Re: Trump
« Reply #1240 on: April 25, 2017, 09:01:47 AM »
Yeah, he agrees now after Trump has changed his mind. Where does he say that NATO did not fight terrorism, but now does, as Trump said?

*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1241 on: April 25, 2017, 10:57:03 AM »
Gotta agree with Trekky.

Take what Trump said during the election and unless Stoltenberg suddenly changed HIS opinion once Trump was elected (which is unlikely) then Trump changed his to match Stoltenberg.

So really, Stoltenberg isn't agreeing with Trump, Trump is agreeing with stoltenberg.  A classic case of "Now that I read up on it, I realize I was wrong" but without the whole admitting he was wrong thing.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #1242 on: April 25, 2017, 12:28:00 PM »
Holy semantics, Batman!  This super fine grain criticism of Trump is such a waste of time.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1243 on: April 25, 2017, 03:21:59 PM »
Take what Trump said during the election
ok, let's do just that:

Mr Trump called Nato "obsolete" because it "wasn't taking care of terror".

Nato, he said, was "very important" to him but only five of its 28 member-states were paying their fair share and that, he said, was "very unfair to the United States"

Now, let's compare it to what Stoltenberg is "totally agreeing" with:

BLITZER: Because you know the president has repeatedly said, President Trump, that he is upset with NATO because NATO as an organization is not doing enough to fight terror.

Did he say that to you today?

STOLTENBERG: He said that he would like NATO to do more. And I totally agree with him.

Yes, you can make a truly SexWarrior-style case for how "not taking care of something" and "not doing enough to take care of something" are two different things. But we've all heard a whole lot of Trump talking in the past few years. Even a proper anti-Trump sycophant is likely to agree that the man exaggerates a lot when he gets too excited about something.

Yeah, he agrees now after Trump has changed his mind.
No, he agreed with Trump before he changed his mind (obsolete -> not obsolete). Reading between the lines, it sounds like your issue is that Trump said NATO "wasn't taking care of terror", where in your mind NATO was taking care of terror. In other words, Trump's choice of words was piss-poor. If I'm reading you correctly: yeah, you're technically right. Trump shouldn't have said NATO aren't taking care of terror, he should have said that they're doing a shitty job at it (agree or not, this was clearly his stance on the matter).

However, there's an important message to be sent there: Trekky, the world has mostly moved on past the short "haha BIGLY Trump uses wrong words!!!!" phase. Now, let me be clear, uh, let me be clear: his communication style isn't going to change anytime soon. If you keep denying current events just because someone you don't like didn't phrase them so well, well, Rama's already said it.

Of course, let's not forget that people focusing on pointless trite like this is only hurting the Democrats. Nobody else. It's going to become the party of "The Secretary General of NATO says he completely agrees with Trump and that NATO will change accordingly, BUT ACTUALLY IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY AND TRUMP IS WRONG :D :D :D"

Where does he say that NATO did not fight terrorism, but now does, as Trump said?
I Googled "NATO doesn't fight terrorism", but all I found was a comments section on an InfoWars article. If you're going to pussyfoot around with phrasing and semantics, you may want to make sure that you're not committing the very fallacy you're trying to capitalise on.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2017, 03:36:22 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1244 on: April 25, 2017, 04:00:39 PM »
In OTHER trump news:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/04/18/presidential-executive-order-buy-american-and-hire-american

I applaud this.  This is the kind of economic policy we need.  It'll take years before the effects create jobs, of course, and the costs will never go down, but this is what America needs.  They need to understand just what "Made in America" means cause it sure as hell doesn't mean cheaper.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/25/525512179/trump-administration-to-impose-20-percent-tariff-on-canadian-lumber

Also pissing off Canada but again, better to use our trees than theirs, am I right?  With any luck, his next order will require all gasoline to be American made and all oil to be American pumped.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: Trump
« Reply #1245 on: April 25, 2017, 04:12:55 PM »
Yes, you can make a truly SexWarrior-style case for how "not taking care of something" and "not doing enough to take care of something" are two different things. But we've all heard a whole lot of Trump talking in the past few years. Even a proper anti-Trump sycophant is likely to agree that the man exaggerates a lot when he gets too excited about something.

