Re: Trump
« Reply #600 on: February 09, 2017, 11:54:54 PM »
When they squeeze in a quick blurb about some terrorist plot or attack in between your local murders and the token feel good story on the 5 O' Clock news does that really count as "covering" the attack?

I hate getting my news about terror attacks from local news instead of, like, every major news organization for about a month.

Re: Trump
« Reply #601 on: February 10, 2017, 12:03:18 AM »
The 9th Circuit decided 3-0 to continue the stay on the travel ban. Trump went all caps.

Re: Trump
« Reply #602 on: February 10, 2017, 02:16:09 AM »
On a slightly less confirmable, but much more frightening note...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-putin-idUSKBN15O2A5

"Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call. When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said. Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. Trump also talked about his own popularity, the sources said. "

Re: Trump
« Reply #603 on: February 10, 2017, 03:04:51 AM »
On a slightly less confirmable, but much more frightening note...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-putin-idUSKBN15O2A5

"Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call. When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said. Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. Trump also talked about his own popularity, the sources said. "

He argued for nuclear proliferation in the campaign. I can't see why anyone would be surprised.

Re: Trump
« Reply #604 on: February 10, 2017, 04:16:40 AM »
On a slightly less confirmable, but much more frightening note...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-putin-idUSKBN15O2A5

"Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call. When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said. Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. Trump also talked about his own popularity, the sources said. "

He argued for nuclear proliferation in the campaign. I can't see why anyone would be surprised.

Oh that doesn't surprise me at all. The worrisome part is that he apparently didn't even know about a major nuclear treaty with Russia, and made an immediate off the cuff declaration that it was a bad deal. The idiot is playing fast and loose with our nuclear weapons treaties...

Re: Trump
« Reply #605 on: February 10, 2017, 05:49:57 AM »
"The Government contends that the district court lacked authority to enjoin enforcement of the Executive Order because the President has “unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens.” The Government does not merely argue that courts owe substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determinations of the political branches—an uncontroversial principle that is well-grounded in our jurisprudence...Instead, the Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. The Government indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the judiciary to entertain a constitutional challenge to executive actions such as this one.

There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy."

#legalburn
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Luke 22:35-38

  • *
  • Posts: 382
  • The earth is round. Prove I'm wrong.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #606 on: February 10, 2017, 06:34:53 AM »
He wasn't ignoring the others, bud, he just lives in Norway.
I said he ignored my mentioning of Germany.
Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth"

Scripture, science, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion. Can dumb luck create a smart brain?

Please PM me to explain sunsets.

*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5504
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #607 on: February 10, 2017, 06:40:09 AM »
He wasn't ignoring the others, bud, he just lives in Norway.
I said he ignored my mentioning of Germany.
I didn't ignore it so much as I didn't have the time to research at that moment.

*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5504
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #608 on: February 10, 2017, 01:12:00 PM »
It doesn't matter what I ever said Dave. Just as much as it doesn't matter what Trump ever does. You decided to hate us both. You decided not to value my opinions long ago. I can speak with the plainest of language, and the most direct irrefutable logic possible, and you would ignore or pull out some absurd disqualifier out of your ass.
Hate you?  Meh, I just find you annoying.  Trump?  Yep.  I do like that he's getting illegals out (like the story of the women who was illegal, making regular trips to immigration to talk about it, and finally being deported.  She's been in the US for 21 years.  Not a criminal by any stretch but I'm not a fan of illegals.
I'm also happy he kept the LGBT protections in place for federal workers.  I just hate his personality, mannerisms, speech, and other actions.

Quote
My fundamental beliefs: Smaller government, personal liberty. From what I can tell, Trump is doing right by that. You might not like it because your core beliefs are obviously something different... I don't have time to debate whether or not socialism works (it doesn't) or disarming law abiding citizens decreases gun violence (it doesn't) but if you think I'm going to sit idly by and not laugh at your misery than you got another thing coming.
I've no issue with your fundamental beliefs.
I'm not even attacking them at all, just your lack of ability to defend Trump's actions and words.
Socialism works well.  (See Roads, parks, public schools, police, fire department.  Not to mention where I live, socialized medicine works very well.)
I agree that disarming lawbiding Americans won't help but neither will Arming them.  I've seen the data.  Of course, the national average on violent crimes has dropped over the last 4 years or so.  Make whatever connection you want about that.

Quote
Do you really think people are getting paid to be pro-trump on the internet? Like some kind of organization committed to Correcting the Record or some lame shit like that?
Actually, yes.  Not Correcting the Record (Trump's own words really don't need correcting) but people who are paid to write favorable comments about him on social media.  It's actually quite common.  I know a guy who worked in the news industry and everyone does it: Politicians, companies, celebrities, the works.  There are whole companies whose job it is to write positive reviews on Yelp(and other social media/review sites) for your business. It's against most of their policies to let them but it's not easy to stop.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/11/yelp-outs-companies-that-pay-for-positive-reviews/

Quote
It is your opinion that it isn't happening.

