Pages

"Alternative Facts"

DickFuld's picture
DickFuld - Certified Professional
Rank: The Pro | banana points 24,128

Who saw the interview with Kellyanne Conway on Meet the Press this morning where she outlined the "alternative facts" the press secretary was offering yesterday about the about the size of the crowd at the inauguration on Friday? Truly bizarre that White House representatives are concerned about the size of the crowds at the inauguration and now they are trying to defend a claim that is easy to verify as incorrect.

Is it 1984 yet?

Find Your Mentor

  • Increase your chance of landing a job by matching with one of our 200+ mentors.
  • Our mentors are top employees at the most selective firms.
  • Proven process with over 1,100 clients over 10 years.

Comments (203)

Best Response
Jan 22, 2017

Our country's leadership is now pushing arguable, provable facts as complete lies and falsehoods. We've reached a point in time where the White House is putting out blatantly false information on the first couple days of the new administration. We've started denouncing all media that isn't in favor of our leader as "fake news" and "dishonest". Our President has spouted that all disapproving polls of him are "inaccurate" - everyone "loves him." He's ignoring petitions and pleas from the people, many of whom still want him to release his tax returns, and stating that "they don't really want them." This has gotten completely out of hand, and our government is starting to become an actual propaganda machine, which disregards actual facts in favor of some North Korea-esque disinformation.

Scottie Nell Hughes touched on this from her lens and put it aptly at what we're seeing right now (ironically?):

One thing that's been interesting this campaign season to watch is that people that say facts are facts -- they're not really facts. Everybody has a way -- it's kind of like looking at ratings or looking at a glass of half-full water. Everybody has a way of interpreting them to be the truth or not true. There's no such thing, unfortunately anymore, of facts.

This is how modern propaganda works. There is no such thing as facts any more with this administration, and I'm incredibly concerned on the impact this will have and the precedent it will set. Anything Trump says is now fact and we can't listen to any alternatives on the matter? Wonderful - we're in for the greatest presidency that this country has ever seen.

    • 25
    • 1
Jan 22, 2017

How insightful. I am now truly convinced that this is the first time our government has "lied" to us.

Jan 22, 2017

You're deflecting. Let's just give him a free pass on this because "hey, what the hell, past Presidents have done it also!"

We all know the government has lied to us in many ways throughout the years. There is something new and a bit different that we're seeing today and it's slowly becoming the new norm for our country - easily disproven claims designed to shore up the image of our insecure leader? Kim Jong Trump reigns in unopposed! With a world record golf score.

Anyway, my point is that the lies seen over this campaign cycle have slowly worked their way down the totem pole to some of the most easily verifiable claims and statements being spun to be false. We're not talking implicit bias, or leaving out parts of a statement here - we're talking "the sky is green" level lies. It's a step in the wrong direction, we should be moving towards fixing the corruption issues, not worsening them. Again, just think what precedent it sets for the next President, and imagine how much worse it could get if we continue that behavior.

    • 8
Jan 22, 2017

It's not deflecting. It's just the use of satire to point out how ridiculous your statements are. I'm not even sure something that is so provably false can even be described as propaganda. Propaganda, and especially "modern propaganda machine", is inherently more difficult to detect and disprove. That is EXACTLY what makes it so dangerous. It attacks the heuristics in people's decision-making. It truly convinces and persuades people to believe something that is false, to the point that they do not even question it.

That is not what we have here. Is Trump and his administration a bunch of fucktards for pushing the crowd population nonsense? Yes, of course. Is it the hallmark of a complex propaganda machine? No, of course not. But, good try.

Jan 22, 2017

I mentioned a lot more statements made by the current administration as reasoning for my stance on it being modern propaganda.

See the below paraphrased description of exactly what is going on:

Modern propaganda works by getting you to believe nothing. If they can get you to believe that all the news is propaganda, then all of a sudden propaganda from foreign-controlled state media and sourceless rants from domestic caricatures are both on equal playing field with real investigative journalism. If everything is fake, news consumption just becomes a dietary choice, tailored differently to different audiences. To one audience they say "all news is fake", to those who are on their way to conversion they say "trust only these sources", and to those who might be open to skepticism, they just say "hey isn't it troubling the media is just a business?"

Hannah Arendt, who studied all the different fascist movements, noted in 1951 that:

In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and nothing was true. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.

This is just the first step in a scary direction. We should not be letting the current administration push that all media is lies. He's advocating for skepticism in all the wrong places, and definitely going about it in a very destructive way. But if this doesn't sound like he's leading us in that direction, by all means suggest otherwise:

  • Media is fake news and dishonest
  • Democratic election process is rigged
  • Distrust of our intelligence agencies
  • Polls you read are all lies
  • Predictions you read are all lies
  • His crowd at inauguration was among the biggest in the world
  • 3 - 5 million illegals voted in the country, very scary, full investigation to be had based on no evidence

If we listen to everything he's advocating, all our information will be coming from one source - the current administration. Seeing as they've now added in the claim that they're able to use "alternative facts", I'm not sure what the desire is to simply dismiss these statements just because "others have lied too." Get some confidence, and be able to admit when there are problems that need to be addressed - don't just disregard issues that have a profound impact on the entire country just because "people have done it before".

    • 5
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jan 24, 2017

"If you like your insurance plan you can keep it." Obama

I believe the Wash Post ranked this the lie of the year for 2013. Lies in politics are nothing new. Lying about 1/6 of the U.S. economy as Obama did is a much bigger issue.

Jan 24, 2017

Not being able to keep your doctor/insurance was not known a priori. The ACA is a complex piece of legislation both legally and economically. Analyses of the ACA supported Obama's assertion that people wouldn't lose their insurance. It was indeed hyperbole to definitively say that if you like your insurance you can keep it but it wasn't a lie. Being incorrect is not the same as lying. The weatherman isn't "lying" when he says that it will rain tomorrow and it doesn't. It's just that the meteorological models predicted rain and there wasn't any.

    • 3
Jan 24, 2017
DeepLearning:

Not being able to keep your doctor/insurance was not known a priori. The ACA is a complex piece of legislation both legally and economically. Analyses of the ACA supported Obama's assertion that people wouldn't lose their insurance. It was indeed hyperbole to definitively say that if you like your insurance you can keep it but it wasn't a lie. Being incorrect is not the same as lying. The weatherman isn't "lying" when he says that it will rain tomorrow and it doesn't. It's just that the meteorological models predicted rain and there wasn't any.

This is absolute horseshit. WE--the opposition--pointed out the obvious (that you wouldn't be able to keep your insurance) from the very beginning back in 2010. It was obvious to any reasonable person that people would lose their health insurance that they liked. The ACA allowed people to be grandfathered into their health insurance policy. Health insurance renews annually, and when enough people leave a plan (as they often do--switching jobs, new family needs, etc.) the remaining pool of grandfathered people would not be sufficient to hold an insurance plan together. So people's favored insurance plans were just cancelled. We KNEW this was going to be the case because it was a mathematical certainty given enough time.

Obama was a masterful liar because he mastered the concept of "lies, damn lies, and statistics." He was great at saying things that were technically true but knowing full well that greater context would reveal the real truth.

Jan 22, 2017

You pointed out the "obvious" - just like the below, right?

  • "Death Panels" - Sarah Palin
  • "The health care law rations care, like systems in Canada and Great Britain" - Rick Scott
  • "The IRS is going to be 'in charge' of 'a huge national database' on health care that will include Americans' 'personal, intimate, most close-to-the-vest-secrets." - Michele Bachmann
  • "Obamacare is the largest tax increase in the history of the world" - Rush Limbaugh

Even a broken clock is still right twice a day.

    • 6
Jan 24, 2017
Steam:

You pointed out the "obvious" - just like the below, right?

  • "Death Panels" - Sarah Palin
  • "The health care law rations care, like systems in Canada and Great Britain" - Rick Scott
  • "The IRS is going to be 'in charge' of 'a huge national database' on health care that will include Americans' 'personal, intimate, most close-to-the-vest-secrets." - Michele Bachmann
  • "Obamacare is the largest tax increase in the history of the world" - Rush Limbaugh

Even a broken clock is still right twice a day.

Your argument is a red herring, but I'll play anyway. If you can answer me this question, I will, for the first time in my life, concede that a Democrat had a rational thought.

How could you keep your health insurance under the ACA if you are grandfathered into a plan that no one else can ever buy into again because it no longer meets federal guidelines? Each year at least some percentage of an insurance pool turns over. So if an insurance pool shrinks year after year, how could a pool continue indefinitely into the future, thus allowing a customer to keep his or her insurance? At best, the pool would eventually disappear entirely since it can only shrink.

Anyone with basic understanding of....math understands that an insurance company is not going to continue to offer an insurance policy that will only shrink into the future. They are going to shut down the pools and create new policies that are in line with federal law. Obama and his people knew this--this was no surprise to them at all as some of them were experts in their field. This complete disregard for the truth is why Obama won "lie of the year" from a hard-left news publication like the Washington Post.

To circle back around, every politican lies--some lies are inconsequential (crowd size) and others can negatively impact millions (ACA).

Jan 25, 2017
Virginia Tech 4ever:

Steam:You pointed out the "obvious" - just like the below, right?

  • "Death Panels" - Sarah Palin
  • "The health care law rations care, like systems in Canada and Great Britain" - Rick Scott
  • "The IRS is going to be 'in charge' of 'a huge national database' on health care that will include Americans' 'personal, intimate, most close-to-the-vest-secrets." - Michele Bachmann
  • "Obamacare is the largest tax increase in the history of the world" - Rush Limbaugh

Even a broken clock is still right twice a day.

Your argument is a red herring, but I'll play anyway. If you can answer me this question, I will, for the first time in my life, concede that a Democrat had a rational thought.

How could you keep your health insurance under the ACA if you are grandfathered into a plan that no one else can ever buy into again because it no longer meets federal guidelines? Each year at least some percentage of an insurance pool turns over. So if an insurance pool shrinks year after year, how could a pool continue indefinitely into the future, thus allowing a customer to keep his or her insurance? At best, the pool would eventually disappear entirely since it can only shrink.

Anyone with basic understanding of....math understands that an insurance company is not going to continue to offer an insurance policy that will only shrink into the future. They are going to shut down the pools and create new policies that are in line with federal law. Obama and his people knew this--this was no surprise to them at all as some of them were experts in their field. This complete disregard for the truth is why Obama won "lie of the year" from a hard-left news publication like the Washington Post.

To circle back around, every politican lies--some lies are inconsequential (crowd size) and others can negatively impact millions (ACA).

makes a red herring argument

calls out opposing poster for providing an analogous red herring argument for being a red herring

doesn't realize that's the point

    • 11
Jan 24, 2017
AllDay_028:

makes a red herring argument

calls out opposing poster for providing an analogous red herring argument for being a red herring

doesn't realize that's the point

It's actually not a red herring--it's an example that demonstrates that Donald Trump is not unique in his dishonesty. Everyone has "alternative facts".

Jan 22, 2017

I feel like it would be much easier and simpler to just admit he's been trolling us and he has no intention of actually following through on any of the identity related stuff. That shit has no place and it's not like trying to change the color of the US will help anyone. Just focus on raising incomes, fixing our debt situation, and balancing international relations.

