President Trump Watch.

Agrippina · **#5221** by **Agrippina** » Apr 01, 2017 12:49 pm

Are we currently experiencing the biggest screw-ups in world politics. There's this, Brexit, now our version of Trump dismissed most of his cabinet and replaced them with the friends of his financiers. While our currency plummets, the courts have given us permission to grow and use our own pot. Just like Trump appoints his kids to power to deflect his screwing up his job. You'd expect this in a world run by idiots. Wait, the world is run by idiots. :roll:

Corneel · **#5222** by **Corneel** » Apr 01, 2017 2:30 pm

Agrippina wrote:Are we currently experiencing the biggest screw-ups in world politics.

No. No we aren't. Nope. Unless you really really think that this is worse than the 1930s. And in that case I'd advise some prescription medicine.

Pebble · **#5223** by **Pebble** » Apr 01, 2017 2:41 pm

Corneel wrote:
Agrippina wrote:Are we currently experiencing the biggest screw-ups in world politics.

No. No we aren't. Nope. Unless you really really think that this is worse than the 1930s. And in that case I'd advise some prescription medicine.

Presumably you think climate change is going to be less damaging than the second world war.

Corneel · **#5224** by **Corneel** » Apr 01, 2017 3:11 pm

Pebble wrote:
Corneel wrote:
Agrippina wrote:Are we currently experiencing the biggest screw-ups in world politics.

No. No we aren't. Nope. Unless you really really think that this is worse than the 1930s. And in that case I'd advise some prescription medicine.

Presumably you think climate change is going to be less damaging than the second world war.

While we can argue about the damage, It was certainly more avoidable if not as many screw-ups were made world politics. Climate change isn't just the result of screw-ups in world politics, it's the problem of westerners like you and me having unsustainable consumption patterns having to tell the majority of the world they can't have those same consumption patterns if we want to save the planet.

crank · **#5225** by **crank** » Apr 01, 2017 3:34 pm

I just had to put this somewhere and this seemed a good place since it's probably about Trump supporters. In a report on that bridge fire in Atlanta, it said the smoke was so bad some residents thought there was a storm, some thought the sun had set early. I hope that's meant to say some had thought it was already sunset, but that isn't what's said. The fire started at 6:30 PM local, so it's possible that's what folk meant, but this is america, and it's america under Trump.

The_Piper · **#5226** by **The_Piper** » Apr 01, 2017 6:39 pm

More humor, Mr. President takes his ball and goes home.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/31/politics/donald-trump-executive-order-signing-walk-out/index.html

willhud9 · **#5227** by **willhud9** » Apr 02, 2017 12:00 am

crank wrote:
willhud9 wrote:Well then you give permission to the forum to disregard your childish and incessant rants against the media to be nothing more than unsubstantiated bullshit. But you don't care. You care enough to make baseless assertions without evidence but get all pissy when called out on it? Quelle fucking surprise.

Lack of argument from hiding a gross, embarrassing error? Really? Come on Willie, admitting errors is beneath you?

It is willhud, not willie. I also accept Will or William, as that is my name. Furthermore, I am engaging you, but you are choosing to ignore questions and deflect by doing what you do below:

I've substantiated tons of media biases, errors, deliberate omissions, etc. in tones of threads.

Congratulations, want a cookie? If you have done so than you can easily go back and either a) link past posts in which you have addressed this issue, or b) provide citations in which you should be able to easily look up to support your claims. You are making positive claims. Burden of proof, etc.

Furthermore, as far as I can recall, those "tons" were not smoking guns and other posters called you out on it and challenged you and you also did the same kind of childish deflection.

If you don't know about the ones I mentioned here, it's because you refuse to see the evidence, both in my and others' threads, and when they were aired/published.

What a load of horse shit. You having an opinion and parroting your opinion or engaging in echo chambers/circle jerks with other members whom share your opinion does not count as evidence. As other members here have repeatedly told you. That does not mean myself and others are refusing to see evidence. Just because we don't make the same sweeping conclusions you make, or don't immediately go on this hard rail against the MSM because of what you perceive as irrefutable proof of your world view does not mean you can just accuse myself and other members of "refusing to see the evidence."

Pull the other finger.

What I don't care about is feeding you more citations when it's obvious you'll deny the facts in front of you.

