3901

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 09, 2017, 04:41:12 PM »

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/08/519247480/china-okays-38-trump-trademarks-critics-say-it-violates-emoluments-clause

This has nothing to do with Trump being the president.
Nope.

China did it because he's a swell business man.

3902

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 09, 2017, 01:30:28 PM »

I read NPR.  It's as centralist as the AP plus it has way less banner ads and click bait.

(have you ever SEEN fox news's site?  Ugh...)

3903

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 08, 2017, 07:58:08 PM »

((sigh... I had up to part 6 and my browser crashed))

So I'm gonna go through 1-10 of your link and see how they measure up against Truth.

1. Nope, Bush Sr. actually signed NAFTA.
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/08/13/trump-wrong-nafta-bill-clintons-creation.html
Here's a pic even.
NAFTA started with Ronald Regan and Bush Sr. signed the actual agreement in December of 1992.  In 1993, Bill Clinton became president and the agreement had to go through Congress, which was put into US law in 1993.  Basically Bush Sr. made NAFTA, signed it, and then the US made it law a year later.  In a way both are right, but Clinton didn't have much to do with the actual agreement aside from implementing it in the US.

2. Misleading.  Here's the full quote:
As part of her handling of the case, Clinton filed an affidavit July 28, 1975, requesting that the girl go through a psychiatric examination. “I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing,” Clinton said. “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”
As a court appointed lawyer to a rapist, she had to do her best to represent him.  It's the law.  And she did.  It was horrible but she did.  Those quotes were from her requesting a psych eval of the 12 year old.  Again, part of her job.

3. I can't comment much since I don't work for CNN IT but it IS something that happens.  However, if she was cut off due to saying something bad, why would she have been kept on staff AND promoted after the election?

4. http://www.omaha.com/news/metro/crowd-at-hillary-clinton-s-omaha-rally-exceeded-with-overflow/article_0c8bc1b0-5946-11e6-abf7-6f6f26e598bf.html
Overflow room.  Cause the gym had a maximum capacity.  And the article above is from the local paper.  Unless you think that's also "fake news".

5. The timestamp of that live show was 3 hours after the gas dropped.  CNN reported on it that day at some point.
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2016/08/02/syria-gas-attack-damon-lok.cnn
Check the date.  August 2nd.  The same day the gas dropped.  So unless Fox news just kept playing the same video on a loop while saying the same thing for hours on end and that's good, this point is full of failure.

6. The title was to illustrate Trump going from courting black voters to talking about felons not being allowed to vote.  Blacks are disproportionately convicted of crimes in the US more than any other race.  Thus, it's almost hypocritical to try to court the black vote while also attacking the idea of allowing convicted felons who served their time ,which has more blacks proportionally than any other group.  Kinda like saying "Republicans should vote for me but welfare is shit and needs to be killed" since more Republicans are on welfare in some states than Democrats.

7. Yeah and several fox news networks picked up the story that CNN posted.  And according to this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3734646/Secret-Service-says-didn-t-formally-approach-Trump-Campaign-Second-Amendment-death-threats.html
There was no "formal" talks but informal is a possibility.  So the CNN report may have been accurate.

8. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/29/cnn-edits-donald-trump-tweet-referencing-crooked-h/
Yep, they didn't show it in the TV spot but did on the website then said they should have done it right on the TV. 

9. It's not CNN but a sister company owned by CNN.  So misleading there.
And yes, they did blur out the re-aired (the live broadcast had it non-blurred) version.  They said it was an error but personally, I'm glad they did.  No sense in getting political.  If he had a Clinton shirt, they should have blurred it too.  After all, why would you care about his opinion on political parties if you're telling a story of how he saved a life?  Also, he was a jackass for wanting to make a political statement while talking about saving a baby's life. Tell the facts, don't get political!

10. If you read the actual transcript of the show that the guy cuts off, you'll find that Howard Stern didn't say anything but they got the tapes from his show and Trump was on it and he said he was for the war.  The tape is what it is.  So in a way, Howard Stern confirmed it, but in 2002, not now.


So first ten and they're (at best) misleading (likely unintentionally).

As was said, this isn't some kind of explosive proof, it's more like luke warm coffee.

3904

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: ACA, 2017...