How can I tell the difference between Trump being wrong and him exaggerating? Because despite you avoiding actually posting what Trump said during the election, we can just look it up:

Quote from: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-donald-trump-sen-bernie-sanders/story?id=37949498
I think NATO's obsolete. NATO was done at a time you had the Soviet Union, which was obviously larger, much larger than Russia is today. I'm not saying Russia's not a threat. But we have other threats. We have the threat of terrorism and NATO doesn’t discuss terrorism, NATO's not meant for terrorism. NATO doesn’t have the right countries in it for terrorism.

So (a) NATO is obsolete, (b) NATO doesn't discuss terrorism, (c) NATO isn't meant for terrorism, and (d) NATO "doesn't have the right countries in it for terrorism."

If he's exaggerating and instead means NATO should focus more on terrorism, then it's far from clear here. But we'll get back to that.

Yeah, he agrees now after Trump has changed his mind.
No, he agreed with Trump before he changed his mind (obsolete -> not obsolete).

That's simply not true. From July 2016:

Quote from: Jens Stoltenberg
I will not interfere in the US election campaign, but what I can do is say what matters for NATO. Solidarity among Allies is a key value for NATO. This is good for European security and good for US security. We defend one another. We have seen this in Afghanistan, where tens of thousands of European, Canadian, and partner nation troops have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with US soldiers. The United States has always stood by its European Allies. Now the US is stepping up its support once again, and increasing its presence. European Allies are also stepping up. For the first time in many years, defence spending among European Allies and Canada rose last year. And this year we expect a further increase of 3%—or US $8 billion. Two world wars have shown that peace in Europe is also important for security in the United States.

That hardly sounds like someone who agrees with Trump that NATO was obsolete.

Reading between the lines, it sounds like your issue is that Trump said NATO "wasn't taking care of terror", where in your mind NATO was taking care of terror. In other words, Trump's choice of words was piss-poor. If I'm reading you correctly: yeah, you're technically right. Trump shouldn't have said NATO aren't taking care of terror, he should have said that they're doing a shitty job at it (agree or not, this was clearly his stance on the matter).

It's not really clear. And if he meant that, he should have said that. I'm not going to assume he meant something he didn't say, especially when he himself in the AP interview admitted that when talking about NATO on the campaign trail, he didn't know much about it. It reflects an attitude of making sweeping generalizations about things he isn't qualified to talk about and does not understand, which is really the important point here.

Re: Trump
« Reply #1246 on: April 25, 2017, 08:52:52 PM »
According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump is planning to cut the top tax rate for owner-operated businesses from 39.6% to 15%, which would dramatically reduce taxes on Trump's real estate empire.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1247 on: April 26, 2017, 01:30:11 AM »
According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump is planning to cut the top tax rate for owner-operated businesses from 39.6% to 15%, which would dramatically reduce taxes on Trump's real estate empire.

Lowering taxes has been part of the plan since the beginning and a huge part of his campaign. It's a big reason for why many people voted for him. Have you not been paying attention?

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1248 on: April 26, 2017, 01:54:24 AM »
According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump is planning to cut the top tax rate for owner-operated businesses from 39.6% to 15%, which would dramatically reduce taxes on Trump's real estate empire.

Lowering taxes has been part of the plan since the beginning and a huge part of his campaign. It's a big reason for why many people voted for him. Have you not been paying attention?

I'm having trouble seeing which part of Trekky's post indicates that he wasn't aware of this.  ???
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1249 on: April 26, 2017, 02:25:59 AM »
According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump is planning to cut the top tax rate for owner-operated businesses from 39.6% to 15%, which would dramatically reduce taxes on Trump's real estate empire.

Lowering taxes has been part of the plan since the beginning and a huge part of his campaign. It's a big reason for why many people voted for him. Have you not been paying attention?

I'm having trouble seeing which part of Trekky's post indicates that he wasn't aware of this.  ???

Trekky is apparently not aware of it, since his implication is that Trump is lowering taxes to benefit himself; when in truth a major part of why people voted him in is because they wanted personal and business taxes lowered.

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #1250 on: April 26, 2017, 02:37:01 AM »
Trekky is apparently not aware of it, since his implication is that Trump is lowering taxes to benefit himself; when in truth a major part of why people voted him in is because they wanted personal and business taxes lowered.

Can't it both benefit Trump and be something voters wanted?

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1251 on: April 26, 2017, 02:44:45 AM »
According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump is planning to cut the top tax rate for owner-operated businesses from 39.6% to 15%, which would dramatically reduce taxes on Trump's real estate empire.

Lowering taxes has been part of the plan since the beginning and a huge part of his campaign. It's a big reason for why many people voted for him. Have you not been paying attention?