Translation: I won't because I can't, but I have a convenient excuse to weasel my way out of showing burden of proof.

That was a response to you, who I've seen more than enough examples to know are blind to basic evidence in a lot of areas.

You know it really must be the fucking arrogance of the older generations to make childish statements like this. I am 25. I am learning new things all the time and constantly trying to learn new things all the time. I don't have any pretenses that I know everything or that my opinions and world views are set in stone. They are fluid like the waves of information that I am constantly presented with. But I am really tired of you and other older members accusing me of being "blind."

Your arrogance that everyone who does not agree with you or your worldview as being blind is problematic and one of the very many reasons why a lot of people don't very much like ultra-liberal progressives.

I mean, really, who the fuck doesn't know the media were complicit in the Iraq war and the 2008 financial crisis?

Well then I am sure you can provide plenty of citations if its such common knowledge. :coffee:

crank · **#5228** by **crank** » Apr 02, 2017 4:44 am

willhud9 wrote:
crank wrote:
Lack of argument from hiding a gross, embarrassing error? Really? Come on Willie, admitting errors is beneath you?

It is willhud, not willie. I also accept Will or William, as that is my name. Furthermore, I am engaging you, but you are choosing to ignore questions and deflect by doing what you do below:

I'm ignoring? I called you out for accusing me of the fallacy of popularity when it obviously wasn't, you ignored that, wouldn't admit how wrong you were.

The rest is just more of the same inanities I've already addressed countless times. Billyboy, whatever, if you're going to try to distract readers so they don't see you avoiding admitting an embarrassing error, I'm not going to let that pass. As I said, I don't care if you want to insist on being ignorant, not much i can do in the face of your resistance to facts.

Macdoc · **#5229** by **Macdoc** » Apr 02, 2017 5:07 am

That is brutal considering the source...

Macdoc · **#5230** by **Macdoc** » Apr 02, 2017 5:30 am

zing

With Stunning Moral Clarity, Wallace Global Fund Fires Firm That Endorsed Donald Trump’s Kleptocracy

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... wyers.html

snip

Wallace, who appeals to McKeon as “a fellow Villanova Law grad,” does not mince his words:

We believe that the legal advice given to him by your partner is not just simplistic and ill-founded, but that it empowers and even encourages impeachable offenses and undetectable financial conflicts of interest by America’s highest official, and thus is an unprecedented invitation to corruption and assault on our democracy.

Agrippina · **#5231** by **Agrippina** » Apr 02, 2017 5:53 am

Corneel wrote:
Pebble wrote:
Corneel wrote:
Agrippina wrote:Are we currently experiencing the biggest screw-ups in world politics.

No. No we aren't. Nope. Unless you really really think that this is worse than the 1930s. And in that case I'd advise some prescription medicine.

Presumably you think climate change is going to be less damaging than the second world war.

While we can argue about the damage, It was certainly more avoidable if not as many screw-ups were made world politics. Climate change isn't just the result of screw-ups in world politics, it's the problem of westerners like you and me having unsustainable consumption patterns having to tell the majority of the world they can't have those same consumption patterns if we want to save the planet.

Of course it is. People tend to think it's the result of individuals chucking wet wipes into landfill sites and down the toilet, and baby diapers (nappies) and plastic bottles... It's not the fault of the individual. It's the fault of the people who didn't think about what they were making, and how they were making their money, the consequences of the goods they were tossing into the economy, the politicians who didn't stop them while they were pocketing the profits from the companies that were selling goods to ignorant consumers. Of course it's got to do with politics.

I clearly remember my visit to the UK in 1975 when I had two kids still not toilet-trained at home, and contemplating having more. I saw disposable nappies for the first time when I visited a friend who had a daughter around the age of my older son. She just tossed the nappies out the window, collected them on bin day and threw them into the bin, along with all the plastic wrapping they came in as well as the packaging from her groceries, and the newspapers they read, twice a day. When I commented that in 50 years we'd be living on top of a landfill site full of stinky nappies, she just laughed and said "not my problem". Well it is her, and other people like hers problem now. She might be in her 70s but she's seeing the world I predicted then.

