Trump "Fake news"

[ChuckE]

Originally Posted by Key Board

Maybe Trump isn't a white nationalist, but he sure has enabled them

Remember, that he gave STEVE BANNON the chief white house strategist position once
and that's just the tip of the iceberg

and the reason why you don't have "dialogues" with Neo Nazi is because they don't want a dialogue
They want you dead
Have you checked the recent news?

Nobody wants me dead. But well I am privileged after all. Did something happen?

[Demi.]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

The tale of foul play and irrational accusations. Trump has repeatedly used racist, derogatory, misogynistic, xenophobic and more language on record and shows no sign of stopping. Blaming the media for 'fake news' when they simply report what he says.

The leftist version of these words don't coincide with the literal meaning of them. Another tactic of the left is to misconstrue, exaggerate, or distort words to make them appear worse than they really are. For instance, what a progressive liberal considers misogynistic, a conservative will consider locker room banter. As with most things, these accusations are blown massively out of proportion.

Conveniently overlooking that republicans have kept several of their attempts at repealing Obamacare secret until a few days before voting on it, including the majority of their own senators and repeating the same disaster with the recent tax bill that spans about ~500 pages and was released an hour before the vote.

Oh please, it's the holier-than-thou voter base that's detrimental to its party, not the politicians used to pass their agendas. The tax plan also isn't nearly as bad as people made it out to be. As it turns out, trickle down economics hasn't been a complete hoax. A number of companies have either raised the minimum wage; gave their employees a bonus, or invested in creating new jobs and infrastructure since the tax bill has released. Additionally, the average household will benefit from the plan. Because the standard deduction is being increased from 6,350 to 12,000 (For me personally, a 12,000 deduction will result in a massive tax cut; none of the new restrictions impact me). The income tax rate is also lower for all tax brackets up until 2025. It's true that the tax bill benefits businesses more in the long term because their tax cuts are permanent, but the reality is that this bill is a boon for most families or single households in the short to mid-term, and a minor liability in the long term. Trump will be long since removed from office by then, and for all we know, a new bill will have replaced it by then.

[Key Board]

Bush tax cuts were not beneficial to the economy. Convince me how an even larger tax cut isn't going to be worse.

also, here's what economist say about that supposed 12K deduction
https://www.snopes.com/2017-tax-bill/

Also, at least some of those companies had already decided to raise the minimum wage.
So saying they raised the minimum wage because of those cuts is disingenuous of them

[Demi.]

Originally Posted by Key Board

Bush tax cuts were not beneficial to the economy. Convince me how an even larger tax cut isn't going to be worse.

also, here's what economist say about that supposed 12K deduction
https://www.snopes.com/2017-tax-bill/

Also, at least some of those companies had already decided to raise the minimum wage.
So saying they raised the minimum wage because of those cuts is disingenuous of them

The greatest detriment to the economy is not tax cuts, but rather, the richest peoples reluctance to spend. And i'm not referring to luxury spending, but rather on job creation and employee training. Even if we taxed them more, they have too many loopholes to avoid taxation. It's not even that their tax bracket is too low, it's that they don't even pay the percentage that their bracket entails.


This is the closest thing to the truth:
"The sources citing this figure — including The Atlantic and The Center for American Progress — calculated it using a spreadsheet prepared by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank associated with The Brookings Institution. The Tax Policy Center based the spreadsheet on their analysis of major provisions in the Senate bill.

However, the statement doesnÂ’t represent the whole story. Stated more exactly, 87 million households with incomes under $200,000 a year will see their tax burdens increase by 2027. Adding in taxpayers at the highest income levels, that number swells to just short of 94 million (50.3 percent of taxpayers) who will experience a tax increase by 2027. However, thatÂ’s principally because the bill stipulates that the tax cuts on individuals will expire after 2025."

Most sources are misleading because they ignore the benefits of the short to mid term while trying to tarnish the plan by telling people of a tax spike to come by 2027.

Also, about the tax bill removing the dependent deduction:
Note that the $1600 Child Tax Credit is $1000 refundable (just like now), and $600 non-refundable. The latter means that in the 12% tax bracket it is exactly equivalent to a $5000 personal exemption per child. So even though personal exemptions are to be eliminated (while the Standard Deduction is roughly doubled), the personal exemption effectively lives on in the form of this increased Child Tax Credit.So families with kids do just fine with these changes.