« on: March 08, 2017, 06:14:35 AM »

So the GOP released their plan.
Its not the worse thing in the world but it certainly favors the rich.


The idea of replacing subsidies with tax credit means that if you pay little tax, you get only a little help.  Plus, if you spend more tax credit than you get (like say you lose your job halfway through the year) then you have to pay the government back as owed taxes.


And 30% surcharge for lapsed insurance?  How will that NOT be abused?  Tell insurance companies they can charge more if they manage to have a lapse in insurance coverage and they'll do it.  Wouldn't be hard either.  Just agree to end all policies a week before any new policies start.  "To allow time for us to process your insurance change."


I'm just gonna enjoy my welfare state and feel pity for you guys.

3905

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 07, 2017, 07:22:22 PM »

Yep.

So... where in those does it say "We wiretapped Trump Tower"?  Cause that's the issue.  We've known for months that his people were being monitored.  HE's known!

Why does it matter if it was Trump Tower specifically, when the warrant gives them broad access to the "US Persons" in question regardless of their location?

Because that's what Trump blew up over. 
He didn't care that his people were being monitored.  He cared that HE was being monitored.  Or more accurately, his tower.

The FBI was doing their job and nothing says Trump himself was in the warrant.  Nor did Obama order it, according to the reports.

So again, Trump blew up and we're asking for the evidence of what he said, not what he (should have) already known.

Where did you glean that Trump isn't upset that his entire campaign was targeted? Are you seeing something I didn't see that indicated he's only concerned about whether or not he specifically was under surveillance.

MY wires, MY phones.  Nothing about his campaign surrogates or managers or staff.  I also checked and this was the first time he's mentioned it despite, as you so very happily pointed out, the information is much older.  So it's very likely he JUST saw a fox news article on it and tweeted about it.

The first warrant that got knocked down was specifically named "Trump." Interestingly enough, the FISA court has only denied 11 applications in 33 years, yet someone must have had the foresight to realize that the abuse of authority for political reasons was a bad idea.

Wait... wait wait... so you give me those articles, point to them as a reliable source, and think "Trump" is somehow indicating that it's got nefarious purposes?  That "Trump" can't mean 'trump campaign'?  You do realize that the other two articles basically said the FBI had enough evidence to show a probable link of Donald and Russia, right?  That they feel, based on the evidence, that Donald was being helped by the Russians?

Also, are you suggesting that the FBI shouldn't have probed Hillary Clinton about her e-mails?  Cause, you know... that happened while she was campaigning.  Or is it ok cause she's the one you hated?

Personally, I think that if there's evidence ANY politician has been compromised by a foreign government, it should be investigated.  Obviously you don't think that ways because Trump won.  Had he lost, you'd be speaking a different story with different points, trying to justify that Russia made Trump lose so weak Hillary would be in power.  Or if Hillary had the "Russia" problems, you'd be demanding the same thing.

Sorry, but your pure hypocrisy is showing.

Either this was done with Obama's approval or he had a rogue AG, he is hiding behind plausible deniability, or he was completely incompetent and had no control over his administration. Nixon resigned for something infinitely less severe.

Pfft.
Yes, because the ONLY explanation is evil and nefarious purposes to make Trump lose and not because people actually saw evidence of interference.  Nope, that just doesn't fit your view, does it?  Get your head out of Trump's ass.  You're only bitching cause this might mean Trump did something illegal or at the very least didn't win on his own merit and you just can't stand the idea that maybe, just maybe, Trump wasn't as great as he claimed.

The Weaponization of Bureaucracy is a terrifying to anyone that values a free and open society.

I'm not sure how to take this.
Yes, but also no.
I mean, defunding Obama care and Planned Parenthood is weaponization of Bureaucracy.  Tax laws are weaponized bureaucracy.  Hell, any regulation is weaponized bureaucracy.  The government is attacking an industry and their practices such as lead paint, child labor, air pollution, and unsafe coal mines.

3906

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 07, 2017, 06:19:18 PM »

Yep.

So... where in those does it say "We wiretapped Trump Tower"?  Cause that's the issue.  We've known for months that his people were being monitored.  HE's known!

Why does it matter if it was Trump Tower specifically, when the warrant gives them broad access to the "US Persons" in question regardless of their location?