I'm having trouble seeing which part of Trekky's post indicates that he wasn't aware of this.  ???

Trekky is apparently not aware of it, since his implication is that Trump is lowering taxes to benefit himself; when in truth a major part of why people voted him in is because they wanted personal and business taxes lowered.

Still not seeing where you draw that conclusion.  In fact the article Trekky links to directly states that he's trying to make good on his campaign promises so unless you think Trekky linked an article he didn't actually read I think we can safely assume he knows that it was one of Trump's key promises in the election.

Quote
By restating core pieces of his campaign plan, Mr. Trump is trying to frame the coming tax debate in Congress.

Perhaps you should have read the article yourself before attempting to pass judgment.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1252 on: April 26, 2017, 02:52:21 AM »
Trekky is apparently not aware of it, since his implication is that Trump is lowering taxes to benefit himself; when in truth a major part of why people voted him in is because they wanted personal and business taxes lowered.

Can't it both benefit Trump and be something voters wanted?

Sure. Lowering taxes benefits the American people, and Trump is an American person. Building the wall is also something that will benefit both Trump and American people by helping to keep drugs out of the country. Are we going to start seeing accusations saying that Trump is just building the wall so he can live in a country with less drugs?

Quote from: Roundy
Still not seeing where you draw that conclusion.  In fact the article Trekky links to directly states that he's trying to make good on his campaign promises so unless you think Trekky linked an article he didn't actually read I think we can safely assume he knows that it was one of Trump's key promises in the election.

I didn't criticize Trekky's link. I criticized Trekky, who stated that Trump is going to save a whole lot of money with his plan, as if Trump were doing it for that purpose.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1253 on: April 26, 2017, 02:52:40 AM »
I didn't criticize Trekky's link. I criticized Trekky, who stated that Trump is going to save a whole lot of money with his plan, as if Trump were doing it for that purpose.

Again, you seem to be jumping to conclusions.  Is the fact that the plan benefits Trump personally in doubt, and if not, what exactly was incorrect about Trekky's comment? 

Also, I think you might just be tired because I never said you criticized Trekky's link.  Get some sleep, Tom.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2017, 02:54:22 AM by Roundy »
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1254 on: April 26, 2017, 03:15:10 AM »
I didn't criticize Trekky's link. I criticized Trekky, who stated that Trump is going to save a whole lot of money with his plan, as if Trump were doing it for that purpose.

Again, you seem to be jumping to conclusions.  Is the fact that the plan benefits Trump personally in doubt, and if not, what exactly was incorrect about Trekky's comment?

It wasn't a mere statement of fact. Does it appear that we are posting irrelevant statement of facts in this thread? Trump was born on June 14th. Trump has blond hair. Is that what we are doing here?

No, that is not what Trekky is doing. The sentence he wrote implies that Trump sought office for financial gain, which is insulting and ridiculous since he already won that game many years ago. Trekky ignores the fact that he was voted into office to lower taxes because that is that the American people wanted, who were all well aware that it would lower Trump's taxes as well.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2017, 03:34:55 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1255 on: April 26, 2017, 03:19:14 AM »
Of course Trump is doing this to benefit himself. Are we really going to entertain the notion that this might be an altruistic act? He lost the right to the benefit of the doubt when he refused to both release his tax returns and divest from his holdings.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1256 on: April 26, 2017, 03:31:54 AM »
Of course Trump is doing this to benefit himself. Are we really going to entertain the notion that this might be an altruistic act? He lost the right to the benefit of the doubt when he refused to both release his tax returns and divest from his holdings.

The American people voted him into office to do this, who are all very well aware that it would lower Trump's taxes as well. This is what the voters wanted. Shaming Trump, when he has been candid about lowering taxes from the very beginning, and voted in democratically to enact that plan, is incredibly duplicitous.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1257 on: April 26, 2017, 03:42:59 AM »
I didn't criticize Trekky's link. I criticized Trekky, who stated that Trump is going to save a whole lot of money with his plan, as if Trump were doing it for that purpose.

Again, you seem to be jumping to conclusions.  Is the fact that the plan benefits Trump personally in doubt, and if not, what exactly was incorrect about Trekky's comment?

It wasn't a mere statement of fact. Does it appear that we are posting irrelevant statement of facts in this thread? Trump was born on June 14th. Trump has blond hair. Is that what we are doing here?