[Blueknight78]

Originally Posted by ChuckE

First of all, it was extremely media and internet based. The amount of people over the internet is much more nowadays then before.
Morever it was close to reality-show election


That's what I am talking about - he started from the very beginning from the lower point than previous presidents. So it's no wonder that it's lower now - simply because general tendency to decrease in approval rating (with several exceptions) will bring lower overall result.

this don't make this "elections special", obama last electin also had a lof of "internet" too, my country too is having a lot of internet influence, it's only means which the tools to the elections are increasing overtime, next election and the next ones more and more internet increase and others news ways to use will appear.

his election don't have "nothing special" he just won a election due to election rules which already made the samething happening before.

why bring KKK? They are close to nonexistent now I mean do they even have a 5000 people overall? I bet no.

this is a "false info" or you are not really following the news or maybe ar on the "badwagon" of fake news" , cuz after the incident of the statues(forget the place name) the ammount of peoples wearing they "kkk white robes" increased a lot, from almost 0 to a good ammount in a lot of "trump support protests, you can see, since trump allowed them, they don't need to "hidden anymore", the only reason peopls believing they where in "extinction" was due to them being "marginalized" before trump, but since trump enabled and suppor them, they stopped to "hidden" then we really don't know how much they are since they where "hidden".

His father was a nazi? A lot of germans (and not germans though) were nazi. I mean its ideology of its time (and have some remnants nowadays) If Hitler did not put people into the owens the result would be a completely different.
Anyway liberals made the racist and nazi words irrelevant by labeling that way everybody whom they disagreed.

actually only 30 or 40% of german where true nazi and support of hittler even his "generals and support only a part of it supported him and this was the reason of his fall.

While i agree which the "SJW" and political righterouss also is a big issue and get out of control, this also don't means which the "racist and nazi peoples" where "fine peoples as trump claims", give them enough power and you gonna see how "fince and nice they are".

Every president consider people - the mass, the expendables. Or you think that they care about people that much? Of course he support those who support him.

yeah but no one is a idiot to try to fight against the "mass" and only support the only peoples which already on his side" a really good politic know which once you already brainwashed someone to follow you to death, time to move to brainwash more peoples to follow you not make then more anger to you and that is trump problem, because he instead of try to increase his followers he even made they dimish, by removing some of them like lgbt and others minorities with his unpopular policies and now only his followers believe on his words everyone else just see trump as compulsive lie and betrayer.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by ChuckE

The rules are fine

If you have to substantiate your argument with a winky face, your argument is bad.

USA is too vast to rely on the national opinion anyway

That doesn't even make sense. It's the national election.

As if California's population is not ~40 times bigger than Montana's

As if that matters in the slightest in regards to whose vote should matter more? Hell, if that's an argument, a Californian's vote should weigh 40x more than a Montanian's vote.

Because it was so spectacular (hillarious I would say ) that it will be remembered for a long time. Well at least till the next election. Or maybe a year more. Who knows

No, you just need a boogyman to try to project your failures on. It's okay, but it's beyond stale. She lost, get over it.

Originally Posted by ChuckE

Guess who's talking about hypocrisy. I would say republicans are more honest to themselves. They are not trying to hide their own opinion by the words like "progressive", "I am the smartest" and so on. Democrats went from smug to tears

So you seem to neither know what hypocrisy means, nor apparently what irony means.

Originally Posted by ChuckE

It is. I assume in California - due to bigger population - people can bring more votes for something. It's a basic logic no?

Thanks for arguing against your own argument.

Originally Posted by ChuckE

The aftermath still there and it's fun.

I guess if your idea of new is a spongebob caveman meme, then sure it's still there.

Originally Posted by ChuckE

I wouldn't call it extremely unpopular though

It is, but your bias clearly won't let you see that.

Originally Posted by ChuckE

It's been a year, what would you expect? I would add that Trump caused a butthurt for tons of muslims due to Jerusalem decision (though it was not much but effect was spectacular) whahaha

Okay, so you're just a troll then. Are you by chance also Russian?

Originally Posted by Demi.

This is also part of a clear pattern in which the left uses wildly dishonest language to describe Trump. I can’t help but notice the progression over the last year; running the rounds from Trump is a fascist, to a traitor, and now a white supremacist. That such irresponsible accusations have been echoed and amplified by the mainstream press has only proven to honest observers that this amounts to political foul play.