It was then in the hands of politicians to ban the manufacture of non-biodegrable plastic, but they didn't. When we used to argue about the environment being destroyed, and when "hippies" used to march to stop the slaughter of the world's animals, they were dismissed as "kooks", by politicians.

Of course climate change is the fault of politics. Yes the 1930s was a terrible time politically for the whole of the western world. I'm not denying that. Today's politics however have affected the entire world, not just Europe and the USA. US politics affects all of us, not just the people who are losing jobs and healthcare because they chose the village idiot for president. While the 1930s saw the rule by fascists and millions killed as a result of that person's power, and I'm not arguing that it wasn't terrible, it was different. More people are being affected by climate change, more people are going to be effected by Trump and other right-wing politicians policies.

I won't be around in 50 years to see the outcome. My grandchildren probably will. They live at the arse end of the African continent, but they are already affected by ever-increasingly hot summers, and they will be affected by the numbers of refugees from places that will become uninhabitable, and seas that will rise, while Trump and his cohorts count the money in their bank accounts, while they open up coal mines and declare climate change a hoax. So yes, we are living in apocalyptic times.

And again, I'm not denying that WWII was a terrible time, and the holocaust was devastating.

willhud9 · **#5232** by **willhud9** » Apr 02, 2017 5:55 am

crank wrote:
willhud9 wrote:
crank wrote:
Lack of argument from hiding a gross, embarrassing error? Really? Come on Willie, admitting errors is beneath you?

It is willhud, not willie. I also accept Will or William, as that is my name. Furthermore, I am engaging you, but you are choosing to ignore questions and deflect by doing what you do below:

I'm ignoring? I called you out for accusing me of the fallacy of popularity when it obviously wasn't, you ignored that, wouldn't admit how wrong you were.

The rest is just more of the same inanities I've already addressed countless times. Billyboy, whatever, if you're going to try to distract readers so they don't see you avoiding admitting an embarrassing error, I'm not going to let that pass. As I said, I don't care if you want to insist on being ignorant, not much i can do in the face of your resistance to facts.

You cited the public's low trust in the media I.e public opinion I.e argument via popularity as to why the mainstream media is bad.

Argumentum ad populam. Logical fallacy. Just because the masses believe something to be true does not make it so. That is what I accused you of invoking in the particular quote I quoted. You decided to bitch and whine when I called you out on it and do a whole "Nuh-uh" instead of stepping back and realizing that citing people's opinions does not equal substantiated facts.

:yawn:

crank · **#5233** by **crank** » Apr 02, 2017 7:14 am

willhud9 wrote:
crank wrote:
willhud9 wrote:
crank wrote:
Lack of argument from hiding a gross, embarrassing error? Really? Come on Willie, admitting errors is beneath you?

It is willhud, not willie. I also accept Will or William, as that is my name. Furthermore, I am engaging you, but you are choosing to ignore questions and deflect by doing what you do below:

I'm ignoring? I called you out for accusing me of the fallacy of popularity when it obviously wasn't, you ignored that, wouldn't admit how wrong you were.

The rest is just more of the same inanities I've already addressed countless times. Billyboy, whatever, if you're going to try to distract readers so they don't see you avoiding admitting an embarrassing error, I'm not going to let that pass. As I said, I don't care if you want to insist on being ignorant, not much i can do in the face of your resistance to facts.

You cited the public's low trust in the media I.e public opinion I.e argument via popularity as to why the mainstream media is bad.

Argumentum ad populam. Logical fallacy. Just because the masses believe something to be true does not make it so. That is what I accused you of invoking in the particular quote I quoted. You decided to bitch and whine when I called you out on it and do a whole "Nuh-uh" instead of stepping back and realizing that citing people's opinions does not equal substantiated facts.

If you paid attention instead of yawning all the time, you might not make such silly blunders. If I argue a>b and support it by saying 80% of the people say a>b, that's a fallacy. If I say the popularity of some schmuck who says a>b and asserts 'a' makes most people believe b, that ain't a fallacy. zzzzzzzzzzzz [I can do this in my sleep]

Edit/Addendum:
It's actually a worse blunder. My statement was

Same for not recognizing the media didn't aid Trump early on, like $ 2 billion in free advertizing? Are you unaware that the media are about as unpopular as Hillary and Trump, and trust levels probably record lows?