    • 2
Jan 22, 2017

This whole "post-truth" thing is getting out of hand. It doesn't help that the CIA has a poor track-record of honesty and that making a big to-do of Russian hacking while not really offering solid evidence or proposing remedial action makes the whole thing look like a push for more funding.

It's interesting (maybe that's a euphemism for extremely concerning), to see how quickly things have devolved from partisan fake news on Facebook to full-blown official propaganda and generalized nonsense, including for things as dumb as the size of the crowd at the inauguration.

I still think there's a 40% chance he's out of office in the next 6 months. It would be complete chaos, but what a mess of a first couple days.

Anyhow, I hope I can get a couple things deregulated in my industry before the punch bowl gets taken away.

    • 8
Jan 23, 2017
GoodBread:

This whole "post-truth" thing is getting out of hand. It doesn't help that the CIA has a poor track-record of honesty and that making a big to-do of Russian hacking while not really offering solid evidence or proposing remedial action makes the whole thing look like a push for more funding.

It's interesting (maybe that's a euphemism for extremely concerning), to see how quickly things have devolved from partisan fake news on Facebook to full-blown official propaganda and generalized nonsense, including for things as dumb as the size of the crowd at the inauguration.

I still think there's a 40% chance he's out of office in the next 6 months. It would be complete chaos, but what a mess of a first couple days.

Anyhow, I hope I can get a couple things deregulated in my industry before the punch bowl gets taken away.

They aren't required to provide "solid evidence"... every single American intelligence agency confirmed their report, as did international intelligence agencies and private contractors...

    • 2
Jan 22, 2017

The verbiage is actually the CIA & FBI gave "high confidence" and the NSA gave "moderate confidence" in the published reports findings.

Jan 22, 2017

Gee, you gotta love that "slam-dunk" evidence. Come one man.

Jan 22, 2017

Trump's election has thus far been excellent for democracy, and I think it will continue to be excellent for democracy, assuming the integrity of our institutions isn't compromised.

    • 1
    • 7
Jan 22, 2017

Having a guy with 2,864,974 less votes than his opponent win an election is excellent for democracy? Something tells me the founding fathers would have reconsidered the electoral college if they had seen this election.

I don't think anyone disagrees that that the establishment needed a good kick in the balls (as if they had any left), but good for democracy? Really?

    • 7
    • 7
Jan 22, 2017
GoodBread:

Having a guy with 2,864,974 less votes than his opponent win an election is excellent for democracy? Something tells me the founding fathers would have reconsidered the electoral college if they had seen this election.

I don't think anyone disagrees that that the establishment needed a good kick in the balls (as if they had any left), but good for democracy? Really?

My post can be interpreted in many different ways. I'll leave it at that.

    • 2
Jan 22, 2017
GoodBread:

Having a guy with 2,864,974 less votes than his opponent win an election is excellent for democracy? Something tells me the founding fathers would have reconsidered the electoral college if they had seen this election.

I don't think anyone disagrees that that the establishment needed a good kick in the balls (as if they had any left), but good for democracy? Really?

This election is the perfect example of why the founding fathers instituted the electoral college. Trump won the popular vote by over 2 million votes and he won about 90% of the counties, once you ignore California. California would have basically dictated the result of the entire election if it wasn't for the electoral college.

    • 3
    • 4
Jan 22, 2017
Esuric:

GoodBread:Having a guy with 2,864,974 less votes than his opponent win an election is excellent for democracy? Something tells me the founding fathers would have reconsidered the electoral college if they had seen this election.I don't think anyone disagrees that that the establishment needed a good kick in the balls (as if they had any left), but good for democracy? Really?

This election is the perfect example of why the founding fathers instituted the electoral college. Trump won the popular vote by over 2 million votes and he won about 90% of the counties, once you ignore California. California would have basically dictated the result of the entire election if it wasn't for the electoral college.

California has the most people, if I'm not mistaken (by a huge amount). Do people not matter? Winning a majority of counties with a small amount of people in them, doesn't seem like a big accomplishment when most people voted for someone other than you overall.

I'm sure Hillary got more votes if you excluded the Deep South.....oh wait, I don't need that bullshit reason, she got the most votes.

Anyway, back to the original point, Trump won (and I hope he does extraordinarily well). Why is he and his people focused on crowd size and why are his people lying about it? Very strange.

    • 19
    • 2
Jan 22, 2017

Prior to the election Trump claimed (naturally) that it would be record crowds. During event, media reported out that not being the case. Post event, Trump gets into pissing contest with media (naturally) over crowd size.

Jan 22, 2017
DickFuld:

Esuric: GoodBread:Having a guy with 2,864,974 less votes than his opponent win an election is excellent for democracy? Something tells me the founding fathers would have reconsidered the electoral college if they had seen this election.I don't think anyone disagrees that that the establishment needed a good kick in the balls (as if they had any left), but good for democracy? Really?This election is the perfect example of why the founding fathers instituted the electoral college. Trump won the popular vote by over 2 million votes and he won about 90% of the counties, once you ignore California. California would have basically dictated the result of the entire election if it wasn't for the electoral college.

California has the most people, if I'm not mistaken (by a huge amount). Do people not matter? Winning a majority of counties with a small amount of people in them, doesn't seem like a big accomplishment when most people voted for someone other than you overall.

I'm sure Hillary got more votes if you excluded the Deep South.....oh wait, I don't need that bullshit reason, she got the most votes.

Anyway, back to the original point, Trump won (and I hope he does extraordinarily well). Why is he and his people focused on crowd size and why are his people lying about it? Very strange.

It is a fine line with the "do people matter?" argument vs. "we don't want NY and CA to decide the entire election". The thing that I can't understand is why people refer to the popular vote totals as evidence that Trump should not be President. Everyone knew the rules going into the election.

    • 2
Jan 24, 2017

If the election was decided just by popular vote, no state would decide anything. Why is this so hard to understand? The opposite of the electoral college with flyover states deciding the election is not coastal states deciding it...

Really why is this so hard to grasp conceptually? Votes would be votes, with no geographic influence.

    • 4
    • 2
Jan 22, 2017

My point was made not because I am unable to "grasp conceptually" the idea of popular vote, but rather because all Americans knew going into the election that the goal was to get the most electoral votes. Now for some reason, y'all think the popular vote should be of some merit.

    • 1
Jan 24, 2017

I think I can maybe speak to this. It's clear now that the electoral college will only ever benefit the right in this country, because they can't win in the marketplace of ideas (say what you will, but the country overall has shifted far enough to the left for this to be true).

George W. Bush usurping the popular vote by 500,000 was one thing. People were pissed about it, but willing to accept it as a one-off. Trump usurping the popular vote by 3 million (or 9 million if you throw in Johnson and Stein voters), is another thing altogether. It literally wouldn't have ever happened were it not for wholesale gerrymandering on the part of Republicans, and that fact that the Democrats chose to run the most despicable piece of shit in recent memory. Trump's victory, such as it is, is literally the last gasp of the rural whites.

In other words, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...uhhh...we...uhhh...won't get fooled again.

    • 12
    • 2
Jan 22, 2017

Look, I get it. I am a Republican and countless times throughout the campaign process I was disappointed with Trump (I would of rather seen a Romney-type). If you asked me 6 months ago if I thought a straight popular vote system would be fair, I would of said yes (and I would still say so). But you know what I am more disappointed in now? These "women's marches" that are largely a collection of complaining middle aged adults. Cities that could be classified as a "marketplace of ideas" look pretty helpless right now.

For that reason alone, I could not be happier that these people didn't get their way. Half the country was upset with the 08/12 elections, but y'all never saw them "protesting". For now I will see how Trump does and complain later if he sucks.

    • 2
    • 2
Jan 26, 2017
pumpfakesandjabsteps:

Look, I get it. I am a Republican and countless times throughout the campaign process I was disappointed with Trump (I would of rather seen a Romney-type). If you asked me 6 months ago if I thought a straight popular vote system would be fair, I would of said yes (and I would still say so). But you know what I am more disappointed in now? These "women's marches" that are largely a collection of complaining middle aged adults. Cities that could be classified as a "marketplace of ideas" look pretty helpless right now.

For that reason alone, I could not be happier that these people didn't get their way. Half the country was upset with the 08/12 elections, but y'all never saw them "protesting". For now I will see how Trump does and complain later if he sucks.

I don't understand your problem with protests. This is the most civilized possibly way to express disapproval (not counting tweeting, which doesn't do s***). It seems to me that Republicans that are upset at protests are simply afraid or ashamed - as Trump is - to acknowledge that the country is largely opposed to them. TRUMP AND THE REPUBLICANS LOST IN THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS. Now, they won (with a heavy thumb from Russians and the corrupt FBI) in the electoral college, and thats all that matters. Trump is president. No one stopped him from becoming President.

This doesn't mean people won't (or shouldn't) protest or point out that Trump is the least popular president ever, with no semblance of a mandate for the changes he wants to make to America. Its not disrespectful for the significant majority of Americans to point out that we despise this orange criminal.

Jan 22, 2017

This is in the running for one of the most uninformed posts currently on this topic. Good job.

Who is upset at protests? It's more of an inability to understand WTF they are protesting - which is fair because the protesters do not know WTF they are protesting. That much is clear.

"TRUMP AND THE REPUBLICANS LOST IN THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS". How in the fuck do you deduce that from the fact that the Republicans control the House, Senate, and the White House (not to mention the majority of other state-wide positions that were open in November).

Ah, the Russians. In no way, shape, or form can you substantiate your opinion that the Russians actually influenced the result of the election. Even if you concede that they did - which is absurd - that argument can hardly be extrapolated out to the House, Senate, etc. The Russians, may have, thru WikiLeaks exposed REAL issues with HRC and the DNC. The general public took those FACTS into consideration when making their decision on who to vote for. That is the extent of it.

Difficult to say who has a mandate when half the voting-age population doesn't vote. But, what is true is that the Republicans have a mandate.

But please, keep crying. Liberal tears are the nectar of the Gods.

Jan 22, 2017
Arbitraging:

This is in the running for one of the most uninformed posts currently on this topic. Good job.

Who is upset at protests? It's more of an inability to understand WTF they are protesting - which is fair because the protesters do not know WTF they are protesting. That much is clear.

"TRUMP AND THE REPUBLICANS LOST IN THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS". How in the fuck do you deduce that from the fact that the Republicans control the House, Senate, and the White House (not to mention the majority of other state-wide positions that were open in November).

Ah, the Russians. In no way, shape, or form can you substantiate your opinion that the Russians actually influenced the result of the election. Even if you concede that they did - which is absurd - that argument can hardly be extrapolated out to the House, Senate, etc. The Russians, may have, thru WikiLeaks exposed REAL issues with HRC and the DNC. The general public took those FACTS into consideration when making their decision on who to vote for. That is the extent of it.

Difficult to say who has a mandate when half the voting-age population doesn't vote. But, what is true is that the Republicans have a mandate.

But please, keep crying. Liberal tears are the nectar of the Gods.

Is "the marketplace of ideas" a legit term now? I don't think I know anyone that could say that in a sentence with a straight face.

Jan 22, 2017
Arbitraging:

This is in the running for one of the most uninformed posts currently on this topic. Good job.

Who is upset at protests? It's more of an inability to understand WTF they are protesting - which is fair because the protesters do not know WTF they are protesting. That much is clear.