Because that's what Trump blew up over. 
He didn't care that his people were being monitored.  He cared that HE was being monitored.  Or more accurately, his tower.

The FBI was doing their job and nothing says Trump himself was in the warrant.  Nor did Obama order it, according to the reports.

So again, Trump blew up and we're asking for the evidence of what he said, not what he (should have) already known.

3907

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 07, 2017, 05:50:22 PM »

Yep.

So... where in those does it say "We wiretapped Trump Tower"?  Cause that's the issue.  We've known for months that his people were being monitored.  HE's known!

3908

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 07, 2017, 04:38:11 AM »

Shitposting is the only thing that brought the issue to the limelight.

What are you talking about? This was reported in the New York Times last year.

They were so happy to jump on the "no evidence" bandwagon,

I would think everyone would be happy to jump on the "no evidence" bandwagon given that there is no evidence. What is the other option? To blindly trust the God Emperor when he rants on Twitter about political opponents? No thanks.

There is plenty of evidence of wiretapping taking place. Who actually ordered it on the other hand is pretty ambiguous. If Loretta "Meet me on the Tarmac" Lynch was involved with it, what are the odds she kept it completely secret from the administration?

[/size]And on the flipside, still absolutely no evidence of any wrong doing or Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

Depends on what Jeff "I met with Russian Ambassadors during the campaign" Sessions spoke about, doesn't it?

Though again, the evidence of wiretapping Trump Tower isn't there.  You sure as hell haven't presented anything.  Why not start there?[/quote]

3909

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 06, 2017, 08:00:21 PM »

Shitposting is the only thing that brought the issue to the limelight.

What are you talking about? This was reported in the New York Times last year.

January, actually.
But not of trump tower, just trump associates communications.  But it would be odd to not include Trump tower in that.

3910

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 06, 2017, 04:55:36 PM »

Obama authorized the FISA tap. You'll find out soon enough.

If he did, he should be punished.
But given that Trump hasn't shown us the evidence he very easily should have access too, I'm guessing there isn't any.  I mean, why would Trump not show the evidence he has if he has it?  He has the potential to shut up every single Obama lover in the nation AND obliterate the Democratic party from existence.

Well, that would be a very amateur move. You got to remember this guy is playing a different game then his opponents. He's pretty much allowing them to destroy themselves and their own credibility... supposedly we will get an investigation for this and I'm pretty sure the backroom deals are in full swing trying to figure out who to scapegoat and who to protect.

O.o

So... he's going to rant online about it and isn't presenting evidence so that the opponents can destroy themselves by making scapegoats to blame once an investigation concludes?

That's stupid.  Which makes me think you're just trying to justify his actions.
If he has evidence, he'd release it.  He would not wait for the Democrats to destroy themselves or their credibility since he's destroying his by presenting no evidence.

Like if I were to say "TheTruthIsOnHere is a horse fucker and has fucked my horse." then you'd be pretty pissed, right?
But you getting mad at my refusal to present evidence wouldn't hurt your credibility, it would hurt mine for making the claim then not backing it up.

And we call in an investigation. 
While that goes on, everyone asks "Where's the proof?" and eventually just assumes I was lying. 

Trump is crying wolf and seeing who flocks to his defense.  Or he HAS evidence and reacted in his typical knee jerk way then when his advisors saw the evidence went "Oh shit, we can't release this!" and backed away really fast, hoping it'll be forgotten.  That's why the president won't comment on it further.  The first thing in his presidency he won't comment on after the initial rant.


On another note:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/06/516408650/trump-signs-new-order-blocking-arrivals-from-6-majority-muslim-countries

THIS is how you do a proper ban to review policies.
Well done trump lawyers.

3911

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 06, 2017, 04:14:16 PM »

Obama should really sue his ass for libel and defamation of character.  This is ridiculous.

Are you kidding me? If that was the standard for libel and defamation then Trump could likely sue the entire mainstream media establishment. It has been an attack on his character since the day he decided to run.

He could (and has) but it takes years to go through the courts and requires a lot of information to become very public very quickly.  Most people don't want that.

Obama authorized the FISA tap. You'll find out soon enough.