I'm sure you were absolutely outraged by what the GOP and its propaganda arm said about Obama though, right?

Originally Posted by Demi.

The left understands the depth of irrational hatred for this president, and are exploiting it. The right understands that it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion at this point. Perhaps if many of the politically motivated liberals would talk to their opponents, and not down to them; a more open discussion would unfold.

"The right" made discussion impossible when they decided to vote against everything Obama wanted just because he was Obama, and were determined to make him a one-term President. So maybe don't throw stones in your glass hut?

Also, the GOP is literally not letting democrats cooperate on bills. They actually said they'd only consider if if the democrats BEGGED to be included.

Originally Posted by Demi.

The leftist version of these words don't coincide with the literal meaning of them. Another tactic of the left is to misconstrue, exaggerate, or distort words to make them appear worse than they really are. For instance, what a progressive liberal considers misogynistic, a conservative will consider locker room banter. As with most things, these accusations are blown massively out of proportion.

It can be both. Also, your dear leaders are the ones who somehow made things that people paid into their entire lives an "entitlement", which is somehow bad.

As it turns out, trickle down economics hasn't been a complete hoax.

Yeah, that's why Kansas is the most prosperous state in the Union!

A number of companies have either raised the minimum wage; gave their employees a bonus, or invested in creating new jobs and infrastructure since the tax bill has released.

Multiple of those same companies have also laid off hundreds if not thousands of people immediately afterwards.

The greatest detriment to the economy is not tax cuts, but rather, the richest peoples reluctance to spend. And i'm not referring to luxury spending, but rather on job creation and employee training. Even if we taxed them more, they have too many loopholes to avoid taxation. It's not even that their tax bracket is too low, it's that they don't even pay the percentage that their bracket entails.

So you advocate letting them hoard more money rather than cut loopholes? Got it. Sorry, but demand creates jobs, not supply.

[SeijiSensei]

Companies are giving bonuses and the like because they get 35% back in tax savings this year but only 20% after January 1st.

[Demi.]

I'm sure you were absolutely outraged by what the GOP and its propaganda arm said about Obama though, right?

I quite liked Obama, but if we're talking about the media and propaganda-- A pew research poll found that the media is three times more negative for Trump than they were for Obama. 66% negative, 33% neutral, and only 5% positive. The media is supposed to be reporting the news, not their opinions.

It can be both. Also, your dear leaders are the ones who somehow made things that people paid into their entire lives an "entitlement", which is somehow bad.

I feel as though I'm being painted as the resident Trump lover because I dare to challenge the hive mind.

Multiple of those same companies have also laid off hundreds if not thousands of people immediately afterwards.

afaik that was only AT&T and they gave a pretty rational response to why. They also stated they will find replacement jobs for the workers laid off due to decreased demand in their fields. They also plan to create 7,000 new jobs.

So you advocate letting them hoard more money rather than cut loopholes? Got it. Sorry, but demand creates jobs, not supply.

Quite the opposite. I'm pointing out the flaw in our income tax system, not promoting it.

[ChuckE]

Originally Posted by Blueknight78

cuz after the incident of the statues(forget the place name) the ammount of peoples wearing they "kkk white robes" increased a lot, from almost 0 to a good ammount in a lot of "trump support protests, you can see, since trump allowed them, they don't need to "hidden anymore", the only reason peopls believing they where in "extinction" was due to them being "marginalized" before trump, but since trump enabled and suppor them, they stopped to "hidden" then we really don't know how much they are since they where "hidden".

from almost 0 to ... how much? 1000? 2000? 5000? On the scale of the USA they are close to nonexistent.

Regarding statues you reap what you sow, no? Just like with muslims, such actions (we had an example with Jerusalem. The scale is bigger but the idea is the same) cause radicalizing of people...And accusing and labeling doesn't help either.

Originally Posted by GDB

As if that matters in the slightest in regards to whose vote should matter more? Hell, if that's an argument, a Californian's vote should weigh 40x more than a Montanian's vote.

Originally Posted by GDB

Thanks for arguing against your own argument.

From my point of view one vote per state would be fine as it doesn't rely on population at all.

Relying on mob power won't work in USA because they are simply not homogenous and the problems of people on the north are different from the people on the south. The hell I would say that the people of north has their own issues, while people of the south has their own and they won't reach a consensus.