"TRUMP AND THE REPUBLICANS LOST IN THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS". How in the fuck do you deduce that from the fact that the Republicans control the House, Senate, and the White House (not to mention the majority of other state-wide positions that were open in November).

Ah, the Russians. In no way, shape, or form can you substantiate your opinion that the Russians actually influenced the result of the election. Even if you concede that they did - which is absurd - that argument can hardly be extrapolated out to the House, Senate, etc. The Russians, may have, thru WikiLeaks exposed REAL issues with HRC and the DNC. The general public took those FACTS into consideration when making their decision on who to vote for. That is the extent of it.

Difficult to say who has a mandate when half the voting-age population doesn't vote. But, what is true is that the Republicans have a mandate.

But please, keep crying. Liberal tears are the nectar of the Gods.

I'm going to respond to this with a post I made in another topic, because I see this coming up fairly often.

At a point in time when the leader of our country was filmed on video saying the following:

"I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn't get there, and she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she's now got the big phony tits and everything." "I'm automatically attracted to beautiful [women]--I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

In regards to the Women's March (similar reasons can be made for every other protest going on as well, but this should suffice):

Politics is funny sometimes - it can be a bit divisive in certain areas of the world. The statements the President has made previously are in stark contrast to what many people find acceptable, and he has expressed a desire to enact legislation that many do not agree with on the basis of how it affects women. The point of coming together, peacefully, was to show the public that there is a serious problem at hand, which a number of people are affected by and have an issue with, and that women's rights are important to a lot of people in the country. To show Congress that a large group of people are concerned by these issues, and they're willing to give up their free time to act against it. If they're willing to march, they are likely to also be willing to campaign against the people running for office who don't make an effort to oppose the certain injustices that they feel victimized about.

In addition to not winning the popular vote by a margin of ~3mm, there are a lot of people unhappy with the outcome of the election. Just because one side "won" in this context, doesn't mean that the rest of the country who "lost" shouldn't be heard, or shouldn't have a say in the direction we move as a nation - like everyone advocates from both sides, he is the president for everyone.

We can't always pick and choose exactly what pieces of a candidate we like and which to dispose of when choosing to elect them - this march was a way to express a desire to give focus and support for women's rights as a whole in light of statements and concerns that the President has made along the campaign trail and post-election.

That's how I see it, anyway.

    • 1
Jan 22, 2017

I don't have a problem with protests at all and I already stated in your quotation portion of your post that I would rather have someone else in office too. That being said, attitudes towards this issue that result in people "protesting" an unidentifiable agenda is a waste of time, space, and money. That's my issue.

I am sorry that you feel the FBI swayed the election away from you.

Jan 24, 2017
Eddie Braverman:

<

p>I think I can maybe speak to this. It's clear now that the electoral college will only ever benefit the right in this country, because they can't win in the marketplace of ideas

The Republican Party controls the US Senate, US House, White House, Supreme Court, 33 governors mansions (compared to 17 Democrats), and holds both houses of the legislature in 32 states (compared to 5 for the Democrats). The reality is, the Democratic party can't win in the marketplace of ideas, even in deep blue states.

Jan 24, 2017

    • 8
    • 1
Jan 24, 2017

How does that make any sense? How do you gerrymander a victory for governor? How do you gerrymander a victory in a statewide Senate race? How do you get into the position of gerrymandering districts without first winning the legislative body in your state?

Jan 26, 2017

Florida Marlins won the 2003 World Series in six games, but lost the run differential 21-17. Did they deserve to win the World Series?

    • 1
Jan 24, 2017

Uncle E, I agree with you for the most part. But when half the population of our country doesn't vote I find ~3 Million people to be insignificant (~pop. of Chicago)

...

    • 1
Jan 23, 2017

"Why is he and his people focused on crowd size and why are his people lying about it? Very strange."

Because the more talk there is about stupid shit like crowd sizes, the easier he's able to distract people away from substantive issues and concerns. Think about how much "alternative facts" regarding crowd sizes has been mentioned in the past 24 hours vs. pretty much any other issue (Russia, TPP, ACA, emoluments/business interests as it relates to the constitution).

But it could just be his ego too.

    • 3
Jan 22, 2017

Once you ignore California? Wtf would we do that? They don't count as full people over there? It's one country. In a true democracy, every citizen's voice should be counted equally. I do not consider the result of the election illegitimate, simply that the electoral college is proving less of a protector of democracy than it was intended.

    • 2
Jan 22, 2017
GoodBread:

Once you ignore California? Wtf would we do that? They don't count as full people over there? It's one country. In a true democracy, every citizen's voice should be counted equally. I do not consider the result of the election illegitimate, simply that the electoral college is proving less of a protector of democracy than it was intended.

I'd agree. But, it's hard to say Cali fully captures the full interests of the voting public of the American people, even though it leads the next state by almost 5MM votes and is basically the size of two states. Nearly every swing state saw a negative margin against Hillary, 3 of which had a double digit negative margin; there were about 5 double digit negative margins against in the non-swing states; only one state out of all 50 saw an increase of double digits in margin in favor of Hillary.

Source

    • 2
Jan 22, 2017

Right, but don't the American people fully capture the interests of the American people? Why should certain states have a disproportionate voice in who runs our country? I understand the founding father's intentions when creating the electoral college, but it is by nature an anti-democratic institutions. Seeing the electoral college provide a result significantly different from the popular vote is inherently anti-democratic. If you believe more democracy is the goal, this may be the impetus to a reform of the electoral process in which case this result is a positive.

    • 4
Jan 22, 2017
GoodBread:

Right, but don't the American people fully capture the interests of the American people? Why should certain states have a disproportionate voice in who runs our country? I understand the founding father's intentions when creating the electoral college, but it is by nature an anti-democratic institutions. Seeing the electoral college provide a result significantly different from the popular vote is inherently anti-democratic. If you believe more democracy is the goal, this may be the impetus to a reform of the electoral process in which case this result is a positive.

You seem to have a very poor understanding on how our government was formed and how it operates. The founders hated democracy. They created this government to protect us from it. It's not supposed to be democratic.

    • 3
    • 2
Jan 22, 2017

Where exactly did I say the founding fathers' goal was democracy? You seem to have very poor reading comprehension.

    • 2
Jan 22, 2017

"Having a guy with 2,864,974 less votes than his opponent win an election is excellent for democracy? Something tells me the founding fathers would have reconsidered the electoral college if they had seen this election.

I don't think anyone disagrees that that the establishment needed a good kick in the balls (as if they had any left), but good for democracy? Really?"

His/her (let's not assume here) reading comprehension skills are just fine:
You questioned whether or not someone losing the popular vote was excellent for democracy. Then you questioned whether the founding fathers would have believed whether or not the electoral college functioned as intended in this election.

You connected the founding fathers goal behind creating the electoral college to the "health" of democracy by doing so.

And now if you are saying you do not believe that was their goal, wtf exactly are you saying? That they didn't create it to preserve democracy, and that you just simply disagree with the idea of the electoral college in general as a result of this election?

Jan 22, 2017
GoodBread:

Right, but don't the American people fully capture the interests of the American people? Why should certain states have a disproportionate voice in who runs our country? I understand the founding father's intentions when creating the electoral college, but it is by nature an anti-democratic institutions. Seeing the electoral college provide a result significantly different from the popular vote is inherently anti-democratic. If you believe more democracy is the goal, this may be the impetus to a reform of the electoral process in which case this result is a positive.

Is it 'significantly different'? She only one the popular vote by 2.9MM or some number like that, which represents less than a percent of the population. Overall, states spoke, even if there were some places where the shift didn't overcome some tight partisanship. For example, Dems saw the margin increase by 7% in Cali, which might've come from higher turnout in support in favor of Hillary over Trump, represented in the increase of more than 1MM voters from 2012. The point is, there are pockets of social and cultural intensity, given the 'melting pot' nature of this country. Intense areas like Cali weighs heavily by having more total voters and, seemingly, more people eager to vote Democratic based on their culture. So it does skew elections in favor of populations where the cultural influences pull towards a certain party. The question is whether this means it takes away the voice of some or gives a voice to some.

    • 1
    • 2
Jan 24, 2017
GoodBread:

it is by nature an anti-democratic institutions. Seeing the electoral college provide a result significantly different from the popular vote is inherently anti-democratic.

That's the point of the electoral college. Our founding fathers, who were orders of magnitude better educated than you are (or than I am) in world history and philosophy, were a wise generation. They knew that the population's passions needed to be moderated, so they created a system of indirect democracy in the Senate and House, and the electoral college was a compromise that the larger states made with the smaller states to ensure that smaller states' interests weren't overwhelmed by larger state interests. Without this compromise, there is no United States.

The reality is, California, with its 53 Congressmen and 2 Senators, is the most numerically influential state in Congress. Let's start going down the list of recent presidents by their state--New York (and Florida); Illinois (and Hawai'i); Texas (and Connecticut); Arkansas; Connecticut; California; Georgia; [I don't count Gerald Ford since he was never elected]; California; Texas; Massachusetts (and New York); Kansas; Missouri; New York. (Parenthesis represents the other state that a president was known to, e.g. Donald Trump and Florida, John Kennedy and New York).

Since FDR, big, fat states such as Texas, New York, and California have enjoyed disproportionate representation by the head of state. Let's not pretend like California is somehow getting shafted. California and New York have overwhelming representation in Congress and by the heads of state.

Jan 24, 2017
Virginia Tech 4ever:

Our founding fathers, who were orders of magnitude better educated than you are (or than I am) in world history and philosophy, were a wise generation.

I had to stop right there. This is just more of the bullshit fetishization of the past that's endemic on the right.

With the possible exceptions of Franklin and Jefferson, the founding fathers couldn't keep up with 10-year old with a Cricket Wireless plan from today. Christ, give it a rest. They had some great ideas (cribbed from the Magna Carta), but quit pretending they were fucking Plato.

    • 7
    • 3
Jan 24, 2017
Eddie Braverman:

With the possible exceptions of Franklin and Jefferson, the founding fathers couldn't keep up with 10-year old with a Cricket Wireless plan from today.

In turn, this is where I stopped reading.

Jan 22, 2017
iBankedUp:

it's hard to say Cali fully captures the full interests of the voting public of the American people

It's impossible to say that Cali fully captures the full interests of the voting public in America, because it's not all of America. Just like it would be impossible to say that the country outside of California captures the full interests of the voting public of the American people. The reason: California is part of the USA.

It all pretty simple.

    • 4
Jan 22, 2017

Cali is a state with huge demographic influences, cultural mixes, and pretty much everything that is external to the US. Not saying it's a bad thing, but then there are places with not as much strong of an outside influence. The people without as much external influence are in other states that tend to have a smaller size. They voted in favor of someone they thought would help them get where they wanted to go. If you look at the data from my other post, it shows how cultural differences helped influence the impact of the popular vote, and then how states determined the election, and even shows Cali was on the wrong side of it all. (But we already knew this, given the demographic statistics of Trump supporters which was always unique from many other candidates' supporters.) So the people are influenced by where they live, and the electoral college does what it was intended to do, allow full representation of everyone, not just some hotspots of culture in the country.