When they squeeze in a quick blurb about some terrorist plot or attack in between your local murders and the token feel good story on the 5 O' Clock news does that really count as "covering" the attack?

The same people that white washed Hillary Clinton are trying to white wash Islam.
What news are you watching that does that?  Because so far all the mass killings have made national news and had more than just a spot.  Granted, I read news websites not watch TV but still...
Also, you need to understand one very important thing:
Profit.

See, each and every news agency aside from a few are in it for profit.  Money.  The Free Market.  They must provide a product for their customers.  So they'll give them what they want.  This is what media bias is, it's about making their customers happy.  Fox does it by making things more sensational for right wingers.  CNN does it by making things more emotional for left-wingers.  If they didn't, people would just get their news from those that did and they'd lose advertising revenue and sponsors.  It's sad but that's the way it works: you can't run a news agency without money and you can't make money without getting people to read your news.

Re: Trump
« Reply #609 on: February 10, 2017, 10:02:36 PM »
Quote
Do you really think people are getting paid to be pro-trump on the internet? Like some kind of organization committed to Correcting the Record or some lame shit like that?
Actually, yes.  Not Correcting the Record (Trump's own words really don't need correcting) but people who are paid to write favorable comments about him on social media.  It's actually quite common.  I know a guy who worked in the news industry and everyone does it: Politicians, companies, celebrities, the works.  There are whole companies whose job it is to write positive reviews on Yelp(and other social media/review sites) for your business. It's against most of their policies to let them but it's not easy to stop.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/11/yelp-outs-companies-that-pay-for-positive-reviews/


I know it happens. But sometimes, your product is so good you don't need to do it. Chick-Fil-A doesn't need a brigade of people online defending them. Even when they were in the midst of a liberal meltdown over the owner's pro-traditional marriage views. Chick-Fil-A didn't cave, and I never once have seen an empty drivethru at one before.

Trump is just a better product than certain other candidates that had to rely more heavily on "correcting the record" to make them appear palatable.

Also, you need to understand one very important thing:
Profit.

I get it. The entire issue is this: how much of it is an accurate representation of the opinions of their viewership, and how much of it is opinions they wish their viewership adopt. The old art imitating life and vice versa conundrum.

At the end of the day, controlling public opinion, and influencing people's minds, attitudes, and actions, is A LOT more valuable than any ad revenue you can generate from Nissan and Cialis commercials.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2017, 10:28:59 PM by TheTruthIsOnHere »

Re: Trump
« Reply #610 on: February 10, 2017, 11:09:19 PM »
Trump is just a better product than certain other candidates that had to rely more heavily on "correcting the record" to make them appear palatable.

Apparently a good enough product to get a majority of votes.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11053
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #611 on: February 10, 2017, 11:17:51 PM »
Apparently a good enough product to get a majority of votes.
Are you one of those anti-electoral-college people, or do you acknowledge that EC results are likely more representative of the general populace?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Trump
« Reply #612 on: February 10, 2017, 11:51:53 PM »
Hold up, I am confused by this exchange.

Trump is just a better product than certain other candidates that had to rely more heavily on "correcting the record" to make them appear palatable.
Apparently a good enough product to get a majority of votes.

But he didn't get a majority of votes, except in the electoral college...

Apparently a good enough product to get a majority of votes.
Are you one of those anti-electoral-college people, or do you acknowledge that EC results are likely more representative of the general populace?

What on earth do you mean by "EC results are likely more representative of the general populace?"

Re: Trump
« Reply #613 on: February 11, 2017, 12:01:19 AM »
I forgot a word. :'(

*

Online honk

  • *
  • Posts: 1804
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #614 on: February 11, 2017, 04:19:35 AM »
Arguing about who's shilling for whom is a pointless exercise. I'm sure that both candidates had some astroturfing and shilling going on, and I'm also sure that none of those shills would be wasting their time in a debate on a sparsely-populated board like this one. Also, while I wouldn't use the word "cave" to describe Chick-fil-A's reaction to the criticism over the same-sex marriage issue, it's not accurate to imply that they stuck to their guns and weathered the storm without blinking. They made a lot of policy changes in response.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

Re: Trump
« Reply #615 on: February 11, 2017, 01:18:19 PM »
So after the all-caps twitter post about going to court, it turns out that now the administration may not challenge the 9th circuit ruling, and may instead try to reword the executive order.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-court-idUSKBN15O2XS

*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5504
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #616 on: February 11, 2017, 03:32:51 PM »
So after the all-caps twitter post about going to court, it turns out that now the administration may not challenge the 9th circuit ruling, and may instead try to reword the executive order.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-court-idUSKBN15O2XS
Well of course.

Trump probably looked at Jeff Sessions and said "I wanna sue those assholes who blocked my bill!" 
To which Jeff replied: "That would be the federal government."
"Fine.  Sue'em."
"You are the federal government, sir.  You can't sue yourself."
"... I'm what?"

Re: Trump
« Reply #617 on: February 11, 2017, 03:59:12 PM »
Hold up, I am confused by this exchange.

Trump is just a better product than certain other candidates that had to rely more heavily on "correcting the record" to make them appear palatable.
Apparently a good enough product to get a majority of votes.

But he didn't get a majority of votes, except in the electoral college...

Apparently a good enough product to get a majority of votes.
Are you one of those anti-electoral-college people, or do you acknowledge that EC results are likely more representative of the general populace?

What on earth do you mean by "EC results are likely more representative of the general populace?"

The EC helps make sure that three or four states with the largest populations can't just enforce their wills on the rest of the nation with impunity.

Otherwise we might as well just let California and New York appoint their dictator and end elections altogether.

I'm more in favor of breaking the electoral college down into more districts than I am in just going straight popular vote. I live in a perpetually blue state and a Republican voters see casting a vote as futile. The winner take all system effectually disanfranchises people who find themselves in the minority in their states.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11053
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #618 on: February 11, 2017, 04:08:08 PM »
What on earth do you mean by "EC results are likely more representative of the general populace?"
*sigh*

Okay, let's write it out, then. Generalising hugely for the sake of brevity (though I invite you to Google "why is the electoral college a thing?" for answers which are both more detailed and nuanced than my back-of-the-envelope scribble), here's the common case for the Electoral College:

The USA is a federation of states with some degree of self-determination. These states are often different in many ways, the most relevant of which being population (and population density), economic development, dominant religion, culture, education, probably a few other things I'm forgetting. Now, since population, population density and economic well-being are all factors, certain states are bound to be under- or over-represented in a nationwide election. And since education, culture, and religion are all factors, different states can be assumed to vote differently (and we know this to be true since the USA held a few elections to date).

To give you some idea: the population of Indiana (6.5M in 2012) and Minnesota (5.4M) are roughly comparable. In 2012, 76.1% of Minnesotans and 56% of Indianans voted. Looking at the "popular vote", the voice of Minnesota would have to count as more, purely because more people turned up to represent it. Even though every voter set out to represent their state, you would give the state that can afford more representatives to hold more power. This would be particularly egregious in the USA, since it's a nation suffering from constant attempts at alienating voter groups.

The EC system as it stands is not perfect. In particular, the "winner takes all" rule strongly lowers its representative power. The electoral votes per states should also be recalculated to reflect the changes in relative populations over time. However, to throw it out entirely would mean to disempower states which, for whatever reason, cannot attain a higher voter turnout. In other words - you're giving power to the rich (or at least taking it away from the poor) - something the Democratic Party has had an affinity for recently.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2017, 04:10:36 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Trump
« Reply #619 on: February 11, 2017, 05:07:19 PM »
What on earth do you mean by "EC results are likely more representative of the general populace?"
*sigh*

*eyeroll*

Quote
Okay, let's write it out, then. Generalising hugely for the sake of brevity (though I invite you to Google "why is the electoral college a thing?" for answers which are both more detailed and nuanced than my back-of-the-envelope scribble), here's the common case for the Electoral College:

The USA is a federation of states with some degree of self-determination. These states are often different in many ways, the most relevant of which being population (and population density), economic development, dominant religion, culture, education, probably a few other things I'm forgetting. Now, since population, population density and economic well-being are all factors, certain states are bound to be under- or over-represented in a nationwide election. And since education, culture, and religion are all factors, different states can be assumed to vote differently (and we know this to be true since the USA held a few elections to date).

Yes, I too passed high school history.

Quote
To give you some idea: the population of Indiana (6.5M in 2012) and Minnesota (5.4M) are roughly comparable. In 2012, 76.1% of Minnesotans and 56% of Indianans voted. Looking at the "popular vote", the voice of Minnesota would have to count as more, purely because more people turned up to represent it. Even though every voter set out to represent their state, you would give the state that can afford more representatives to hold more power. This would be particularly egregious in the USA, since it's a nation suffering from constant attempts at alienating voter groups.

Who do you think is advocating assigning the number of representatives based on the number of voters? That would be an awful idea, and has nothing to do with whether the EC represents the general populace more than a straight popular vote.

Quote
The EC system as it stands is not perfect. In particular, the "winner takes all" rule strongly lowers its representative power. The electoral votes per states should also be recalculated to reflect the changes in relative populations over time. However, to throw it out entirely would mean to disempower states which, for whatever reason, cannot attain a higher voter turnout. In other words - you're giving power to the rich (or at least taking it away from the poor) - something the Democratic Party has had an affinity for recently.

That's not what the EC was made for at all. It adds weight to voters in less populated states. It has nothing to do with making up for voter turnout. In fact, the three most populous states (CA, TX, NY) had some of the worst voter turnouts, which means it is doing the exact opposite of what you are giving it credit for.

I understand that there are pros and cons to the EC. But it certainly does not represent the general populace more accurately than a straight popular vote.