*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #2720 on: May 02, 2018, 06:42:59 PM »
I never claimed it suddenly came into existence. I was pointing out that it is now more prevalent than ever before, not that Yellow Journalism was invented in 2014.

Do you have any evidence that it is? I'd argue that Limbaugh was just as prominent in the nineties as Colbert is now.

Quote
My entire point was how you're driving people towards a single source, e.g. Fox, versus a wide variety.

And my point is that you're wrong, because Fox is not the only conservative source of news.

Quote
Also, the majority of political talk shows do not skew conservative. The reason you've heard of Limbaugh is because there are so few conservative talk shows that the ones that do surface tend to stick out in your mind. Turn on a talk show in a major US city and it will almost certainly be left-leaning.

That's ridiculous. Conservative talk radio has always dwarfed the progressive kind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_talk_radio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_talk_radio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-listened-to_radio_programs
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #2721 on: May 02, 2018, 10:31:30 PM »
Do you have any evidence that it is? I'd argue that Limbaugh was just as prominent in the nineties as Colbert is now.

Again, you've missed my point.

And my point is that you're wrong, because Fox is not the only conservative source of news.

I never said otherwise? You keep building strawmen, Saddam. You've apparently missed my entire point.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_talk_radio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_talk_radio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-listened-to_radio_programs

These are all lists of major viewed channels. I said specifically the number of available outlets for liberal media vastly outnumbers the conservative views. In fact, you're pointing out precisely the problem I'm talking about. Liberal talk shows are everywhere, and liberals can choose from a wide variety of media (NPR alone has dozens of individual shows!) whereas conservative media is doomed to coalesce around a major talking head like Limbaugh or Hannity.

The fact that one man can get such a high viewership is exactly the problem I'm pointing out. He gets all those views because of the lack of alternatives, not because conservatism is popular.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2018, 10:34:10 PM by Rushy »

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #2722 on: May 03, 2018, 12:31:25 AM »
Do you have any evidence that it is? I'd argue that Limbaugh was just as prominent in the nineties as Colbert is now.

Again, you've missed my point.

No, I didn't. You're claiming that unconstructive political commentary is now more prevalent than ever before, and I'm asking you to back that up. It's a tricky thing to do, I'll admit, but you were the one who made the claim.

Quote
And my point is that you're wrong, because Fox is not the only conservative source of news.

I never said otherwise? You keep building strawmen, Saddam. You've apparently missed my entire point.

Yes, you did:

What's a mainstream right-leaning media outlet? Fox. Alright, name another? Mysteriously missing.

My entire point was how you're driving people towards a single source, e.g. Fox, versus a wide variety.

You were very clear about what you meant, and you were wrong.

Quote
These are all lists of major viewed channels. I said specifically the number of available outlets for liberal media vastly outnumbers the conservative views. In fact, you're pointing out precisely the problem I'm talking about. Liberal talk shows are everywhere, and liberals can choose from a wide variety of media (NPR alone has dozens of individual shows!) whereas conservative media is doomed to coalesce around a major talking head like Limbaugh or Hannity.

The fact that one man can get such a high viewership is exactly the problem I'm pointing out. He gets all those views because of the lack of alternatives, not because conservatism is popular.

There are eight conservative talk shows listed here, not including Alex Jones. You can't seriously claim that "one man" is capitalizing on a lack of conservative alternates when there are eight enormously popular shows out there. And do you have any evidence that liberal talk shows are that much more plentiful than conservative ones?
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #2723 on: May 03, 2018, 12:46:10 AM »
No, I didn't. You're claiming that unconstructive political commentary is now more prevalent than ever before, and I'm asking you to back that up. It's a tricky thing to do, I'll admit, but you were the one who made the claim.

Other than "unconstructive" not being a real word, that was only part of my claim. Plus, the fact remains that it is more prevalent. Since the creation of the internet, would you say the internet is used more for memes and detrimental political jabs, or more for thoughtful political commentary? If you honestly believe the latter is the current state of affairs, then I should remind you that Reddit doesn't count as "thoughtful political commentary".


Quote
Quote
And my point is that you're wrong, because Fox is not the only conservative source of news.

I never said otherwise? You keep building strawmen, Saddam. You've apparently missed my entire point.

Yes, you did:

What's a mainstream right-leaning media outlet? Fox. Alright, name another? Mysteriously missing.

My entire point was how you're driving people towards a single source, e.g. Fox, versus a wide variety.