If he did, he should be punished.
But given that Trump hasn't shown us the evidence he very easily should have access too, I'm guessing there isn't any.  I mean, why would Trump not show the evidence he has if he has it?  He has the potential to shut up every single Obama lover in the nation AND obliterate the Democratic party from existence.

Also, even Kelly Ann Conway said she only knows what she read in a news report (Mainstream media lol)

3912

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 06, 2017, 03:09:34 PM »

Obama should really sue his ass for libel and defamation of character.  This is ridiculous.

He should.  This is what Trump calls Fake News and is also what Trump wants to be able to sue news media for.

3913

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 06, 2017, 05:30:41 AM »

It should be clear by now that Trump is not going to stop campaigning. He has no real policy, he can only be against other people or institutions, whether that's Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or the Press.

Not to his supporters.  To them its all lies and he's doing a great job.

3914

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 05, 2017, 08:40:50 AM »

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/analysis-quiet-response-president-trump-s-explosive-claim-n729196

And this is an interesting analysis on the reaction.

ie. Not much.

3915

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 05, 2017, 07:26:55 AM »

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/04/518478158/president-trump-accuses-obama-of-wire-tapping-provides-no-evidence

Well that's a bombshell.

It might be true but that would mean either a) there's a warrent that makes it a good idea or b) Obama did NOT do it legally.

I'm guessing a since Trump hasn't released any evidence.  If it was b, he'd have the entire document online in an hour.

3916

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 04, 2017, 06:02:48 PM »

Sssooo...

March 4 Trump

An hour after it started had almost no one there.  Maybe 100 people, tops?  And none of DC's cams in the National Mall could see them.

3917

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 03, 2017, 01:00:45 PM »

Sessions has recused himself from the investigation into Russian involvement, which is the bare minimum in terms of an appropriate response, but I suppose it's a start. I love the quote from Trump, too. He's still sticking to his obviously contradictory story about how these allegations are simultaneously serious leaks from intelligence agencies and fabricated news from the media. The lie is so easy to spot that it could be in an Encyclopedia Brown mystery. How did Encyclopedia know that Trump was lying?

Eh, Tump can change his support any day.  Remember the last guy who got fired becaus of this Russia stuff?  Tump had 100% confidence in him then fired him the next day.


Also, Trump lies so much, you'd think Hillary was elected.

3918

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 02, 2017, 06:21:43 PM »

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/01/518058002/ag-sessions-talks-with-russian-envoy-may-be-conflict-with-senate-testimony

Whoops?

"I did not have diplomatic relations with that man, Sergey Kislyak"

He never said he didn't talk to any Russian diplomats. His job before this was precisely that, speaking with foreign ambassadors from around the world. He said he didn't speak to them in regard to the campaign.

Actually the issue is he lied about it to the senate during his confirmation hearing.  (You didn't read the link, did you?)
Thus, my choice of play on Bill Clinton's lie to Congress.   Not that he did or didn't talk to him, but that he lied about it to the confirmation hearing.

3919

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 02, 2017, 05:45:48 PM »

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/01/518058002/ag-sessions-talks-with-russian-envoy-may-be-conflict-with-senate-testimony

Whoops?

"I did not have diplomatic relations with that man, Sergey Kislyak"

3920

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 01, 2017, 08:01:32 PM »

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/us/politics/trump-speech.html

The plot thickens?

A Speech?!? GASP!!!!!! SOMEONE LOCK THIS MAD MAN AWAY!!!!!

Notice the question mark.

He's confused, I suspect, because Trump acted presidential.  He spoke in a way that he should have been speaking all along.  Which is confusing since his speech didn't match some of the things he said prior to it.

Almost like it was written by someone else (it was) and Trump was told "just read this."

Also, the proposal by Trump of legislation giving illegal immigrants official status.

You haven't been watching the Trump speeches I have been watching then. Maybe you saw a rally, or a debate.

 And are you saying that speech writers aren't a thing that even the gold tongue devil Obama himself uses?

See, speech writers are fine.  In fact, Trump has speech writers but he often doesn't use them properly or goes off the cuff alot.  Which is a problem when you're addressing an audience that expects consistency and presidential posture.

But from what I hear the mannerism was perfectly presidential so good for him.
He just has to keep that up.