Originally Posted by GDB

It is, but your bias clearly won't let you see that.

Of course it's bias, what else it is might be? let's agree to disagree

Originally Posted by GDB

Okay, so you're just a troll then. Are you by chance also Russian?

Russian? No

[Blueknight78]

Originally Posted by ChuckE

from almost 0 to ... how much? 1000? 2000? 5000? On the scale of the USA they are close to nonexistent.

Regarding statues you reap what you sow, no? Just like with muslims, such actions (we had an example with Jerusalem. The scale is bigger but the idea is the same) cause radicalizing of people...And accusing and labeling doesn't help either.

Until you can come with "real numbers" than your own biased opnion we really don't know how much of kkk or neonazi or white supremacist exist in USA since like most of that sort of group they prefer to act in the shadows and keep hidden, only now after trump enabled them which they started to appear more open but we still don't really knew they numbers, the same could be told about terrorist, most of the times peoples think which they numbers are "small" but normally it ending being wrong because, while they numbers are really not big to take a whole country or maybe big town, they still have enough peoples to surprise a lot ev everyone else, then untl all of them could be really pointed i really can't go with your "small numbers"/ irrelevant", if they where really true like that, we could not had and still have some trouble with them pop up times to time to do trouble and war against the alt left, as long we have the stupid war of both extremists sides, things in US never gonna be good.
And as i told kkk are not the "only supporters of trump" we still have the WS and the NN which whem you band all of them, specially the WS and NN that numbers start to grown a lot.

[ChuckE]

Originally Posted by Blueknight78

Until you can come with "real numbers" than your own biased opnion we really don't know how much of kkk or neonazi or white supremacist exist in USA

I just googled like "KKK population USA" and they are up to 8000 according to wikipedia. So not that much on the scale.

Originally Posted by Blueknight78

since like most of that sort of group they prefer to act in the shadows and keep hidden, only now after trump enabled them which they started to appear more open but we still don't really knew they numbers, the same could be told about terrorist, most of the times peoples think which they numbers are "small" but normally it ending being wrong because, while they numbers are really not big to take a whole country or maybe big town, they still have enough peoples to surprise a lot ev everyone else, then untl all of them could be really pointed i really can't go with your "small numbers"/ irrelevant", if they where really true like that, we could not had and still have some trouble with them pop up times to time to do trouble and war against the alt left, as long we have the stupid war of both extremists sides, things in US never gonna be good.

Even 10 people is enough to surprise. But I believe the both extreme sides will increase their numbers. It's needed for the history of the world.

Originally Posted by Blueknight78

And as i told kkk are not the "only supporters of trump" we still have the WS and the NN which whem you band all of them, specially the WS and NN that numbers start to grown a lot.

Not sure what NN means (WS I assume is the white supremacists).

[Blueknight78]

[QUOTE=ChuckE;6180202]I just googled like "KKK population USA" and they are up to 8000 according to wikipedia. So not that much on the scale.[quote]
well while wikipedia is a average source, it's not really a perfect one specially in cases like that, i would love a more reliable source for that numbers, like "FBI" numbers or gallup or something more like that.

Even 10 people is enough to surprise. But I believe the both extreme sides will increase their numbers. It's needed for the history of the world.

yeah and that is where things get really dangerous when both crap sides start to stack more crazy peoples.

Not sure what NN means (WS I assume is the white supremacists).

NN=Neo Nazi and WS= White supremacists".

the big problem is which that 3 crap factions where part of trump base and are the "dangerous ones.

[ChuckE]

Originally Posted by Blueknight78

well while wikipedia is a average source, it's not really a perfect one specially in cases like that, i would love a more reliable source for that numbers, like "FBI" numbers or gallup or something more like that.

It relies on SPLC data though. Not sure if FBI tracks hate groups that much.

Originally Posted by Blueknight78

the big problem is which that 3 crap factions where part of trump base and are the "dangerous ones.

Or I see. I don't use NN abbreviation because I assume nazi as neo-nazi because you know...Hitler is dead

Any radical movement can be dangerous. It's radical no? It's already has a "breaking something" in its definition.

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by Demi.