    • 1
    • 2
Jan 22, 2017
iBankedUp:

Cali is a state with huge demographic influences, cultural mixes, and pretty much everything that is external to the US.

Is this the new doublespeak for 'minorities'?

    • 3
    • 1
Jan 22, 2017
DickFuld:

iBankedUp:Cali is a state with huge demographic influences, cultural mixes, and pretty much everything that is external to the US.

Is this the new doublespeak for 'minorities'?

Of course not. Europeans have the most obvious cultural impact on this country than anyone else

    • 1
Jan 24, 2017

So Ohio should tip the election? What about the people in all those counties that didn't vote for Trump? I guess since they agreed with california they don't count?

Jan 22, 2017
ArcherVice:

So Ohio should tip the election? What about the people in all those counties that didn't vote for Trump? I guess since they agreed with california they don't count?

My point is the country's view shifted. It's pretty clear, given that Dems' hold slipped despite its strong cultural influences and they weren't able to overwhelm everyone like in 2012 when they had the better candidate (which is when they also had a surplus of electoral and popular votes). They voted against the cultural downstream, and apparently against Cali.

Ohio didn't tip the election, nor did it's counties that decided on Trump. It's a phenomenon that occurred throughout the country. Trump won PA, FL, MI, NC and so, overall people went a different way. When people overwhelmingly support a Dem it's obvious, but when there's a shift, Dens feel their power hold slip and get nervous, wanting to increase their power more.

    • 1
Jan 22, 2017

The electoral college was never intended to be a 'protector of democracy.' In fact, it was intended to be the opposite. To answer your question: No. they do not count as full people 'over there.' As part of our political system, small states get disproportionately more power relative to larger states. Each state, no matter how big or small, has 2 senators. The house represents 'the people' (most democratic) and the president lies somewhere in between the houses of congress. This is referred to as 'the great compromise' and it's how we formed the union. Small states would not join unless they were protected from lager states.

So the electoral college did exactly what it was intended to do. It protected the populace from one enormous, fringe state.

    • 5
    • 1
Jan 26, 2017

That's not the only reason they instituted it though. The electoral college was essentially supposed to be a parliament that would be chosen by the voters according to their votes. The electors would then cast their own votes for president, irrespective of how the citizens voted. The only reason that the electoral vote has any correlation to the popular vote is that the courts decided it was ok for states to require their electors to follow the popular vote, and they're usually inclined to anyway. The effect of this would've been to essentially decouple presidential elections from the popular vote, so that "rational minds" could keep the election from going to populists who might harm the country (eg Trump).

    • 1
Jan 22, 2017

Liberal tears are delicious

    • 12
    • 6
Jan 23, 2017

This is too funny!

    • 2
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jan 22, 2017

Well there's lying like "my inauguration broke attendance records" and then there's lying like:

  1. "You can keep your doctors if you like them"
  2. "The attack on the embassy was a response to anti-Islamic video!"
  3. "No the government isn't illegally wire tapping you"
  4. "If you pass my stimulus package unemployment won't go above 8.0 percent!"
  5. "The IRS is not intentionally targeting conservative groups"

You see what I mean? So far, no big deal. But we shall see.

    • 11
    • 5
Jan 22, 2017

Alternative facts are flying around all over the place. Did Trump write his own speech like he said, did The Brothers Steve write it, who knows...magic 8 ball says answer hazy, try again

Guys let's try to decide on the best over-under for how long it will take Trump to get kicked out, one way or the other. Maybe it can be next WSO poll?

    • 2
    • 2
Jan 22, 2017

It's a trivial thing to lie about, but he is still being elected, so to speak. He feels the need to validate his legitimacy to the public, in the face of some very loud and unhappy voices.

I usually reserve my judgement as I'm not an American, but the fact people are protesting the result of a democratic election is extremely petty. He won - move on. This goes for him too.

Jan 23, 2017

"he is still being elected, so to speak"

"the fact people are protesting the result of a democratic election is extremely petty"

Please explain how these two statements don't contradict each other.

Also, if you are referencing the women's march when you talk about protests, it's a pretty unfair strawman to say that people are protesting the election - it's a lot more nuanced than that.

    • 3
Jan 22, 2017
CHItizen:

"he is still being elected, so to speak"

"the fact people are protesting the result of a democratic election is extremely petty"

Please explain how these two statements don't contradict each other.

Also, if you are referencing the women's march when you talk about protests, it's a pretty unfair strawman to say that people are protesting the election - it's a lot more nuanced than that.

He is still being elected in the court of public opinion. I find that petty.

Not sure what part you found contradictory.

I'm not just referring to the Women's march.

Jan 23, 2017

If he's still being elected in the court of public opinion and public opinion matters (it does), then mass demonstrations by the public absolutely matter (almost by definition).

    • 2
Jan 22, 2017

You misunderstand my use of the term "petty". I've meant it as a judgement of their character, not to downplay the importance of its existence.

I completely agree public opinion is important, but I believe the opinion itself (but NOT its affect) is petty. An election was won/lost as part of a democratic process. Unless you feel it was genuinely rigged, move on and get on with the tasks at hand. For the public, this means acceptance.

Trump is of course equally culpable, as shown by his fixation on the crowd numbers. My point is that this would be partly reactionary.

Jan 23, 2017

Kind sir,

It became 1984 when Snowden exposed the NSA, if I remember correctly.

    • 2
Jan 23, 2017

I'm a pretty solid Trump supporter. Really hoped he would stop getting in these stupid meaningless pissing matches once he took office. Looks like I might be disappointed.

Sometimes I just want to shake him and be like, "Donald you won the election. Just STFU and get working on stuff (improving HC, reforming tax code, repealing regulation, etc.)".

    • 1
Jan 22, 2017

That is exactly where I am at. With all the praise I've heard being given to Kushner for his efforts in advising Trump, I would like to think that every once in a while he would say "this isn't a good idea".

    • 1
Jan 23, 2017

Next time someone shows you who they truly are, you might want to believe them.

    • 6
    • 1
Jan 24, 2017

I agree with you, but I also think there is a purposeful reason they are doing this. You get the media talking about irrelevant things and not focused on stopping your policy. Congressional Democrats' opposition to appointments and to policies has been completely drowned out in the news cycle. I'd bet dollars-to-donuts that Steve Bannon is backing this tactic.

Jan 24, 2017
Virginia Tech 4ever:

I'd bet dollars-to-donuts that Steve Bannon is backing this tactic.

Wouldn't be a Republican administration without some trailer park Rasputin running shit.

    • 3
Jan 23, 2017

86% of republicans, 70% of independents, and 49% of democrats don't trust the media. Trump knows what he is doing, you discredit the media and continually paint them as untrustworthy and those percentages may go even higher. If the media isn't trusted to fact-check and investigate his presidency with accuracy then he can do/ say whatever the fuck he wants. Blatant lies can be painted as truths because you can't trust the media to report the truth etc.

    • 2
Jan 23, 2017

No one trusts the media because the media lies and manipulates the truth. This isn't Trumps doing.

Jan 23, 2017

No one discussed the source of the media distrust, I simply said he is using it to delegitimize the media in order to obfuscate any over-sight of his administration.... and he is largely succeeding.

p.s. I don't think the media lies outright, the media is sensationalist (what you would call manipulating the truth for eyeballs and clicks) but I trust them to tell the factual truth much more so than politicians... including and especially Donald Trump.

    • 4
Jan 23, 2017

I agree to an extent, I just think this attendance issue is being pushed by the media and fueld by trumps team arguing. We almost need a truce.

Just wish we'd focus on the actual economic stuff Trumps doing and planning on doing.

And end of the day of course Obama got more attendance. He was celebrated wildly, people were enthusiastic about his message and his election was historic.

That being said, who would attend with all the protests going on and the threat of violence.

Jan 22, 2017

I don't even know where to begin in trying to comprehend your utter disregard for realizing your own double standards. Let's just be upfront about this - you push this tirade against the media and how upset you are that they push "lies" yet you have no backbone or confidence to even admit when its become a problem in your own party. Your false pursuit of truth or some form of credibility and distaste for lies are not based on objective grounds, and you only care about manipulating the truth when it goes against your political beliefs.

You concern yourself with all these "lies" the media is telling, but whenever Trump is seen lying for seemingly no reason at all, you're the first one to make up excuses for why it's all of a sudden "ok" or that nobody cares

Case in point: Kellyanne Conway tweeted and pushed a story that CNN linked to a BuzzFeed report - this was an "alternative fact" you even pushed on these forums many times, and have failed to even acknowledge was incorrect - in reality, you can go to the actual report put out by CNN and see that it does no such thing, and this has been addressed by the media many times.

Trump said he'd release his tax returns "as soon as the audit is complete" during the election. Now the administration has said they intend to do no such thing. You pushed this as being fine because "nobody cares".

Trump tweeted that "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." That is an actual tweet from the President of the United States. Doesn't matter for some reason.

It's gotten to the point where Trump's press secretary has just got in front of the nation today and claimed "sometimes we can disagree with facts." And your response is "This isn't Trump's doing".

Imagine if CNN released a full blown article today saying they can "disagree with facts". What the actual fuck?

You know what I see? I see the current administration engaging in copious amounts of lies that we, and even yourself, can list for days - it's gotten to the level that they'd rather engage in a debate for days over the fucking size of the crowd at the inauguration, and can't bring themselves to see it any other logical way but through the lens of their own falsehoods.

You know what happened when the "media" fucked up last week on publishing that Trump removed the MLK bust? Zeke Miller issued a retraction, and a public apology for the mix-up. It took him ~a day to do this. Do you know how the current administration is handling similar issues? The White House just went on national television and issued the statement that they can "disagree with facts."

Media: 1. Trump: 0.

    • 10
    • 2
Jan 22, 2017

Don't be a dick! Let's focus on alternative facts!!!!

1 = 0. That's an alternative fact we can all live with right? It's not provably wrong. No way you can prove that wrong. Period. It's the most right conclusion in this history of conclusions. Period.

    • 3
Jan 22, 2017

-20 = -20
16 - 36 = 25 - 45
4^2 - 4 * 9 = 5^2 - 5 * 9
4^2 - 4 * 9 + 81/4 = 5^2 - 5 * 9 + 81/4
4^2 - 2 * 4 * 9/2 + (9/2)^2 = 5^2 - 2 * 5 * 9/2 + (9/2)^2
(4 - 9/2)(4 - 9/2) = (5 - 9/2)(5 - 9/2)
(4 - 9/2)^2 = (5 - 9/2)^2
4 - 9/2 = 5 - 9/2
4 = 5
0 = 1

Trust me, I'm a mathematician.

    • 3
Jan 22, 2017
QGKZ:

16 - 36 = 25 - 45

This one is actually true.

    • 1
Jan 23, 2017

Great thread. 10/10.

In other real news, Trump formally pulled the US out of TPP, indicated to business leaders that he plans on pushing tax and regulation cuts and is meeting with business leaders to push his employ Americans plan.

But Yeah, let's talk about this none issue that the press was pushing because they are pety and only want to crap on Trump.

As for the 1984 quip, were already there and you can thank the lying press and liberal thought police for it, not Trump.

Jan 23, 2017

dude, the only reason this is a topic is b/c the press secretary called his first ever conference and made this a story... If it had been ignored, as you suggest we ignore it in favor of more substantial stories, by the administration then this wouldn't be a topic... No one here is discussing the initial reporting of slim crowds at the inauguration, what they are discussing is the administration's thin-skinned, lying (alternative facts - w/e you wanna call it) approach to what shouldn't even matter.

    • 3
Jan 24, 2017

Stop making excuses for Trump.

I'm guessing you never read the TPP, it would have kept us competitive and put us as the author of the playbook for almost 2/3rds the global economy. Which expands our influence and security, while weakening our adversaries. But hey, I'm sure we'll be competitive on shit like auto parts when they face 27% tariffs in countries who also have free trade agreements with China for the same shit.

He just fucked middle America. Not that I care, those dumbasses voted for their own downfall.

Jan 23, 2017

Bernie, Hillary and a number of Democrats were against the TPP. You make it like Trump was the only one who thought it would work.

Additionally, we can negotiate with each country individually, to ensure proper trade points with each participant.

And these trade deals are great for US businesses, but often screw over US workers. You know, the people who vote and should be served by the people they elect.

Furthermore, the TPP wasn't negotiated in a transparent way. You can thank Wikileaks for letting people see a taste of what the document held.

But cool. Keep on being hyperbolic and angry.

Jan 24, 2017

Get off the partisan diatribe.

It doesn't matter how much a business improves technology or cuts costs when they face an automatic 27% tariff (actual example) and simultaneously are competing against countries/companies operating under free trade agreements.

GUESS WHAT, IF A BUSINESS CANT STAY IN BUSINESS THE WORKERS LOSE THEIR JOBS.

Who cares which politicians agreed or not. Read the fucking document and form your own opinion for a change. And the deal master himself, the president, the one who just made the decision, now gets to be blamed for those job losses over the next 50 years.

Jan 22, 2017
ArcherVice:

He just fucked middle America.

He's not stopping there though. His agenda includes plans to dismantle free speech and information flow on the internet...he just appointed a new FCC chairman who's against net neutrality. Trump is literally putting the US on the path to complete destruction

    • 5
    • 1
Jan 22, 2017

People won't even know about this until one day they realize it oddly takes 40 min. to load up WSO while access to the "lyin' media" gets prompt, top of the line speeds to whoever pays Comcast the most money.

    • 3
Jan 22, 2017
Steam:

People won't even know about this until one day they realize it oddly takes 40 min. to load up WSO while access to the "lyin' media" gets prompt, top of the line speeds to whoever pays Comcast the most money.

Truly scary. Patrick might have to start charging for WSO to cover the additional funds required to be paid to ISPs, to make sure WSO's users will still be able to access the site

    • 2
Jan 24, 2017

Stop giving Patrick valid reasons to charge us money, please :)

...

    • 2
Jan 24, 2017

His education pick doesn't know the difference between proficiency and growth...the centerpiece of almost all education debates in the last...forever.

Jan 22, 2017
TNA:

Great thread. 10/10.

In other real news, Trump formally pulled the US out of TPP, indicated to business leaders that he plans on pushing tax and regulation cuts and is meeting with business leaders to push his employ Americans plan.

But Yeah, let's talk about this none issue that the press was pushing because they are pety and only want to crap on Trump.

As for the 1984 quip, were already there and you can thank the lying press and liberal thought police for it, not Trump.

I used to think you were a reasonable person who weighed issues carefully. Thanks for confirming that I was wrong. It keeps me humble.

    • 14
    • 3
Jan 24, 2017

Yeah TNA has gone full Breitbart over the course of this election.

    • 8
Jan 24, 2017

You never go full Breitbart.

    • 6
Jan 22, 2017
DickFuld:

TNA:Great thread. 10/10.In other real news, Trump formally pulled the US out of TPP, indicated to business leaders that he plans on pushing tax and regulation cuts and is meeting with business leaders to push his employ Americans plan.But Yeah, let's talk about this none issue that the press was pushing because they are pety and only want to crap on Trump.As for the 1984 quip, were already there and you can thank the lying press and liberal thought police for it, not Trump.

I used to think you were a reasonable person who weighed issues carefully. Thanks for confirming that I was wrong. It keeps me humble.

I don't see the need to get personal. TNA is right. A lot of shit has gone down, for better or for worse. The media is still talking about how many people attended/viewed the inauguration.

    • 4
Jan 22, 2017
Esuric:

DickFuld: TNA:Great thread. 10/10.In other real news, Trump formally pulled the US out of TPP, indicated to business leaders that he plans on pushing tax and regulation cuts and is meeting with business leaders to push his employ Americans plan.But Yeah, let's talk about this none issue that the press was pushing because they are pety and only want to crap on Trump.As for the 1984 quip, were already there and you can thank the lying press and liberal thought police for it, not Trump.I used to think you were a reasonable person who weighed issues carefully. Thanks for confirming that I was wrong. It keeps me humble.

I don't see the need to get personal. TNA is right. A lot of shit has gone down, for better or for worse. The media is still talking about how many people attended/viewed the inauguration.

Only because the Trump organization made the claim that it was the most highly attended inauguration ever. When it was clear that it was not, they lied about it. That's weird, at a minimum.

    • 5
Jan 24, 2017

I love how voting for Trump is going to hang like a millstone around his supporters necks for years to come. Do you feel stupid yet? Because you should. Your boy is clearly committed to that end.

Here's some pretty decent analysis as to why he shoved that stooge Spicer out on stage to lie for him:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-23...

    • 5
    • 2
Jan 24, 2017

My impression is that Trump is a stick and a lot of people who have spent the Obama years in discontent are gleefully using that stick to whack on the progressive camp. And I think the progressive camp should take some hits.

But, to belabour the analogy, I think the whackers may come to realise they are holding a snake, not a stick.

Both sides of US politics seem far too partisan, far too eager to attack each other than to look out of the best interests of the nation.

    • 6
Jan 24, 2017

Completely agree. I think it comes down to your fundamental world view, and whether it's backward facing or forward facing.

Trump's philosophy (and, by extension, that of his supporters) is backward facing. The very slogan "Make America Great Again" is a philosophical position that America was great at some point in the past, is no longer great, and by returning to the past America can be great once again.

The progressive camp, on the other hand, is by definition forward facing (progress vs. regress). Inherent in that world view is that time marches on, change is a constant (for better or worse), and that social evolution is a necessity in an advanced society.

It's not that there isn't middle ground upon which both can meet, it's more the strident nature of those guiding the ideologies that keeps the two sides apart.

    • 4
    • 1
Jan 22, 2017

So you are saying that having a regressive view is inherently bad and having a progressive view is inherently good? Because the progress of society is a simple line? What about taking a few steps backwards to go forward? What isn't the progress of society more similar to branches or roads traveled? To put this in more concrete terms, most progressives would argue globalization good for society, in general. What if you argue that we have mismanaged globalization and marginalized a large portion of our population in doing so. Can you not take a step back from it in the short-term to "go down the correct road" in the long term?

Not necessarily saying that is what Trump is doing.

Jan 24, 2017

No I'm not, and thanks for pointing this out because it's important.

Civilization is a massive ongoing experiment. It's always moving forward, but sometimes things work and sometimes they don't. I don't believe that one world view is objectively "better" than the other (impossible to prove even if I did), and sometimes you have to take a few steps back in order to right the ship and move forward again.

Where I think the regressive right fails most often is in their fetishization of the past, and their glossing over of the horrors that took place (the whole, "to the victor go the spoils" attitude that is so pervasive on the right today).

    • 2
Jan 22, 2017
Eddie Braverman:

The progressive camp, on the other hand, is by definition forward facing (progress vs. regress).

You have to understand the difference between intent and results. Forecasted vs realized. The liberals aim for a better world but fail to deliver it every time. I think Obama's presidency, with rising racial tensions, the deterioration of geopolitical conditions and the weakest recovery on record, demonstrates this point.

Eddie Braverman:

Inherent in that world view is that time marches on, change is a constant (for better or worse), and that social evolution is a necessity in an advanced society.

It's not that there isn't middle ground upon which both can meet, it's more the strident nature of those guiding the ideologies that keeps the two sides apart.

It's really the left that opposes change. Change is an integral part of capitalism. Change is the driver of risk and therefore return. Capitalism means that we are all subject to the risks stemming from technological change and fluctuating consumer demand conditions. Liberals attempt to protect us from the downside risk of change and, in doing so, slow down this process.

    • 2
    • 2
Jan 24, 2017
Esuric:

It's really the left that opposes change.

This basically says it all.

The progressive left is opposed to tort reform, tax reform, education reform, regulatory reform, health care reform, welfare reform, and entitlement reform. The idea that "progressives" favor "progress" because they label themselves "progressive" is a fairly laughable political analysis.

Jan 22, 2017
Virginia Tech 4ever:

Esuric:It's really the left that opposes change.

This basically says it all.

The progressive left is opposed to tort reform, tax reform, education reform, regulatory reform, health care reform, welfare reform, and entitlement reform. The idea that "progressives" favor "progress" because they label themselves "progressive" is a fairly laughable political analysis.

I don't think anyone would argue that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren aren't in favour of significant reforms.

    • 1
Jan 24, 2017

Warren is so opposed to education reform in the inner city that she refused to shake the hand of Education Secretary nominee Devos. They are very opposed to reform.

Jan 22, 2017
Virginia Tech 4ever:

Warren is so opposed to education reform in the inner city that she refused to shake the hand of Education Secretary nominee Devos. They are very opposed to reform.

You don't consider fully socialised healthcare and education a significant reform? Those are both radical ideas relative to the current system.

    • 1
Jan 24, 2017
QGKZ:

Virginia Tech 4ever:Warren is so opposed to education reform in the inner city that she refused to shake the hand of Education Secretary nominee Devos. They are very opposed to reform.

You don't consider fully socialised healthcare and education a significant reform? Those are both radical ideas relative to the current system.

That's not reform. That's cost redistribution. It changes nothing about the underlying failures of the systems.

Jan 22, 2017
Virginia Tech 4ever:

QGKZ: Virginia Tech 4ever:Warren is so opposed to education reform in the inner city that she refused to shake the hand of Education Secretary nominee Devos. They are very opposed to reform.You don't consider fully socialised healthcare and education a significant reform? Those are both radical ideas relative to the current system.

That's not reform. That's cost redistribution. It changes nothing about the underlying failures of the systems.

I see. I think we may be using the word reform in different ways.

    • 1
Jan 26, 2017

Nice try. Betsy Devos has not articulated a plan to reform education anywhere. What she has been, for her entire life, is an advocate for privatized and RELIGIOUS educational institutions. I think its more than fair to not want oru public schools to be run by someone who wants to get rid of them in favor of schools run by the church

Jan 23, 2017

are you serious? you just had a candidate who ran a campaign on returning America back to the 50s and its the left that opposes change. In every instance: stem cell research, lgbtq rights, criminal justice reform, education and healthcare reform, climate change legislation.... it is the left that is calling for changes to the current system. It's the left that opposes change, really dude? While Hillary was campaigning to better train our workforce for the modern world Trump was campaigning to bring back manufacturing jobs that were mostly lost to capitalist change (mostly tech but some due to cheap labor) and it is the left that opposes change? The mental gymnastics here are astounding. You somehow confuse acknowledging that we need social nets for those left behind by change as opposing change all together. What a laughable argument.

