weisses wrote: » Its scary to let people like Trump and his ideology become POTUS ....
Eric Cartman wrote: » I think we can all agree that communism would be worse in every respect.
relax carry on wrote: » Leaving everything thing he is and has done aside, will anyone from the Trump side of the house comment on his interview with the Sun which he described as fake news yesterday? How does this look to you where he has sat down given an interview (regardless of it's contents) to a journalist (regardless of the publication) and then turns around not 24 hours later to call his own interview fake news? His own interview!!! He then threatens to release recordings to prove its fake news but that hasn't materialised yet. The Sun's recording was released however. Doesn't it strike you as odd that the Sun becomes more Trust worthy than the POTUS. As an aside, since we are overwhelmed with the stream of consciousness which emanates from him every time he opens his mouth, you may have missed this one from the interview; apparently he's more popular than Abraham Lincoln.http://www.newsweek.com/trump-claims-he-beat-honest-abe-lincoln-died-presidential-polling-1022435
Eric Cartman wrote: » If he had have ge would have sank ger argument twice as quick. Its scary that they'll let people who believe in the 'jim corr of political ideologies' onto television to discuss politics
Wanderer78 wrote: » Is America a democracy?
Leroy42 wrote: » Maybe someone here can help explain the whole Strzok issue. Apart from the texts and e-mails, is there actually any evidence that he undertook any illegal actions to thwart then candidate Trumps campaign?
Danzy wrote: » All sides should be allowed talk, it is the only way Society can evolve or deal with its issues.
Christy42 wrote: » Whatever he says that I agree with and do not have direct proof is false is what he means. Whatever he says that is pointed out to me is a lie or that I don't agree with is him playing out a strategy to get whatever I want or votes or is just being a politician (that last one can now excuse an infinite number of lies given Trump lies more than any politician in a western democracy). This is why we have had posters praising both his commitment to increasing NATO and its capabilities and his commitment to take it apart.
mcmoustache wrote: » I'm looking forward to the Manafort trial. He's some piece of work. If you haven't already, you should check out "Get me Roger Stone" on netflix. Both he and Stone are Grade-A cnuts. With the Concord case, their legal team seems to be doing little more than trolling at this point. They're pulling a Manafort and challenging Muellers authority instead of defending their actions. I suspect that they'll just wind up and go poof in the night.
Igotadose wrote: » Oh, on trade war news (haven't heard much about that in the last week.) This'll be something that will tank the US economy fastest - when it hits (and the affects are starting, some small businesses shutting doors due to price hikes on imported steel). Here's what the experts think - it will harm Americans. http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/steel-and-aluminum-tariffs. This is a nice piece by Krugman, pretty much ties what's going on with Trump, Trade wars and lays the fault at Corporate America's feet. I particularly like this quote about voodoo economics (which was famously coined by GHW Bush to describe Reagan's economic plan): "Similarly, organizations like (the) Heritage (foundation) have long promoted supply-side economics, a.k.a., voodoo economics — the claim that tax cuts will produce huge growth and pay for themselves — even though no economic experts agree. So they’ve already accepted the principle that it’s O.K. to talk economic nonsense if it’s politically convenient." And this later quote: " The point is that it’s not just world trade that’s at risk, but the rule of law. And it’s at risk in part because big businesses abandoned all principle in the pursuit of tax cuts."https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/opinion/trade-war-trump-business-jobs.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Climate deniers, anti-vaxxers and other groups who don’t have science on their side bandy about phrases that wouldn’t be out of place in a college class on deconstruction – phrases such as “many sides,” “different perspectives”, “uncertainties”, “multiple ways of knowing.” As Naomi Oreskes and Erik M Conway demonstrated in their 2010 book Merchants of Doubt, rightwing thinktanks, the fossil fuel industry, and other corporate interests that are intent on discrediting science have employed a strategy first used by the tobacco industry to try to confuse the public about the dangers of smoking. “Doubt is our product,” read an infamous memo written by a tobacco industry executive in 1969, “since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public.” The strategy, essentially, was this: dig up a handful of so-called professionals to refute established science or argue that more research is needed; turn these false arguments into talking points and repeat them over and over; and assail the reputations of the genuine scientists on the other side. If this sounds familiar, that’s because it’s a tactic that’s been used by Trump and his Republican allies to defend policies (on matters ranging from gun control to building a border wall) that run counter to both expert evaluation and national polls. What Oreskes and Conway call the “tobacco strategy” was helped, they argued, by elements in the mainstream media that tended “to give minority views more credence than they deserve”. This false equivalence was the result of journalists confusing balance with truth-telling, wilful neutrality with accuracy; caving in to pressure from rightwing interest groups to present “both sides”; and the format of television news shows that feature debates between opposing viewpoints – even when one side represents an overwhelming consensus and the other is an almost complete outlier in the scientific community.
Midlife wrote: » I disagree somewhat. If you have someone, for example, a scientist who denies climate change, I believe it's incorrect to give these people equal airtime when they're in an absolute minority. It's a big mistake the mainstream media has been making - treating fringe views as equal simply because they're the only opposing viewpoint.
Midlife wrote: » This is kind of my point. In this post-truth, alternative facts world (which wasn't all the doing of Trump in fairness), you have a consensus among experts which is largely ignored when it suits either side. There was a good article about it today in the guardian by Michiko Kakutani. It's not an exclusive left or right thing - though perhaps at the moment it's better employed by vested interests and big business who tend to be represented by the right.https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jul/14/the-death-of-truth-how-we-gave-up-on-facts-and-ended-up-with-trump
Deleted User wrote: » Sorry for posting a comedy show but Dara O'Briain did an excellent segment on this equal airtime thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDYba0m6ztE
StringerBell wrote: » Everybody should be entitled to put forward a case for their views once they do it honestly.
Deleted User wrote: » Sorry for posting a comedy show but Dara O'Briain did an excellent segment on this equal airtime thing.
Midlife wrote: » I agree but the honesty part is the big problem. Honesty has been lost and people will suffer for it. His followers don't see it but when you've a person who is shown to lie or state falsehoods on average five or six times a day, how can you trust this person to develop policy? Surely future policy must be developed on current reality?
BabyCheeses wrote: » Maybe you could tell us some of those details for the trade talks.
Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart—you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you're a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/eaabbaf8a16773590ee22dd6c15f1d68.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bed6f1d088326d5eb21c0139847332c7.svg)