You were very clear about what you meant, and you were wrong.

How was I wrong? You didn't name another mainstream news organization anywhere near the size MSNBC, CNN, or NPR. Fox quite literally has a monopoly on conservative television.

There are eight conservative talk shows listed here, not including Alex Jones. You can't seriously claim that "one man" is capitalizing on a lack of conservative alternates when there are eight enormously popular shows out there. And do you have any evidence that liberal talk shows are that much more plentiful than conservative ones?

Eight enormously popular conservative shows versus thousands of mildly popular liberal shows. Again, that's my point. Liberals in America don't have to resort to a few people talking when they have entire stations ala NPR to broadcast views that agree with them.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2018, 12:50:05 AM by Rushy »

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #2724 on: May 03, 2018, 11:04:23 AM »
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 Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #2725 on: May 03, 2018, 02:19:23 PM »
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. :)

Re: Trump
« Reply #2726 on: May 03, 2018, 03:21:32 PM »
Yes, we need a new thread, I think so anyway.  The election is over (except the recounts).

Anyway:
Donald Trump and his VP (the governor of Indiana) have successfully kept 800 jobs in the state of Indiana by giving a company $7 Million worth of tax cuts over 10 years to said company.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/indiana-gives-7-million-in-tax-breaks-to-keep-carrier-jobs-1480608461
Quote
Indiana officials agreed to give United Technologies Corp. $7 million worth of tax breaks over 10 years to encourage the company’s Carrier Corp. unit to keep about 1,000 jobs in the state, according to people familiar with the matter.
The heating and air conditioning company will invest about $16 million to keep its operations in the state, including a furnace plant in Indianapolis that it had previously planned to close and shift the work to Mexico, the people said.
Carrier has previously said it expected to save about $65 million a year by shutting the plant and moving its operations to Monterrey.
President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence were expected to announced the deal with Carrier in Indiana on Thursday.
The deal would cover 800 Carrier workers from the Indianapolis furnace plant and an additional 300 research and headquarters positions that weren’t slated to go to Mexico, according to another person briefed on the deal.
The company still plans to move 600 jobs from the Carrier plant to Mexico. It also will proceed with plans to close a second plant in Huntington, Ind., that makes electronic controls, moving 700 other jobs to Mexico.
Mr. Trump has played up the partial rescue as a sign he can deliver on campaign promises. Through the presidential primary and general election, the Republican businessman had made an example of Carrier, at one point threatening to put a 35% tariff on Carrier imports unless it reversed its decision to move the jobs to Mexico.
“This is a big win for the incoming administration but an even bigger win for the people of Indiana,” transition spokesman Jason Miller said Thursday. The transition team has declined to provide details about the cost of keeping those jobs in the state.
Mr. Trump also will host an evening rally at U.S. Bank Arena in Cincinnati, a Republican stronghold. Ohio was one of six states the Republican captured after being won twice by Democratic President Barack Obama. That is the start of a broader “thank you” tour that is expected to include stops in Florida and across the Midwest.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, who during his presidential campaign had also attacked Carrier and other firms shifting work abroad, criticized the deal on Thursday, saying Mr. Trump failed to make good on his campaign pledge to save all of the jobs from moving to Mexico.
The deal also creates a bad precedent, Mr. Sanders contended, writing that Mr. Trump “has signaled to every corporation in America that they can threaten to offshore jobs in exchange for business-friendly tax benefits and incentives.”
The deal that emerged from weeks of negotiations between United Technologies brass and officials in the Trump camp led by Mr. Pence, the Indiana governor, is a relatively standard package of state incentives, according to people familiar with the agreement.
On Wednesday, Carrier said “incentives offered by the state were an important consideration,” without providing further details.
“This agreement in no way diminishes our belief in the benefits of free trade and that the forces of globalization will continue to require solutions for the long-term competitiveness of the U.S. and of American workers moving forward,” the company said.
In addition to Carrier, United Technologies makes Pratt & Whitney jet engines and Otis elevators. It employs about 200,000 people, about one third of them in the U.S.
Representatives of the incoming administration also discussed the Farmington, Conn., company’s wishes regarding federal regulations and their desires for an overhaul of corporate tax laws, according to one of the people.
For Mr. Trump, the trips to Indiana and Ohio meant there were no announced meetings on Thursday with prospective cabinet members. Those meetings will resume on Friday in New York, where Mr. Trump is scheduled to visit with Sen. David Perdue (R., Ga.), retired Adm. Jay Cohen, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, and Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D., N.D.).