    • 3
    • 2
Jan 24, 2017
BobTheBaker:

are you serious? you just had a candidate who ran a campaign on returning America back to the 50s and its the left that opposes change. In every instance: stem cell research, lgbtq rights, criminal justice reform, education and healthcare reform, climate change legislation.... it is the left that is calling for changes to the current system. It's the left that opposes change, really dude? While Hillary was campaigning to better train our workforce for the modern world Trump was campaigning to bring back manufacturing jobs that were mostly lost to capitalist change (mostly tech but some due to cheap labor) and it is the left that opposes change? The mental gymnastics here are astounding. You somehow confuse acknowledging that we need social nets for those left behind by change as opposing change all together. What a laughable argument.

The left supports reform on periphery issues, such as stem cell research and gay marriage. The left has been grinding opposition for 30 years to fundamental regulatory reform, actual healthcare reform, tort reform, tax reform, education reform, and entitlement reform. On issues like healthcare and education reform, their main ideas are raise taxes and spend more money--that's not really reform at all; that's just changing who pays for stuff.

Jan 26, 2017
Virginia Tech 4ever:

On issues like healthcare and education reform, their main ideas are raise taxes and spend more money--that's not really reform at all; that's just changing who pays for stuff.

That's funny b/c the ACA just started (for the first time ever) to bend the curve on rising healthcare costs. Republicans are now pushing a non-existent replacement, which currently consists of them gutting the law while simultaneously refusing to give up the most expensive and widely supported parts (keep your insurance, pre-existing conditions). This means Republicans are in the process of massively driving up the cost of healthcare, causing unneeded disruption, AND disrupting care for millions of people. The Republicans actually PASSED A LAW PREVENTING THE NONPARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE FROM SCORING THEIR HEALTHCARE REPLACEMENT. Do you think that's because they don't want people to realize how much money it saves (no: it costs an extra half trillion while delivering worse care)

What annoys me most about conservatives is the hypocrisy on fiscal issues. They never reduce the deficit (Clinton creates a surplus, Bush tanks it) and have no problem spending on new benefits or programs (e.g. infrastructure) when a Republican is president. Enter a Democrat, and all of a sudden they're really concerned about the debt. If Obama went around personally attacking companies to exert (extra - legal) influence on them Republicans would freak out. When Obama tried to demand that trans Canadian pipelines be built with U.S. steel, Republicans blocked it (free trade!), but now that Trump is proposing it wonderful!

Here's the truth: their are no conservatives and the Republican party's only ideology is power. They will compromise every principle:
+Criticize Dems for family values then vote for a misogynist who met his third wife via her job as a nude model. +Be pro business and free trade, until its time to favor protectionism and arbitrarily attack companies.
+Oppose the healthcare law because its expensive and doesn't work, but then propose to keep the popular and expensive parts of it while dismantling the payment mechanisms.
+Obama wins with 332 electoral votes and 4M + poopular votes, Republicans have a mandate b/c they kept the House (despite losing the congressional popular vote) and cannot allow this President to stack the supreme court. Trump loses the popular vote by 3M but wins the electoral college by 80K, Republicans still have the mandate and we should respect the President
+Support a muscular U.S. until a foreign dictator helps you win the presidency
+Support the intelligence agencies that help us fight terror until they discover your president is a traitor
+Oppose executive orders when a Democratic President issues fewer than any President in a century. Embrace them when your President wants to use them to remake the country by fiat (because of his huge -3.5M mandate)
+Rail about corruption and ethics until your President feels like ignoring ethics laws to keep his business holdings and doesn't feel like revealing his taxes (suspicious)?
+ Appoint a head of the Department of Energy who proposed abolisihing the DOE because he had no idea what it was, an education secretary that is opposed to public schools, and a heat of the EPA whose bills have been paid by the oil lobby

You are consistent in your disdain for minorities though. Props for that

Jan 22, 2017
SSits:

My impression is that Trump is a stick and a lot of people who have spent the Obama years in discontent are gleefully using that stick to whack on the progressive camp. And I think the progressive camp should take some hits.

But, to belabour the analogy, I think the whackers may come to realise they are holding a snake, not a stick.

Both sides of US politics seem far too partisan, far too eager to attack each other than to look out of the best interests of the nation.

100% agree. I'm conservative in my values, but I'm not so Repub that I was going to vote for someone that clearly showed themselves to be incompetent.

    • 2
Jan 24, 2017

In this thread: Social Elites arguing politics

    • 1
Jan 22, 2017
differentialequations12:

In this thread: Social Elites arguing politics

Are you not a 'social elite'?

Jan 24, 2017

I would say I'm a notch down (O&G engineer) from the super-bankers here, but still fit that demographic I guess.

I worked part of a summer on a drilling rig as a roughneck. Your perspective changes VERY FAST when you're at the bottom of the totem pole doing all of the grunt work. (Tripping pipe in 100 degree Texas heat, while the executives are finding ways to cut your job and trying to blame you for everything).

    • 1
Jan 24, 2017

Just make sure the next time you're hospitalized to insist on being treated by a med student and not an "elite" surgeon. Elites suck.

    • 1
Jan 22, 2017
Eddie Braverman:

Just make sure the next time you're hospitalized to insist on being treated by a med student and not an "elite" surgeon. Elites suck.

Ever read Atlas Shrugged? We should do as John Galt did and transport all of those productive "social elites" to Atlantis; leave the Trump supporters to "make America great again".

Jan 22, 2017

Have fun with Rosie Odennell in Atlantis.

Jan 22, 2017
Arbitraging:

Have fun with Rosie Odennell in Atlantis.

Notice that I said productive social elites.

    • 1
Jan 24, 2017

Careful. You're treading on the holy writ for many on this site.

    • 1
Jan 24, 2017

Engineers, doctors, entrepreneurs and beneficial VCs are welcome to Mars on Elong Musk's new rocket ship where we will terraform the planet into a utopian paradise.

Jan 24, 2017
differentialequations12:

beneficial VCs

Contradiction in terms.

Jan 24, 2017

Someone needs to fund the massive projects.

Unless we go on with what Elon thinks. Money is simply a construct. Every day your bank account will give you 500 Elons (our new currency). That way everyone can work for free on projects to benefit everyone. As long as you have a job you will gets lots of money.

Jan 24, 2017
Jan 24, 2017

Totally off topic - I don't know if this was announced, but it looks like Andy & Patrick had to create a new rank specifically for you breaking 20,000 bananas. That's pretty cool... congrats on becoming "The Pro"

...

Jan 24, 2017

Inauguration crowd size scandal is yet another thing Trump and his team took advantage of to lead the media astray while he quietly signs executive orders to dismantle everything that actually does make America great.

    • 2
    • 2
Jan 22, 2017

And I assume you were saying the same thing while Obama was quietly signing executive orders during his presidency.

Jan 24, 2017

Barack Obama: 275 executive orders
George Bush: 291 executive orders
Bill Clinton: 365 executive orders
George H.W. Bush: 166 executive orders (332 if you extend over two terms)
Reagan: 381 executive orders
Jimmy Carter: 320 executive orders

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

    • 3
Jan 22, 2017

Yes. Everyone can use google and find that on wikipedia. I'm not sure that you addressed the point.

And if you would have spent just 5 more minutes on your google search you would have figured in counts on Presidential Memorandums. And then you probably wouldn't have replied.

Jan 24, 2017

Not all executive orders are equal. You can use executive orders to make simple administrative changes (very common in the opening weeks of an administration) or you can use executive orders to fundamentally change public policy. It's been a few years now, but I recall reading an analysis showing how Obama had used executive orders to create policy in a much broader manner than other presidents.

This actually comes to the original point of this thread--"alternative facts." It's a verifiable fact that Obama has not issued outsized numbers of executive orders. One may be able to reasonably argue, however, that Obama's executive orders have been more weighty than prior presidents' orders. That's why it's not enough to simply laugh at a statement about "alternative facts"--there are endless circumstances where there are competing sets of facts.

Jan 24, 2017

Saw this and had a good chuckle. Alternative facts sold separately.

    • 6
    • 1
Jan 24, 2017

Your boy is so deluded and insecure in his self aggrandizement that he ordered his press secretary to tell the world they were the largest period. Just look at your man for a minute. Stop "WELL OBAMA." Just look at your man. Look at his education pick, look at the FCC and so on and so forth. Take your partisanship out of it and read his speeches out loud.

Jan 24, 2017

Are you kidding? His Education and FCC picks are among the best picks, especially the FCC pick. The guy has been fighting Obama's FCC tooth and nail for years now, trying to hold the line on their totalitarianism.

Jan 24, 2017

Being against net neutrality is fighting the man? Lmao

Jan 23, 2017

lmao, his education pick doesn't really know shit about the department she will be overseeing and is only there because she is an heiress who has been a big donor to conservative causes for years. Her fucking charter school program in Michigan has objectively been described as a failure due to terrible regulation.

"Michigan ranks near the bottom for fourth- and eighth-grade math and fourth-grade reading on a nationally representative test, nicknamed the "Nation's Report Card." The fucking charter schools she pushed for scored LOWER than the regular public schools in that report card. This has to be a joke.

    • 1
    • 2
Jan 23, 2017

Man, your laziness continues.

Nice of you to verbatim quote Wikipedia. Yet you fail to include the rebuttle.

The center for research on education outcomes found that the typical Michigan student in chart schools gain more learning in a year than their public school counterparts.

National review found 47% of charter schools in Detroit outperformed traditional public schools in reading.

Additionally, what you so lazily quoted from wiki is actually from the new york times, which is criticized for being unfair as they compared Detroit with new Orleans who is also big with charter schools, but close underperforming ones quickly.

The article claims Detroit hasn't closed bad charters, even saying poor schools continue to enroll. Detroit has closed more charter schools than all of Louisiana.

Also, Devos is not just some rich idiot. She's very active in the education space and is a massive proponent of school vouchers and charter schools.

Gotta love how people shit on trump when he's putting standard Republican policy I place. Last time I checked Republicans were all about school choice. Which also helps poor minority students who are trapped in under performing inner city schools.

Stop being lazy and actually research something.

Jan 23, 2017

Quoted that from a politico article that goes in detail about her failed charter school program, I suggest you do your research and read it.Also, she's an active donor in the education space, doesn't make her knowledgeable about the department of education. I'm not shitting on anything, calling her a great pick is funny to me though. Idk where Louisiana comes into this as my quote made no reference to that state.

Here's another one from that article: "InDetroit alone, about 70 percent of charter schools ranked in the bottom quarter of the state's schools, according to an Ed Trust-Midwest report using data from the 2013-2014 school year"

Yea man, what a success

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 23, 2017

Wherever you got it, it was incomplete and one sided.

She also isn't a Trump sycophant, as she supported Bush and Rubio.

She's been involved in education since the 90s, sitting on boards, advocating for school choice, and involved with a education think tank.

Was she a teacher? No. But she's been involved in education and clearly supports vouchers which is a boilerplate Republican policy issue.

Also, Democrats hate vouchers and school accountability because the teachers unions hate it. Fine, but school vouchers help inner city parents send their kids to better schools instead of the failed ones they have to go to. You'd think that Democrats would partially support this policy.

And I understand liberals hating trump, but all his appointments and the majority of his policies are really things Republicans have always pushed for.

School vouchers
Lower regulations
Lower Corp taxes
Conservative scotus
Stopping illegal immigration

Other than trumps deciding to not fuck over working class people which Republicans love doing, he's a standard Republican with zero interest in social issues.

But Yeah, dudes Hitler and evil.

BTW - everyone mocks his illegal voting comments. You all fail to see the strategy. The press mocks him says prove it. Trump says he will investigate. He will obviously find instances of fraud which he will use as proof and will validate his claims.

Obama made voting a critical national infrastructure issue over this Russia hacking issue. You all do realize that when Trump finds these few instances of fraud, he will use the powers Obama put in place to jam through ID laws.

It's like people don't see what's really going on. The press and liberals just play right into his hand.

Oh guess what. Dems have 28 Senate seats that are going to be contested in 2018. Trump could end up with total control in one year.

Jan 23, 2017

my point is the charter program has not been successful by most measures and that is her signature reason she has been given her position. Your whole deal on Trump's illegal immigrant claim is ridiculous, he can call for whatever the fuck he wants but the investigation will just display that he legitimately lost the popular vote and will serve to remind the American people about that. He may find a few instances and if he uses that to push voter ID laws then so be it, but there's no way he will find anything close to the fraud required to make his election anything other than electoral college obfuscation of democracy. Lol Obama didn't make anything a national infrastructure issue nor did anyone claim the Russians hacked the actual voting process. Of course, instead of doing an investigation into Russia's DNC hacking he is playing politics like the politician he now is and investigating non-existent voter fraud. 'Merika.

    • 1
Jan 23, 2017

Dude, Obama declared the election process to be critical infrastructure per DHS.

And you don't know how optics works. Dems dismiss this voter fraud issue all the time. This investigation will find quite a bit of it. Not the 3MM, but enough to claim fraud and validate his point.

This popular vote shit is a joke. It would take a constitutional amendment to change and that's not happening. Crying about it does no good.

Furthermore, Hillary lost Ohio, Florida, PA, Wisconsin, Michigan. These are core states with a wide variety of Americans. There is a reason why corporate America tests out their stores in Ohio. It's an ideal representation of the majority of America. To lose all those states is far more important than getting a ton of NYC and California votes.

Trumps playing a very strategic game. People need to realize this.

Jan 23, 2017

Ohio is 84% white/ 3% hispanic and it ideally represents America? cmon dude.

    • 2
Jan 23, 2017

"Detroit Public Schools overall rank last out of large urban school districts nationwide for the performance of African-American students in eight-grade math. But the majority of charter districts statewide perform even worse than the city school district for African-American students in eighth-grade math, the report noted"

Yea bro, I obviously don't know wtf I'm talking about.. lol

    • 2
    • 1
Jan 23, 2017

47% outperformed. Also it's fucking Detroit.

You frankly don't know what you're talking about. And Louisiana is important because they are one of the most Charter school focused states. It's an important case study and opportunity to see what works.

Jan 23, 2017
TNA:

47% outperformed. Also it's fucking Detroit.

where did you get that number? Also, my quote compares statewide charters to Detroit public schools and the charter schools still under-performed those "it's fucking Detroit" public schools.

    • 2
Jan 22, 2017
TNA:

47% outperformed. Also it's fucking Detroit.

You frankly don't know what you're talking about. And Louisiana is important because they are one of the most Charter school focused states. It's an important case study and opportunity to see what works.

TNA has officially gone full Brietbart. In the previous thread he absolutely shit on Obama for creating the same percentage of "high paying" jobs. Literally, they were both 47% figures and in one case he's shitting on Obama for it being "less than half" and in this case he's praising it. What a fucking joke these debates have become with you.

http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/trump-busine...

TNA:

11MM jobs were created during Obama. 47% were "high paying". Almost all were in the service industry, with about half being in retail, restaurant services and admin.

TNA:

Furthermore, of those 11MM jobs, over half were not high paying. The majority were service jobs, of which retail, food services and admin were more than half.

    • 1
Jan 22, 2017
Steam:

TNA:47% outperformed. Also it's fucking Detroit.You frankly don't know what you're talking about. And Louisiana is important because they are one of the most Charter school focused states. It's an important case study and opportunity to see what works.

TNA has officially gone full Brietbart. In the previous thread he absolutely shit on Obama for creating the same percentage of "high paying" jobs. Literally, they were both 47% figures and in one case he's shitting on Obama for it being "less than half" and in this case he's praising it. What a fucking joke these debates have become with you.//www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/trump-busine...

TNA:11MM jobs were created during Obama. 47% were "high paying". Almost all were in the service industry, with about half being in retail, restaurant services and admin.

TNA:Furthermore, of those 11MM jobs, over half were not high paying. The majority were service jobs, of which retail, food services and admin were more than half.

Protectionists have no values, so it is consistent in their ideology to be hypocritical.

Jan 23, 2017

Graduate college. Every nation protects core industries.

God, as much as I disagree with older members of this forum at least I give them credit for having a counter position that's been shaped by the sands of time. Nothing like debating someone who's only experience is a fucking textbook.

Jan 22, 2017
TNA:

Graduate college. Every nation protects core industries.

God, as much as I disagree with older members of this forum at least I give them credit for having a counter position that's been shaped by the sands of time. Nothing like debating someone who's only experience is a fucking textbook.

Protecting your national economy is not the issue: What matters is the actions you take to achieve this. Limiting free trade is the perfect way to destroy productivity (and, by extension, the national economy). The best way to protect a national economy is by implementing free-market principles, within the context of a powerful justice system.

You can substitute me with Milton Friedman and the arguments would be no different. The reality is that protectionism is a destructive economic is ideology.

Jan 23, 2017

Cool. The USA is incredibly free. But realize free trade often benefits bottom lines and stock buybacks. As an american politician and servant, you need to benefit voters as well.

These trade treaties do not benefit everything equally. I love Milton and all libertarian issues. I read Reason. Reality is you cannot do these things in vaacume.

I'm for gay rights. I'm pro capitalism. I support unions. Life is Grey. I sadly miss the was WSO was in the past.

EDIT

Trump's only actual free trade issue was with the TPP. The TPP was political, not a free trade issue. It was to counter China. If you looked into the TPP, it became a grab bag of big business pet policy issues. Trump is going to renegotiate NAFTA.

Free trade is great for shareholders, but not necessarily for citizens. Cheaper goods are nice, but not at the expense of jobs and having an employed middle class.

It is just insane that something which was a moderate Democrat policy has now become a radical Trump policy. Reality is Trump and Sanders have more in common than Cruz and Hillary did. Populism is a middle ground.

Jan 23, 2017

So the similar theme is 47? We are talking about trying to improve a failed cities education and you're comparing it to Obamas job growth and half the jobs being service jobs which cannot support a family.

Dude, Breitbart is shit. I get you've clung onto this clown meme as a way to discredit what I say. Bravo for that. But I actually care about reading newsources and understanding an issue.

Jan 22, 2017
TNA:

So the similar theme is 47? We are talking about trying to improve a failed cities education and you're comparing it to Obamas job growth and half the jobs being service jobs which cannot support a family.

Dude, Breitbart is shit. I get you've clung onto this clown meme as a way to discredit what I say. Bravo for that. But I actually care about reading newsources and understanding an issue.

The similar theme is that in one case, you're suggesting 47% of charter schools "outperforming" the rest is significant and impressive, while at the same time suggesting that Obama creating 47% "high paying" jobs is shit and insignificant

Jan 24, 2017

Such an idiotic statement I have to believe he's trolling now.

    • 2
    • 1
Jan 23, 2017

I'm confused? You're pro TPP and free trade, right? So you're a Republican?

But you support government intervention on Internet pricing? So you're a Democrat?

Net neutrality is about the government telling cable providers to not prioritize or penalize data. We'll how is it cool for a minority of users or programs to hog bandwidth?

And since when has government intervention in private industry, effectively setting a ceiling or floor on the Internet service provider industry a good thing?

Let's not act like there aren't pros and cons and a good case can be made by both sides.

And any elected Republican would have nominated a FCC head who was anti government intervention. Standard Republican.

Not sure why this is Trumps doing. Literally would have happened with Bush, Rubio, Cruz, etc.

Jan 24, 2017

It sounds like I look into an issue and decide my opinion irrespective of pundits and partisanship. On that note, the corrosive nature of the GOP (or many of their constituents), is probably the biggest threat to our country and squanders all of our advantages. I would never vote for even a respectable GOP candidate because it would empower people like you, the hatred, mental gymnastics and a whole slew of views based in seething resentment. Fortunately, no GOP candidate has been worthwhile in the last decade.

GOP populism is against the TPP. And no there really isn't a cohesive and worthwhile argument against net neutrality.

Jan 22, 2017

The irony in your post made my night. Thank you, good sir.

Jan 23, 2017

So I see nothing but insults and no meat to your argument. There are plenty of arguments against net neutrality. You just don't agree with them. And you rail against normal GOP people , which I hate, yet hate Trump who is a hybrid GOP / Dem candidate.

Jan 24, 2017

Then you lack reading comprehension. I argued for the TPP above and you went into a predictable screed about partisanship etc. since you hadn't read it and didn't know what you were talking about. You also tried to assign me political views... No the GOP isn't for the TPP as an example, and weighing individual issues on their own merits isn't inconsistent...it's common sense.

Jan 22, 2017
TNA:

I'm confused? You're pro TPP and free trade, right? So you're a Republican?

But you support government intervention on Internet pricing? So you're a Democrat?

Net neutrality is about the government telling cable providers to not prioritize or penalize data. We'll how is it cool for a minority of users or programs to hog bandwidth?

And since when has government intervention in private industry, effectively setting a ceiling or floor on the Internet service provider industry a good thing?

Let's not act like there aren't pros and cons and a good case can be made by both sides.

And any elected Republican would have nominated a FCC head who was anti government intervention. Standard Republican.

Not sure why this is Trumps doing. Literally would have happened with Bush, Rubio, Cruz, etc.

@TNA The claim that Republicans are against government intervention is ludicrous and delusional. Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same authoritarian coin.

In fact, your ideology is a perfect example of crony-capitalism: economic freedom but only when I say so (net neutrality VS free trade).

    • 3
Jan 24, 2017

Looks like the army of dummies is having some buyer's remorse:

https://twitter.com/trump_regrets?lang=en

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 25, 2017
Eddie Braverman:

Looks like the army of dummies is having some buyer's remorse:https://twitter.com/trump_regrets?lang=en

Honestly that looks like a paid media campaign if I've ever seen one, and I have.

    • 2
Jan 25, 2017

Well, to answer your rhetorical question, we've blown way past 1984. Every interaction you have online up to 3 degrees of separation can be legally tracked, and once you're flagged as being in the network of a known threat, even if you don't know they are a threat, or don't directly even know the person exists, they can monitor everything you do.

All iPhones after 3GS came with a unique identifier that can be tracked enabling monitoring to then convert it to your phone number and unveil the account holders details. Never mind every email you send, text or iMessage, phone call you make, or purchase you make with a card or cash that isn't clean (ATM's track the serial number of cash dispensed) is tracked.

Today the U.S. was downgraded by the EIU to "flawed democracy" - we're in league with Iraq.

We're in 2084.