Where am I, anywhere, supporting an argument based on its popularity? What argument are you claiming is the fallacy? Whatever you think it is, I have no idea what you're 'thinking', it isn't what you're claiming. I'm saying that Trump can take advantage of the distrust in the media and its unpopularity to get a lot of folk to believe his lies. Where the hell is there anything like an argument that I'm trying to support based on popularity?

BlackBart · **#5234** by **BlackBart** » Apr 02, 2017 8:14 am

The_Piper wrote:More humor, Mr. President takes his ball and goes home.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/31/politics/donald-trump-executive-order-signing-walk-out/index.html

willhud9 · **#5235** by **willhud9** » Apr 02, 2017 12:19 pm

crank wrote:
willhud9 wrote:
crank wrote:
willhud9 wrote:

It is willhud, not willie. I also accept Will or William, as that is my name. Furthermore, I am engaging you, but you are choosing to ignore questions and deflect by doing what you do below:

I'm ignoring? I called you out for accusing me of the fallacy of popularity when it obviously wasn't, you ignored that, wouldn't admit how wrong you were.

The rest is just more of the same inanities I've already addressed countless times. Billyboy, whatever, if you're going to try to distract readers so they don't see you avoiding admitting an embarrassing error, I'm not going to let that pass. As I said, I don't care if you want to insist on being ignorant, not much i can do in the face of your resistance to facts.

You cited the public's low trust in the media I.e public opinion I.e argument via popularity as to why the mainstream media is bad.

Argumentum ad populam. Logical fallacy. Just because the masses believe something to be true does not make it so. That is what I accused you of invoking in the particular quote I quoted. You decided to bitch and whine when I called you out on it and do a whole "Nuh-uh" instead of stepping back and realizing that citing people's opinions does not equal substantiated facts.

If you paid attention instead of yawning all the time, you might not make such silly blunders. If I argue a>b and support it by saying 80% of the people say a>b, that's a fallacy. If I say the popularity of some schmuck who says a>b and asserts 'a' makes most people believe b, that ain't a fallacy. zzzzzzzzzzzz [I can do this in my sleep]

Edit/Addendum:
It's actually a worse blunder. My statement was
Same for not recognizing the media didn't aid Trump early on, like $ 2 billion in free advertizing? Are you unaware that the media are about as unpopular as Hillary and Trump, and trust levels probably record lows?

Where am I, anywhere, supporting an argument based on its popularity? What argument are you claiming is the fallacy? Whatever you think it is, I have no idea what you're 'thinking', it isn't what you're claiming. I'm saying that Trump can take advantage of the distrust in the media and its unpopularity to get a lot of folk to believe his lies. Where the hell is there anything like an argument that I'm trying to support based on popularity?

Right there in that statement of yours. You ask if I'm unaware that the media is as unpopular as Trump and Clinton as if that is somehow relevant or evidence that the media was complicit in his "free advertisement."

Plenty of news stories covered Trump's shady business practices, disgusting rhetoric, and abhorrent behaviors.

Just because the people don't trust the media doesn't mean your point that the media assisted Trump in winning the election really carries any weight. Your point that the people find the media not trustworthy is irrelevant and not evidence of anything. You tried to use it as such...or you were just blustering and ranting and in whichever case it's an unnecessary statement that served no relevant purpose to the current conversation.

Corneel · **#5236** by **Corneel** » Apr 02, 2017 12:23 pm

Agrippina wrote:
Corneel wrote:
Pebble wrote:
Corneel wrote:
No. No we aren't. Nope. Unless you really really think that this is worse than the 1930s. And in that case I'd advise some prescription medicine.

Presumably you think climate change is going to be less damaging than the second world war.

While we can argue about the damage, It was certainly more avoidable if not as many screw-ups were made world politics. Climate change isn't just the result of screw-ups in world politics, it's the problem of westerners like you and me having unsustainable consumption patterns having to tell the majority of the world they can't have those same consumption patterns if we want to save the planet.

Of course it is. People tend to think it's the result of individuals chucking wet wipes into landfill sites and down the toilet, and baby diapers (nappies) and plastic bottles... It's not the fault of the individual. It's the fault of the people who didn't think about what they were making, and how they were making their money, the consequences of the goods they were tossing into the economy, the politicians who didn't stop them while they were pocketing the profits from the companies that were selling goods to ignorant consumers. Of course it's got to do with politics.