No, that is not what Trekky is doing. The sentence he wrote implies that Trump sought office for financial gain, which is insulting and ridiculous since he already won that game many years ago. Trekky ignores the fact that he was voted into office to lower taxes because that is that the American people wanted, who were all well aware that it would lower Trump's taxes as well.

Well, I mean, it's awful convenient.  I don't criticize him for it as much as Trekky does (stop the press, a politician is looking out for his own interests) but, you know, in the end he is looking out for his own interests with this move, both politically and personally.  Surely you see that?

I don't think anything more can be construed from Trekky's comment than that, that it's convenient that it happens to help him a great deal in his own business dealings.  There's nothing outlandish about the idea that he campaigned on promises that he knew would be beneficial to himself in the first place. 

Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1258 on: April 26, 2017, 03:48:17 AM »
His tax plan(if that is it) is contradictory to his "America First" plan.


Lowering taxes lowers government revenue.
Using only American made items (like steel) for public projects will increase the cost of the projects.




He wishes to increase costs while decreasing revenue.  All while attempting to balance the budget.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1259 on: April 26, 2017, 08:25:43 AM »
How can I tell the difference between Trump being wrong and him exaggerating?
If you genuinely find yourself struggling, ask me. I'll help you, free of charge.

Meanwhile, if you'd like to try having a go at it yourself, try reading several media articles around whichever sentence confuses you. Chances are you'll encounter a few accurate paraphrases with some explainers on current events. As I said before, the trick is not to take Trump's words as something that exists in a vacuum; as soon as you acknowledge world news, you'll be A-OK!

Because despite you avoiding actually posting what Trump said during the election
????? I did post what he said during the election. I even provided links. Why do you lie?

So (a) NATO is obsolete, (b) NATO doesn't discuss terrorism, (c) NATO isn't meant for terrorism, and (d) NATO "doesn't have the right countries in it for terrorism."
(a) is the initial claim which he then tries to back up, (b) and (c) were largely accurate at the time (b is arguable and a slight stretch, c is not), (d) is meaningless drivel

If he's exaggerating and instead means NATO should focus more on terrorism, then it's far from clear here.
No, but of course you conveniently ignored the relevant quote which I posted, and which he actually repeated multiple times (as opposed to the less-than-stellar one-off you're trying to misdirect the conversation to)

Trekky. Why do you lie? What do you have to gain from this?

That's simply not true. From July 2016:
That's great. What about the 10-or-so months between July 2016 and the statement I'm referring to? Do you reckon, oh, I dunno, that the two may have since met and discussed the issue? Could that have anything to do with Stoltenberg's change of tune?

Why do you lie, Trekky? Tell us.

That hardly sounds like someone who agrees with Trump that NATO was obsolete.
Indeed, the statement where he said he "totally agrees" with Trump was just a bit more recent than July 2016. I'm not surprised you didn't find the relevant quotes in the completely wrong statement. I do wonder what you were trying to demonstrate here, though. You already knew the timeline of events. You already saw the relevant transcripts. And yet you persist in pretending.

Stoltenberg isn't gonna change his mind just because you link a couple of his old opinions on the Internet. NATO is changing, because the Secretary General "totally agrees" with Trump's team's assessment. If you dislike that fact, tell us why - there might be a meaningful discussion to be had there. If you like it, hey, welcome to not being super-wrong for once. But pretending that it's not happening is really not gonna affect anything or anyone but yourself.

It's not really clear. And if he meant that, he should have said that.
Finally, you admit your issue. I'm afraid this is one I can't help you with. If you want to be wrong about everything all the time, continue to treat Trump's statements as extremely literal, and divorce them from current events. Just, y'know... it's not gonna be very useful for you, or anyone else.

It wasn't a mere statement of fact. Does it appear that we are posting irrelevant statement of facts in this thread? Trump was born on June 14th. Trump has blond hair. Is that what we are doing here?

No, that is not what Trekky is doing. The sentence he wrote implies that Trump sought office for financial gain, which is insulting and ridiculous since he already won that game many years ago. Trekky ignores the fact that he was voted into office to lower taxes because that is that the American people wanted, who were all well aware that it would lower Trump's taxes as well.
Tom is on the money here. Agree with Trump's tax cuts or not (I personally don't), Trekky is clearly on some sort of personal crusade here. His constant attempts to put a spin on things only weakens the anti-Trump message. Hell, I'm surprised he didn't rush to the defence of the "thousands of psychiatrists!!!!" who tried to diagnose Trump with a mental illness without even talking to him.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2017, 08:52:49 AM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume