOTUS appointments isn't enough to tell them they are doing it wrong, then they get what they deserve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Trump!
The people didn't vote for someone they liked, they voted for what they thought was the lesser of 2 evils
Sure - so again, it's the left's fault for who the right voted for. Lemme guess, we're also responsible for who the right nominated as well. That clown car of fuck ups is also the left's fault.
Got it. He's the best you have. And it's our fault.
And the left will continue to lose. Almost a thousand state seats, the Presidency, both houses of Congress, and multiple SCOTUS appointments isn't enough to tell them they are doing it wrong, then they get what they deserve.
And because we're doing it wrong, we're also responsible for who you nominate, run, etc...
My original statement stands - you own it. Like it or not. Don't worry - we'll be here to clean up the mess.
Again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Trump!
The Left and Right don't decide elections, independent's do. Neither side can win without them. Last I checked they made up 45% ish of voters. Who you going to blame now for the Left's failed policies name calling, and piss poor blame gaming?
You got your ass whooped. Own that. Trump is going to shape SCOTUS for at least a generation. You control almost nothing in Government both Federal and State, and you have a circus clown in the white house. LOL But of course all that is the Right's fault right? HAHA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Trump!
The Left and Right don't decide elections, independent's do.
I see. So when you said:
Speaking of Trump; IMO The Left is responsible for Trump. They won't admit it, they won't (usually) acknowledge it, but they are. All they had to do was field a half assed candidate that was semi-likeable and they would have won easily.
You really meant the independents. Got it.
Who you going to blame now for the Left's failed policies name calling, and piss poor blame gaming?
Given that it's you that blames the left for who you nominated and elected, I'd suggest that you up your own game first.
Trump is going to shape SCOTUS for at least a generation.
Don't forget that's because republicans refused to do their jobs. I'm sure that's our fault too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Trump!
You keep saying you, like I nominated someone. You do realize that as an Independent I can't vote in the primaries in my state right? I think there is what, 18 or so states like that? So I personally had nothing to do with either candidate, neither did any other Independent in this state. So yes, my statement holds true.
The independents of my state voted for who they thought was the lesser of two evils. Trump won only because the Left didn't field a candidate that was worth a shit. If the Burn would have won the Dem primaries, and the Dems had not let Hillary lie and cheat her way in, I would have voted for him. So yes. The Left IMO is DIRECTLY responsible for Trump winning.
"Don't forget that's because republicans refused to do their jobs. I'm sure that's our fault too."
Don't be mad because the Repubs are using the tools at their disposal to get what they want. If the tables were turned, the Dems would be doing the exact same thing.
The Left lost, and it's their own fault no matter how you spin it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Trump!
The Left IMO is DIRECTLY responsible for Trump winning.
Fair enough.
So all those jobs that are staying because of him?
You're fucking welcome. No credit to you - it's all our fault. Trump's our fault. You said so.
Dow surging to 20,000?
Thank a democrat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Trump!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Trump!
He bought those jobs, he didn't convince anyone to do shit.
Bull shit - just ask Trump. And given the left is responsible for him, then they deserve the credit.
IMO Obama actually gets credit for our current market state.
Oh no, no, no, no! It's because of Trump - again, thank a democrat for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Trump!
You know, you've replied a whole bunch of times telling me everything wrong with the left.
However, after reading this again something occurred to me - why wouldn't the right want to take credit for Trump, given how bad the left is?
If he's going to be such a lightning rod that's going to clean up the mess that is Washington, why on earth wouldn't they want to say they're responsible?
Again, if the left has it so wrong, why would you say we're responsible for him, apart from distancing yourself from him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Trump!
Fair question. I'll tell you what I think.
Trump is a wild card. He's spontaneous, irrational, flies by the seat of his pants, and no one knows exactly what he is going to say or do next, not even the Right, and they can't stand that. They don't like him, easy to prove by how long it took the rank and file Republicans to endorse and fall in line with him. I would even go so far as to say they hated him, and for good reason. But what they did bet on, was that he'd win. I think winning was more important to them than the candidate. They are probably thinking they can bring him into the fold, and mold him into what they want. It might work too. Look at who he's surrounding himself with.
The LEFT fielded the most disingenuous, controversy ridden, scandal laden, horrible public speaking, possibly mentally damaged but definitely with major health issues candidate they had. Trump is an idiot true, but damn man Hillary is as crooked and dangerous as they come. Our choices were pathetic, but we HAD to make a choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Trump!
I see.
So as long as they don't take credit when something "great" happens under his administration, I don't personally care what their motivation is.
I'm ready to take credit for him, and all of the great things that are happening, giving the right no credit at all.
After all:
The Left IMO is DIRECTLY responsible for Trump winning.