I clearly remember my visit to the UK in 1975 when I had two kids still not toilet-trained at home, and contemplating having more. I saw disposable nappies for the first time when I visited a friend who had a daughter around the age of my older son. She just tossed the nappies out the window, collected them on bin day and threw them into the bin, along with all the plastic wrapping they came in as well as the packaging from her groceries, and the newspapers they read, twice a day. When I commented that in 50 years we'd be living on top of a landfill site full of stinky nappies, she just laughed and said "not my problem". Well it is her, and other people like hers problem now. She might be in her 70s but she's seeing the world I predicted then.

It was then in the hands of politicians to ban the manufacture of non-biodegrable plastic, but they didn't. When we used to argue about the environment being destroyed, and when "hippies" used to march to stop the slaughter of the world's animals, they were dismissed as "kooks", by politicians.

Of course climate change is the fault of politics. Yes the 1930s was a terrible time politically for the whole of the western world. I'm not denying that. Today's politics however have affected the entire world, not just Europe and the USA. US politics affects all of us, not just the people who are losing jobs and healthcare because they chose the village idiot for president. While the 1930s saw the rule by fascists and millions killed as a result of that person's power, and I'm not arguing that it wasn't terrible, it was different. More people are being affected by climate change, more people are going to be effected by Trump and other right-wing politicians policies.

I won't be around in 50 years to see the outcome. My grandchildren probably will. They live at the arse end of the African continent, but they are already affected by ever-increasingly hot summers, and they will be affected by the numbers of refugees from places that will become uninhabitable, and seas that will rise, while Trump and his cohorts count the money in their bank accounts, while they open up coal mines and declare climate change a hoax. So yes, we are living in apocalyptic times.

And again, I'm not denying that WWII was a terrible time, and the holocaust was devastating.

Nothing what you say is wrong as such, it's just that the fact that global warming is a political issue, it's just not one that is the result of incredible number of easily avoidable political screw-ups, unlike the fact Nazism got into power in Germany. But let's not further derail this thread, if you want we can continue that discussion elsewhere.

Agrippina · **#5237** by **Agrippina** » Apr 02, 2017 2:41 pm

Of course it is the result of political screw ups. When people were warning about it in the 1960s and 70s, politicians, the presidents of the USA, the Soviet Union, Europe, and the people becoming independent in Africa, could've taken notice of the warnings. Instead the financed the central pricing of the world's most expensive commodities and pocketed the profits. What Trump is doing to America is a direct result of the pursuit of wealth by the world's politicians. So yes, I do think the collapse of the world of ordinary people who are being screwed over more and more by the world's wealthiest people, who also happen to be the ones in charge of how it's run, is very much pertinent to a discussion about what Trump is doing. I'm not going to be around in 2030 when the wealthy live in their air-conditioned cities surrounded by the things they've made, and bought, while the rest of humankind lives off whatever the hell they can beat out of their neighbours. I hope it doesn't happen, but remember what I've said if Trump does manage to stay in power until he runs for his second term, or hands over the USA government to his daughter.

Pebble · **#5238** by **Pebble** » Apr 02, 2017 2:58 pm

Corneel wrote:

Nothing what you say is wrong as such, it's just that the fact that global warming is a political issue, it's just not one that is the result of incredible number of easily avoidable political screw-ups, unlike the fact Nazism got into power in Germany. But let's not further derail this thread, if you want we can continue that discussion elsewhere.

In the 1930's the population frustrated by the failure of politicians to ensure they benefited from the slow recovery from the 1929 cash, voted for populist "strong man" politicians that ignored the real issues in their economies and set a course leading to destruction. Now people frustrated by the failure of politicians to ensure they benefited from the slow recovery from the 2008 crash are voting for populist 'strong man' politicians that ignore the real issues as set a course leading to destruction.
So easy to see the differences!

crank · **#5239** by **crank** » Apr 02, 2017 3:15 pm

willhud9 wrote:

You cited the public's low trust in the media I.e public opinion I.e argument via popularity as to why the mainstream media is bad.