    • 1
Jan 25, 2017

Honestly I think this whole election was a ploy by Patrick to get us to spend some money on this site. I've drained my 5-year stash of wso credits tossing monkey shit at TNA and VTech who have turned into partisan hacks. C'mon guys, I know you want your taxes cut, but this. is. not. normal.

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 8
Jan 23, 2017

Partisan hack?

I've been Republican leaning for my whole life, but as I get older my stance on things have moved more towards the Democrats without the ridiculous taxation crap. I was miserable that Jeb was the anointed Republican and lamented that Clinton and Bush were the best we could get. It was a foregone conclusion that this was what we had.

Cruz is a fucking nut and wouldn't work with anyone. Bernie had the enthusiasm, but I cannot get behind someone giving out "free" college and jumping on every social issue bandwagon.

So you have Trump. A populist. 90% Republican, but pro labor and without the social issues.

It literally blows my mind that people have such an issue with Trump. It probably has similarities to people hating Obamacare, but supporting the ACA. The Trump name is the trigger.

Building the Wall - Border Security Act - Bush policy
Anti Net Neutrality - Standard Republican Policy
Devos - Charter schools/vouchers - Standard Republican Policy
Anti TPP - Democrat Policy (Hillary was against it, all the liberal press hated it, labor hated it)
Cutting Corporate Taxes - Standard Republican Policy
Infrastructure Spending - Republican/Democrat hybrid policy

If you draw a Venn diagram with Bernie and Trump policy, there is plenty of similarity.

IMO, it is basically impossible to have discussion regarding Trump anymore on this site. I support his populist policies because I am basically a very moderate Republican and I become a hack or some other nasty name. Like supporting working class people while also wanting taxes cut and and to have a President who cares about Americans primarily is some insane idea. A NYC liberal, who was a life long Democrat, has become Hitler overnight. People want conflict with Russia because leaked emails show corruption and collusion in the Democrat party.

And the hyperbole is comical. 1984? Yeah, it is Trump which ushers in this new "1984" era, yet the Bush and Obama level state spying is nothing. People should actually try reading that book. The language police aren't the Republicans right now. This comical demonizing of the Russians is pretty 1984. If anything, electing Trump was the people breaking free of their conditioning.

I can understand someone supporting Sanders. I get someone voting for Hillary. I have friends who cried when Trump won. I can happily talk to them and see their side. Somehow on this site it has become standard practice to basically mock anyone who supports Trump and simply ignore pretty level headed arguments. Or ignore that any standard Republican would be doing exactly what Trump is doing.

So either someone is a Democrat and hates Republican policy or they are just a snobby Republican and prefer big business to normal people. But this righteous indignation is pretty lame and the level of discourse on this site has gone down the tubes.

Personally, I've been on this site for many fucking years. I've met some great people and have had some solid discussions on very important subjects that have changed my fundamental opinions on some things. I've railed against Obama and was never a fan of him. All that being said, these Trump discussions have utterly sucked the joy out of posting for me. It is just shocking the level of disdain for someone who wants jobs for normal Americans and to cut taxes.

Whatever. I'm done with this thread and done with checking it. Frankly, I remember when Patrick squashed the political conversations way back when and I remember thinking it was a shame. Retrospect, it is a wonderful policy and I wish it would come back. Nothing is gained from these threads.

Out.

Jan 26, 2017

SB'd. It's OKAY to have opinions. Liberal intolerance for opposing viewpoints is astounding

    • 2
Jan 22, 2017

+1 SB

Jan 22, 2017
TNA:

Partisan hack?

I've been Republican leaning for my whole life, but as I get older my stance on things have moved more towards the Democrats without the ridiculous taxation crap. I was miserable that Jeb was the anointed Republican and lamented that Clinton and Bush were the best we could get. It was a foregone conclusion that this was what we had.

Cruz is a fucking nut and wouldn't work with anyone. Bernie had the enthusiasm, but I cannot get behind someone giving out "free" college and jumping on every social issue bandwagon.

So you have Trump. A populist. 90% Republican, but pro labor and without the social issues.

It literally blows my mind that people have such an issue with Trump. It probably has similarities to people hating Obamacare, but supporting the ACA. The Trump name is the trigger.

Building the Wall - Border Security Act - Bush policyAnti Net Neutrality - Standard Republican PolicyDevos - Charter schools/vouchers - Standard Republican PolicyAnti TPP - Democrat Policy (Hillary was against it, all the liberal press hated it, labor hated it)Cutting Corporate Taxes - Standard Republican PolicyInfrastructure Spending - Republican/Democrat hybrid policy

If you draw a Venn diagram with Bernie and Trump policy, there is plenty of similarity.

IMO, it is basically impossible to have discussion regarding Trump anymore on this site. I support his populist policies because I am basically a very moderate Republican and I become a hack or some other nasty name. Like supporting working class people while also wanting taxes cut and and to have a President who cares about Americans primarily is some insane idea. A NYC liberal, who was a life long Democrat, has become Hitler overnight. People want conflict with Russia because leaked emails show corruption and collusion in the Democrat party.

And the hyperbole is comical. 1984? Yeah, it is Trump which ushers in this new "1984" era, yet the Bush and Obama level state spying is nothing. People should actually try reading that book. The language police aren't the Republicans right now. This comical demonizing of the Russians is pretty 1984. If anything, electing Trump was the people breaking free of their conditioning.

I can understand someone supporting Sanders. I get someone voting for Hillary. I have friends who cried when Trump won. I can happily talk to them and see their side. Somehow on this site it has become standard practice to basically mock anyone who supports Trump and simply ignore pretty level headed arguments. Or ignore that any standard Republican would be doing exactly what Trump is doing.

So either someone is a Democrat and hates Republican policy or they are just a snobby Republican and prefer big business to normal people. But this righteous indignation is pretty lame and the level of discourse on this site has gone down the tubes.

Personally, I've been on this site for many fucking years. I've met some great people and have had some solid discussions on very important subjects that have changed my fundamental opinions on some things. I've railed against Obama and was never a fan of him. All that being said, these Trump discussions have utterly sucked the joy out of posting for me. It is just shocking the level of disdain for someone who wants jobs for normal Americans and to cut taxes.

Whatever. I'm done with this thread and done with checking it. Frankly, I remember when Patrick squashed the political conversations way back when and I remember thinking it was a shame. Retrospect, it is a wonderful policy and I wish it would come back. Nothing is gained from these threads.

Out.

Dude, I get what you're saying but you don't really have a clear grasp on what exactly the cause is of people's distaste and intolerance for Trump. You're literally picking and choosing certain policies and words he said and trying to make the argument that "these are incredibly STANDARD operations, nothing new to see here" which I don't entirely understand how you'd dismiss 90% of everything else. Those policies alone, held by an upstanding and restrained individual, would not yield the same reaction in people that comes from Trump - to an extent, sure, but certainly toned down. Remind me again which of our former leaders exhibited these statements:

  • "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." - Donald Trump
  • Insisting that the democratic election process that we have in this country was so rigged to the extent that 3 - 5 million illegal votes were case entirely to his opposition, "There are millions of votes...Of those votes cast, none of them come to me. None of them come to me. They would all be for the other side. None of them come to me." - Donald Trump
  • Telling the country not to trust "fake news" such as [major media outlets] that cast him in a negative light; not offering any alternative or going about it in a way that responsibly encourages the people to do their own research and arrive at the actual facts, because we all know the White House likes to push "alternative facts" of their own (but they have to, right?)
  • Telling the country the polls painting him unfavorably are all rigged and fake
  • Telling the country he had the largest standing ovation since Peyton Manning won the super bowl, everyone loves him
  • Encouraging a "muslim registry"
  • Recorded on camera saying he assaults women
  • Allowing the use of "alternative facts" in the White House which go against arguable, provable, direct facts that are apparent to anyone, yet he seemingly can't let it go for fear that his public image be impacted
  • Telling the country that he's going to release his tax returns during the campaign, then once he's elected says that the people "don't care", meanwhile Kellyanne Conway can't even keep up the tirade as she is going back on forth on the subject to this day; we still don't know where the leader of our country receives income from or where all of his foreign interests lie
  • Repealing the ACA, pitching a complete better alternative for which the country hasn't seen or heard about
  • He supposedly hasn't cut ties with all of his businesses, nor has he apparently relinquished full control as he said he would do, but even if he does, this is still unprecedented to not put his assets in a true blind trust
  • Rolling back women's, LGBTQ, foreign, essentially anyone who isn't white's rights
  • Twitter. That is all I have to say on that front.

This is all before the first fucking week in the White House. This is unprecedented. This is why people have an issue with Trump - Republicans and Democrats. If you want to policy pick and say "oh, well some of this shit has been proposed before" - that still doesn't mean that people haven't had issue with them previously. You are aware we are essentially in a two-party political system in the US; we can't pick and choose which pieces of a candidate we like and throw the rest out, we pick the one's who we can identify with "more" than the other candidate. Both parties still protest and have issue with each administration based on policies they enact and don't enact, and it's incredibly successful when there are peaceful movements that band together to show how important these values are to people, and in many situations have actually been successful in changing the course of legislation.

    • 4
Jan 22, 2017

Expand on his rolling back of women's, LGBTQ, or "essentially anyone who isn't white's right". Please. Thanks.

And by that I mean actual policy proposals. Not your interp. of his tweets or some off-the-cuff statement made a decade ago. Thanks.

And just in general, TNT is talking about policies. You're focusing on rhetoric.

Jan 23, 2017

well, he just ended Obama's DREAMer program that kept kids under 16 that were in school/ not delinquents from being deported. He (along with the republican house) has defunded a number of abortion initiatives, he intends to bring back stop and frisk that has been proven to be both ineffective as well as discriminatory numerous times. This is just quickly off the top of my head.

    • 1
Jan 22, 2017

1) Not necessarily true. He has not signed anything yet (to my knowledge) that will end DREAMer. And regardless, even if he did, that doesn't address the point above. If they are illegal immigrants, they are not granted American rights under our constitution. So, just pulling back a program that a previous administration implemented does not constitute "rolling back right's of a minority". Sorry.
2) I'll give you stop and frisk - if a policy is implemented. But, you said "intends to". Now you are just speculating. Get back to me on this one in the future.
3) You mentioned nothing about LGBTQ, which was one of the line items that was mentioned.
4) I don't have a strong argument against your abortion points. I don't have a strong opinion on it either way, but it's a Republican stance, nothing unique to Trump.

So, to summarize, 0/4 on your counterargument. Maybe 1/4 if the abortion funding comments are redirected towards the GOP in general, not just at Trump (which is how it was framed in the OP).

Jan 23, 2017

1.) I apologize, I thought his immigration order ceased the program and I'm now reading he is considering it
2.) Speculation would be me basing my opinion on flimsy evidence, that's not what I'm doing here, he has stated that's what he wants to do, which is most definitely not speculation. But you were arguing signed policies, fair statement.
3.) I didn't know I had to hit every group
4,) Trump personally signed executive orders that defund abortion initiatives, he is just as much as fault as the rest of the GOP.

Jan 26, 2017

On the one hand I largely support the political objectives of the new administration. I have to-- this is what people wanted, and they deserve to see it implemented and what its effects are.

On the other, I don't support their alternative facts. And we can't misunderestimate the comedic potential in this word.