Might as well embrace that and say "right-o - you're fucking welcome for all those jobs!"
Everyone! Thank a democrat for Trump today!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Trump!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Trump!
You assert the left is DIRECTLY responsible for him (your words), and I say fine - if we're responsible, then all of the great things he's doing are solely because of us.
Unless you're saying we're responsible for anything negative about him, but nothing positive. And that would just be bullshit, would it not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Trump!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem with establishing online identities is that too much can be taken out of context and people tend to use them against you. I plan on avoiding that. I have no desired to give the government, local police, my employers, or another other financial/social "self superior malcontents" a way to track what I say online for retribution later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I am trying to tell them that the extra curricular bitching about trump is getting tiresome in certain cases... specifically when they bitch about trump doing something all the others have done, but have not bitched at the previous.
TD could say... yea you are right, so we are now changing that going forward then I can shut the fuck up.
I only bitch mostly about hypocrisy. Usually about how many of you propose the very solutions that will not solve the actual problem at hand.
I do hope TD keeps putting dents into Trump administration, but not at the expense of their appearance. Every since Trump started running for president I have watched TD get too political about certain things... it is a sad sight!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
May I respectfully suggest you find a debate class to attend? I am all for opposite viewpoints and good dialog and I get the feeling you have the insight to become a great contributor, but your lack of debate discipline undermines everything you are trying to accomplish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We can if you like but both sides must agree to the terms and definitions. I am certain you will not achieve agreement. My stance is that TD will drive folks away, I do not want that, but many others here DO want it and are attacking me over it.
If your problem is in regards to how I have framed my 'debate' then there can be no resolution. It trivializes the subject and often forces people into a decorum that marginalizes a side by encumbering it with pointless and arbitrary debate structures.
Most of the left has constantly sought to control the message by instituting themselves as arbiters over the processing of that Message. This is a direct example of why Trump defeated the main stream media in the election. They went out of control and made it clear they cannot overcome their bias in reporting the news and begin to attack others when pointed out. I am seeing that here at TD.
I am not even in the Trump camp, but any attempt to reign the zealots in proves to be a caustic attempt. I do not think these people are capable of reason in their current state of vigor. They care more about the types of words that are used and nothing of message being conveyed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So I don't expect that we following official rules, but we are all human (at least I think we are here.. bots have gotten pretty good these days) and there are long established guidelines (they predate the internetwebtubes) for how to have a civil debate and discussion. One can also look to strategies for how couples should argue, there are a lot of professionals that spend their life dealing with the topic of interpersonal conflict resolution.
My suggestion of a debate class is merely to help you become a more effective at spreading your message.
Honestly, I don't care 'what camp' you are in as long as you communicate respectfully and thoughtfully... In this case if you were truly effective in your messaging then it really wouldn't matter either.
But maybe you are "pulling a Trump" by making a lot of noise to get the "crowds" to pay attention to you while you sneak in your message. Hey, the attention part seems to be working so more power to you there, now how are you going to finish the job to convince people you have a real message?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Regarding the respectful and thoughtful communication. While they are nice to have, it is erroneous to dismiss arguments because they accompany the discourse. It has been my direct experience that relying on a false sense of decorum is pointless. Decorum should be reserved for official or organized situations and physical presence where people often do not have sufficient emotional control and feels the need to get physically violent because someone hurt their little feelings. That and in cases where there are time limits and things need to be concise for expediency, none of which apply here.
But yea, I think everyone could use some decorum, but that must apply to the passive aggressive comments which often get a pass. They need to observe decorum as well, or keep the pie holes shut. And insult is an insult is an insult, I don't care if you call someone obtuse or a fuckwad, its all the same in the end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I did not mean to infer that only comments and replies of a certain standard and quality are to be responded to, but rather it is not a requirement to respond in kind and with the same technique when they don't. I find that name-calling, threats, and personal attacks only add drama and rarely add substantial benefit to the discussion at hand.
While I agree with you that it would be foolish to blindly rely on a 'false sense of decorum', I strongly disagree with your inference that because not everybody is treating a conversation and other commenters with respect that it is ok to do the same. I also disagree that it should only be reserved for specific 'official and organized' situations as it is. I think you may be taking my "use of debate rules" a bit too literally when I really just mean general rules for respectful discussion/debate.
This first search result I found sums it up nicely... I am referring to the techniques in "Method 1", not the more formal "Method 2". There are also a lot of good points on http://www.wikihow.com/Argue for how to keep things civil.
And to finish my post... to me there is a substantial difference between a 'jab' at somebody for the sake of a humorous moment, childish name calling and a personal attacks.... unfortunately the difference is dependent on the thickness of one's skin as well as print/text not being the best medium to convey sarcasm correctly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can certainly understand having decorum but there are situations where that decorum can prevent having a conversation as well... like walking on eggs shells. It really does not matter how gracefully I said something, it is just that I said it and there is no going back. No matter how much creme or sugar is poured on top.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am trying to tell them that the extra curricular bitching about trump is getting tiresome in certain cases...
And yet you never seem to complain when we bitch about Obama.
Funny that.
This entire thread was hijacked by you, pretending that ACTUALLY COVERING BULLSHIT CLAIMS by the President concerning A TOPIC WE COVER is somehow "biased" and we shouldn't bother.
You don't own this place. You're not the editor. When you are, THEN we take editorial orders from you. Until then...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
While you are not wrong here I would like to state that is not a good way to CwF (well it is for the ones with a pro TD confirmation bias). But it is your site!
I suggest don't scare them off... if you read between the lines there are some good insights and desire to do good here... we should encourage him/her (and the rest of the internet) to learn how to properly present, argue and debate a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True I cannot prove that it was me, but in cases where you expected to much and blamed him for the failures I told TD that the problem is with Congress... not the president.
Want to know something? I never get bitched out by the community when I defended Obama... funny that huh?
Look, I do notice bias at TD, is it bad? Not too bad in general, but the Trump stuff is kinda bad. Many others are polarizing people with their hate for Trump, its getting bad. I try to call it out and whamo... people go nuts.
You guys just keep doing your best, I am just a small voice around here and I am fine with that. All I can do is tell you guys when I am worried you are going over board. You need to avoid being antagonistic to the people telling you that you might be hurting your prospects. I also do not blame TD for its forum attack dogs either. But if your site attracts a certain demographic then it pins its bias in reality.
So Yea, defended Obama too... no bitching, say anything in the defense of trump and the nutters get to nutting!
You going to tell me to piss off again? I don't plan on leaving but like you said... I am a nobody hear and my eyes do not matter, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can't be bothered to sign up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama joins the ranks of infamous black politicians who have added a massive amount of debt onto our country to which our children will now have to pay for.
Woodrow Stanley, Kwame Kilpatrick, Barrack Obama. The only thing those morons did was raid our treasuries and saddled our country with staggering amounts of debt. Woodrow Stanley and Kwame Kilpatrick saddled Michigan cities with enormous debt, and left office, leaving Emergency Financial Managers in charge, stripping our elected officials of their powers.
Barrack Obama is the worst offender. he's added a staggering amount of debt, more than any Republican has ever did. Obama has saddled our country with $11 trillion dollars in debt. He should be thrown in prison, along with Hillary Clinton.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Obama joins the ranks of infamous black politicians who have added a massive amount of debt onto our country to which our children will now have to pay for.
So the two wars in the Middle East just payed for themselves...right-o! I'll bet we even turned a profit until Obama came into office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Obama left in place the Bush bailouts but is held responsible when W is not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And can you show me the law that gives the president power over the federal budget?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The deficit is the financial loss America takes when its economic trading polices and practices have placed it into the financial losses bucket.
The president only has the power congress allows them to have over the federal budget, which is why I keep bitching about people to stop blaming presidents for economic problems and to bring them the fuck back to congress... but no... everyone wants a single throat to choke and the president makes a prime target for that.
So can you blame the president? Fuck yes, but only in as much as you put fucking congress right next to their fucking ass at the gallows!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And further trying to point out how silly it is to give the president credit or fault for this considering it's almost entirely the domain of congress (which has been under republican control since midway through Obama's first term and for a decade a couple years before that.)
And the president can veto, but he can't line item veto, he can only veto the whole bill or none of it. And if they did veto everything with the smallest problem in it, nothing would get passed, and they'd get blamed for everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am not saying Obama has no blame in either case, but we need to strap that millstone around congresses neck first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
True. But if you read up on why it dropped you'll find he hasn't played a very big role in WHY it dropped. That ball was in motion before he even stepped into office. Not to say he doesn't get some credit, he does, but you don't REALLY start seeing major long term economic changes due to policy until the second or third year.. read up on it if you don't believe me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure the POTUS has a lot of influence but by Constitutional design that position doesn't hold all the power.
And no it isn't just the fault of one party over the other... it is a failure of our Representatives (notice I didn't call them leaders) and the people that vote them into office.
When you boil it down to the absolute reality a politician's job priority is to get re-elected.... that normally manifests itself into big headlines and fundraising opportunities, sometimes their actions even align with ideas that ultimately help the country in the long run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump keeps winning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trump keeps winning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I never heard Democrats bitching about when Obama and the Democrats were spending our tax dollars without passing a single federal budget. For the first two years in office, when Democrats controlled everything, they were handing Obama blank checks with no control on spending. They wasted our money and what did we get?