Argumentum ad populam. Logical fallacy. Just because the masses believe something to be true does not make it so. That is what I accused you of invoking in the particular quote I quoted. You decided to bitch and whine when I called you out on it and do a whole "Nuh-uh" instead of stepping back and realizing that citing people's opinions does not equal substantiated facts.

...

Right there in that statement of yours. You ask if I'm unaware that the media is as unpopular as Trump and Clinton as if that is somehow relevant or evidence that the media was complicit in his "free advertisement."

Plenty of news stories covered Trump's shady business practices, disgusting rhetoric, and abhorrent behaviors.

Just because the people don't trust the media doesn't mean your point that the media assisted Trump in winning the election really carries any weight. Your point that the people find the media not trustworthy is irrelevant and not evidence of anything. You tried to use it as such...or you were just blustering and ranting and in whichever case it's an unnecessary statement that served no relevant purpose to the current conversation.

The red-text statements are simply wrong. Nowhere do I argue any point whatsoever using the unpopularity of the media, or its untrustworthiness, as support for the argument [the fallacy's most basic requirement for invocation] . As I clearly pointed out in my previous post, I'm saying Trump can use the media's deficiencies in trust and popularity to sway voters that he is telling the truth. Nowhere am I saying anything, anything at all, that implies the truth derives from or can be gleaned from, someone's popularity or unpopularity or even relative popularities. In fact, if you were capable of perceiving nuance, you'd see I'm claiming neither side is telling the truth much of the time, and that it's the media's past of spreading BS that allows Trump his apparent inoculation from the media's current relative trustworthiness, at least wrt Trump and his ilk.

It's no wonder you have all kinds of idiotic notions about what's going on in the media, first off, "I listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity on an almost daily basis.", that'll put a dent in anyone's ability to think straight. And, 2nd, that must be why you evidence little ability to do so. If you so utterly fail to comprehend my basic point, even after a simplified repetition, there's little reason for anyone to put much weight in your arguments.

crank · **#5240** by **crank** » Apr 02, 2017 3:55 pm

Agrippina wrote:...
the world of ordinary people who are being screwed over more and more by the world's wealthiest people, who also happen to be the ones in charge of how it's run
...

If this wasn't blatantly obvious for decades, it sure as hell is now. It shouldn't even need saying, about as necessary as saying the US is a 2-party system. It's also just as obvious the media plays a large part. But, if you try to say this explicitly, you will get jumped on as a conspiracy theorist and all sorts of other ignorant slanders. There isn't a conspiracy, there's a lot of elite, they ain't all the same, they got all kinds of different goals, different priorities, etc. But what they do have in common is plenty, e.g., they pretty much all want corporate interest to trump the interest of the public at large. Is this what we see? Yes, that's been true for, well, pretty much forever. Does the media ever really expose this? Sometimes, when particularly vile BS happens, or incidences that are simply too huge to deny. In a recent post of mine in the thread about Trump's gutting of net neutrality, I asked what was missing from Spicer's comment :

The president pledged to reverse this type of federal overreach in which bureaucrats in Washington take the interests of one group of companies over the interests of others, picking winners and losers,”

It should be obvious if you're half-awake. The FTC and the FCC ostensibly exist for the good of the citizens, they are not corporation-profit maximizers. The good of the citizens is consistently ignored, as here where it is so explicit, a media that wasn't utterly compromised would report on these things honestly, instead of ignoring it or supporting it, which they do all the time.

Even here, a skeptics forum, saying something that is so obvious will get you ignorant crap like this recent accusation-- "childish and incessant rants against the media ". Seems a common sentiment by many here, what can you do when the skeptics in a skeptics forum crave gullibility?

President Trump Watch.

Re: President Trump Watch.

Re: President Trump Watch.

Re: President Trump Watch.

Re: President Trump Watch.

Re: President Trump Watch.

Re: President Trump Watch.

Re: President Trump Watch.

Re: President Trump Watch.

Re: President Trump Watch.

Re: President Trump Watch.

Re: President Trump Watch.

Re: President Trump Watch.

Re: President Trump Watch.

Re: President Trump Watch.

Re: President Trump Watch.

Re: President Trump Watch.

Re: President Trump Watch.

Re: President Trump Watch.

Re: President Trump Watch.

Re: President Trump Watch.

Who is online