What does this mean?
The company is getting $700,000 a year in tax savings to instead of $65 Million a year in cost savings.

I consider myself a liberal but have no problem with trump. He's got north Korea to end war with south Korea--a feat that none of his predecessors could accomplish. He's also correct about protecting the borders in my opinion. And I agree with him on international trade deals.

Cutting taxes does appear to attract businesses to the USA. I really don't mind it as long as all of the people of the USA are taken care of too, not just the merchant class.
Hi y'all. I am a typical GENIUS girl who does NOT follow the masses and who does NOT blindly accept what is told to me without EVIDENCE. That being said, I don't believe in a lot of "facts" (the quotations mean they're NOT actual facts) including evolution, the holocaust, and the globular earth HYPOTHESIS.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #2727 on: May 03, 2018, 03:52:06 PM »
I consider myself a liberal but have no problem with trump. He's got north Korea to end war with south Korea--a feat that none of his predecessors could accomplish.
A feat he has yet to accomplish as no peace agreement has been signed.

Quote
He's also correct about protecting the borders in my opinion.
His argument is full of unsuported data and racist comments. (ie. mexicans illegals are all drug dealers and criminals)

Quote
Cutting taxes does appear to attract businesses to the USA. I really don't mind it as long as all of the people of the USA are taken care of too, not just the merchant class.
You can't have both, I'm afraid.  Taxes being cut are basically going to cut gov. spending, which is going to hurt the non-merchant class.
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 Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #2728 on: May 04, 2018, 01:35:43 PM »
https://www.npr.org/2018/05/04/608193538/gop-primaries-focus-on-candidates-loyalty-to-president-trump

Pretty sure this is how dictatorships start.

"Ok, we'll vote based on your loyalty to The President.  Least loyal is removed.  Go."
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 Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #2729 on: May 04, 2018, 03:52:28 PM »
https://www.npr.org/2018/05/04/608193538/gop-primaries-focus-on-candidates-loyalty-to-president-trump

Pretty sure this is how dictatorships start.

"Ok, we'll vote based on your loyalty to The President.  Least loyal is removed.  Go."

Actually this fits right along with how politics usually works in this country. If the president is popular (and Trump is, among Republicans, which obviously is all that matters in a primary race) it benefits a candidate to align himself with him.
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 Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #2730 on: May 04, 2018, 05:01:19 PM »
https://www.npr.org/2018/05/04/608193538/gop-primaries-focus-on-candidates-loyalty-to-president-trump

Pretty sure this is how dictatorships start.

"Ok, we'll vote based on your loyalty to The President.  Least loyal is removed.  Go."

Actually this fits right along with how politics usually works in this country. If the president is popular (and Trump is, among Republicans, which obviously is all that matters in a primary race) it benefits a candidate to align himself with him.
Align?  Sure.
But this is about Loyalty, not alignment.  You can say "I support President Trump's current adgenda" but saying "I am loyal to the president and his work" is not the same thing and is more concerning, in my book.
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 Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #2731 on: May 04, 2018, 06:12:03 PM »
Dave is right, the God Emperor is making his move, within a few months he'll be in full control of the entire American government, and then he'll invade Canada and annex them.

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #2732 on: May 04, 2018, 08:14:23 PM »
Dave is right, the God Emperor is making his move, within a few months he'll be in full control of the entire American government, and then he'll invade Canada and annex them.

I am going to have to ask you to see Canadian Bacon and read about the war of 1812, then fuck off.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #2733 on: May 04, 2018, 10:14:52 PM »
Dave is right, the God Emperor is making his move, within a few months he'll be in full control of the entire American government, and then he'll invade Canada and annex them.


If I thought he actually was smart enough to pull it off, I'd be worried.
Secondly, ya gotta wipe out the lying libturds first.  For the good of America.
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 Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #2734 on: May 04, 2018, 11:26:07 PM »
Dave is right, the God Emperor is making his move, within a few months he'll be in full control of the entire American government, and then he'll invade Canada and annex them.

I am going to have to ask you to see Canadian Bacon and read about the war of 1812, then fuck off.

There won't be a war. The God Emperor will personally invade and subject every single Canadian to his glorious golden aura, then they'll have no choice to but to join the Imperium, I mean, America.


*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #2735 on: May 04, 2018, 11:43:31 PM »
https://www.npr.org/2018/05/04/608193538/gop-primaries-focus-on-candidates-loyalty-to-president-trump

Pretty sure this is how dictatorships start.

"Ok, we'll vote based on your loyalty to The President.  Least loyal is removed.  Go."

Actually this fits right along with how politics usually works in this country. If the president is popular (and Trump is, among Republicans, which obviously is all that matters in a primary race) it benefits a candidate to align himself with him.
Align?  Sure.
But this is about Loyalty, not alignment.  You can say "I support President Trump's current adgenda" but saying "I am loyal to the president and his work" is not the same thing and is more concerning, in my book.

I don't think so, because this is about candidates showing their loyalty to Trump because the voters expect it, not because Trump is demanding it.

Voters like Trump and want to see his agenda realized. That's where all this is stemming from, not some authoritarian grab for power by the president himself.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2018, 11:47:43 PM 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 Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #2736 on: May 05, 2018, 05:30:32 AM »
https://www.npr.org/2018/05/04/608193538/gop-primaries-focus-on-candidates-loyalty-to-president-trump

Pretty sure this is how dictatorships start.

"Ok, we'll vote based on your loyalty to The President.  Least loyal is removed.  Go."

Actually this fits right along with how politics usually works in this country. If the president is popular (and Trump is, among Republicans, which obviously is all that matters in a primary race) it benefits a candidate to align himself with him.
Align?  Sure.
But this is about Loyalty, not alignment.  You can say "I support President Trump's current adgenda" but saying "I am loyal to the president and his work" is not the same thing and is more concerning, in my book.

I don't think so, because this is about candidates showing their loyalty to Trump because the voters expect it, not because Trump is demanding it.

Voters like Trump and want to see his agenda realized. That's where all this is stemming from, not some authoritarian grab for power by the president himself.
I am aware.
But the voters demand it because Trump has attacked anyone (even Republicans) who doesn't do as he wishes.  Claiming those who say no are American hating people who need to be removed from office.


Let me be clear, I don't think Trump is some authoritarian dictator who wants to rule America intentionally.  I think he's an arrogant naraccist whose used to saying "jump" and having everyone jump as high as possible.  He's used to being his own boss, owning his own company and that is translating to his presidency.  He hasn't left the mindset of "I make the rules" completely.
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 Fortuna

  • *
  • Posts: 2979
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #2737 on: May 05, 2018, 07:23:02 AM »
Elizabeth Warren will run against Trump in 2020 and win. Screencap this.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #2738 on: May 05, 2018, 02:31:28 PM »
But the voters demand it because Trump has attacked anyone (even Republicans) who doesn't do as he wishes.  Claiming those who say no are American hating people who need to be removed from office.

I just don't see any support for this statement whatsoever, certainly not in the article you posted.

Quote
Let me be clear, I don't think Trump is some authoritarian dictator who wants to rule America intentionally.

I guess you meant "indefinitely"? Anyway, that surprises me because I do think this is Trump's goal, or at least something he'd like to see happen. The praise he heaps on other despots around the world gives his attitude away.

I just don't think it's fair to say that's what's happening here. This feels like politics as usual to me, candidates basically saying whatever they think the voters want to hear in a desperate bid to set themselves apart from the field.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2018, 02:34:11 PM 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 Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #2739 on: May 05, 2018, 04:11:53 PM »
But the voters demand it because Trump has attacked anyone (even Republicans) who doesn't do as he wishes.  Claiming those who say no are American hating people who need to be removed from office.
I just don't see any support for this statement whatsoever, certainly not in the article you posted.
Not in the article, no.  But I read some of the comments to Pro-Trump memes and Trump's tweets.  You can especially see it when he attacks members of his own team or party.

Quote
Quote
Let me be clear, I don't think Trump is some authoritarian dictator who wants to rule America intentionally.

I guess you meant "indefinitely"? Anyway, that surprises me because I do think this is Trump's goal, or at least something he'd like to see happen. The praise he heaps on other despots around the world gives his attitude away.

I just don't think it's fair to say that's what's happening here. This feels like politics as usual to me, candidates basically saying whatever they think the voters want to hear in a desperate bid to set themselves apart from the field.

I did not mean "indefinitely", I meant "Intentionally."  As in I don't think he is thinking "I will fool these saps into making me their ruler for life!" but more like "Why the hell is it so hard to do what I want?"

Yes, the politicians are doing that, not disagreeing.  But when you have a list of candidates who need to profess their loyalty to Trump to get elected (or keep their seat) then it doesn't matter if they're genuinely loyal or just faking it: Both will have the same results.
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.