We got a black president who increased food stamps recipients two-fold, we got a mandatory health insurance law that forced Americans to have health insurance or suffer a tax penalty (WTF?) and we got 11 trillion dollars in debt.
Obama did the one thing that Republicans never have done. Obamacare was never about access to health care, it was about protecting the health insurance racket that the Democrats were in bed with. They gave back to Democrats by giving them unprecedented campaign donations.
Democrats got got their celebrity in Obama. Now, Republicans got their own celebrity in Trump. Trump will restore this country back to what it was, a country that is not dependent on food stamps and health insurance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, dying is a solution to both of those problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Living in the past is a hell of a way to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
there is wisdom from the past that is every bit as valuable still.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hell, they can make the same mistake over a period of weeks, blame it on someone else and then wag their fingers at the poor fall guy while whining about poor press coverage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Affordable Care Act, as passed, is not what the Obama administration originally proposed for health-care reform. It's a longstanding conservative proposal, which had been backed by Republicans for quite some time before that, including (at the state level) by none other than Mitt Romney.
The original version of the health-care reform proposal, as I recall it - and the second version, after the first got shot down - had nothing to do with requiring people to buy health insurance on the private market. Instead, it involved a "public option", in which people who couldn't get affordable health care through private insurers could get it through the government instead, subsidized by tax dollars.
As I remember it, what happened is:
* Obama made a health-care reform proposal which involved a public option, based on liberal viewpoints about how such a thing should be done.
* Republicans screamed bloody murder about socialism.
* Obama dropped the original proposal, and started over with something closer to the Republican position, in an attempt to meet them in the middle.
* Rather than softening their position and coming closer to his proposed middle ground, Republicans screamed bloody murder again.
* Obama dropped his new proposal and started over with a long-established conservative proposal which had been backed by Mitt Romney - essentially conceding the entire ideological argument, for the sake of getting health-care reform done in _some_ form.
* Republicans screamed bloody murder a third time.
* Obama pushed reform through anyway - and _that_ is what we now call Obamacare: the second-generation "anything Obama proposes is bad" Republican proposal for what reform should look like.
Trying to spin this as Obama trying to protect the private health-insurance racket - even if protectionism for that industry is what the end result winds up looking like - is just ludicrous, IMO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Obama did many things wrong during his Presidency; you'll find documentation of some of them in the archives of this very Website. The Affordable Care Act is part of what he did wrong, and parts of what make it wrong are his (or at least his administration's) doing - but the original idea that the rest of it was built on was not his to begin with, and he would not have run with that idea if the Republicans hadn't objected so intractably to his original proposals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parasitic Political Perfection!
And then it hit me...
Maybe the Korporate Rulers of Amerika wanted to insert their real choice through the obvious process of impeachment of the T. Rump, AFTER the T. Rump had fulfilled his part of the deal, in exchange for money, power and a clean legal slate.
After all, 50% of Fascism is a false front, or Facade.
(The other 50% is simply monumental greed.)
The real plan would look something like this then.
First, fix the election. That just takes money and time and most of the work was accomplished by the Bush administration.
Then, while in office, the T. Rump drops all of the pre-written executive orders into place, that give Korporate Amerika all they want. Everyone knows that he will change a wack of shit for his billionaire friends, so that will seem normal to all the peons.
Then, once he has removed all the impediments to fully legalised profiteering and public rapine by billionaires, the T.Rump will be impeached for whatever - the list of his known crimes is already long and the list of things everyone would easily believe him guilty of, seems eternal - and he will be loudly removed from office.
Because he was Prez4ADay, and as part of the original deal, the T.Rump serves no time, and retires back to his mansion with a brand spanking new off-shore bank account full of cash, all his known crimes magically washed away, a fabulous retirement package with 24 hour a day secret service protection for life for his entire fam damily, and all his pending law suits fully laundered, pressed and folded away - one very, very happy crook.
Then Hillarious (or the hidden real Korporate Klown), steps in to take charge without having to do any of the dirty work at all.
Corporate Amerika gets all the legal changes they want.
The T.Rump gets money, power, and all his legal problems fixed and insures his family's dynasty at the Tax payer's expense.
The American Public gets it up the ass and blames it all on the T. Rump, who could not give a shit what Americans think of him so long as he stays richer than God.
Clinton, or the VP or an as-of-yet un-announced Ringer gets to play Prez for the Korporates without having to take any blame for all the legal shit that the T. Rump put into place.
Of course while promising to do so, the new POTUS will do nothing to remove any of those corporate-written executive orders.
Situation Normal, purposely AFU.
The Train to Freedom is renamed the Train to Fascism, and none of the peon passengers notice the switch.
Parasitic Political Perfection!
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]