The leftist version of these words don't coincide with the literal meaning of them. Another tactic of the left is to misconstrue, exaggerate, or distort words to make them appear worse than they really are. For instance, what a progressive liberal considers misogynistic, a conservative will consider locker room banter. As with most things, these accusations are blown massively out of proportion.

Because grabbing em by the pussy is not misogynistic. Accusing a judge to be biased because of his heritage is not xenophobic. Calling Mexican immigrants rapists and drug dealers is not racist. And that's just the tip. Giving things a cute name doesn't make them less offensive.

Originally Posted by Demi.

I quite liked Obama, but if we're talking about the media and propaganda-- A pew research poll found that the media is three times more negative for Trump than they were for Obama. 66% negative, 33% neutral, and only 5% positive. The media is supposed to be reporting the news, not their opinions.

Because Trump is -gasp- doing far worse than Obama.

Originally Posted by Demi.

I feel as though I'm being painted as the resident Trump lover because I dare to challenge the hive mind.

Because you are parroting the republican narrative of fake mainstream media, unfair accusations and whitewashing their political agenda.

Originally Posted by ChuckE

From my point of view one vote per state would be fine as it doesn't rely on population at all.

Relying on mob power won't work in USA because they are simply not homogenous and the problems of people on the north are different from the people on the south. The hell I would say that the people of north has their own issues, while people of the south has their own and they won't reach a consensus.

They are not arguing against each other. You simply do not understand how opinion polls work.

Originally Posted by ChuckE

Of course it's bias, what else it is might be?

Factually wrong.

[felix]

Originally Posted by Demi.

I quite liked Obama, but if we're talking about the media and propaganda-- A pew research poll found that the media is three times more negative for Trump than they were for Obama. 66% negative, 33% neutral, and only 5% positive. The media is supposed to be reporting the news, not their opinions.

You seem to be implying they're presenting false information, but avoid saying it because you know it's untrue and instead simply imply it by saying they're extremely opinionated. What and where exactly is this purely opinion non-news at? The only examples of all crazed opinion and no facts I see are people like Alex Jones.

So long as the news is true and based on the real world, the media has no obligation to not be opinionated. The media is not the justice system.

You see more negative because there IS more negative to report on.
It's the media's job to blow the whistles when there's utter chaos.

[ChuckE]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Factually wrong.

Not really. It has something like ~30% rating approval so I wouldn't call it extremely unpopular. If we exclude those who vote against "just because it is GOP" or "just because it is Trump" or just because "I am a liberal" we'll have something like ~45-50% maybe. So it is fine.

[Haak]

You wouldn't exclude those results in the first place but even if you did, in that case you'd also exclude those who support it for similar reasons so it works out the same.

Lets just stick to the facts shall we?

[Demi.]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Because grabbing em by the pussy is not misogynistic. Accusing a judge to be biased because of his heritage is not xenophobic. Calling Mexican immigrants rapists and drug dealers is not racist. And that's just the tip. Giving things a cute name doesn't make them less offensive.

He didn't call Mexican immigrants rapists or drug dealers. He meant that many coming over the boarder illegally probably are(That's how you distort the truth while still appearing to tell the facts). It's still a dumb statement but It's not a clear indicator of racism; only false information to better justify one of his campaign promises.

It's locker room banter meant to be funny-- I personally thought it was. Are you going to accuse black people of being misogynistic for liking rap music? We all know what kind of lyrics are conveyed there. The reality is it doesn't matter what you think of a class or group of people in your mind, but rather, your actions to them in an open environment.

Because Trump is -gasp- doing far worse than Obama.

"The media story reviewed the tone of coverage of Trump’s first 60 days in office and found that just 5 percent was “positive.”" This is way before you can accuse Trump of doing a far worse job.

Home prices are on the rise; manufacturing jobs rebounded; unemployment is the lowest in 44 years; GDP growth is at 3% over the last two quarters; 3rd highest stock market rebound of any 1st term sitting president... I'll say that it is tough to credit Trump for anything when democrats want to credit Obama for the current economic growth and not the sitting president.

Because you are parroting the republican narrative of fake mainstream media, unfair accusations and whitewashing their political agenda.

I never claimed it was fake, merely misleading and often opinionated. As far as presidents go, Trump is passable. There are things I like about him and just as many I don't. I lean more on the side of finding humor in his twitter rants and that they're a facet to his rambunctious personality.

Originally Posted by felix

You seem to be implying they're presenting false information, but avoid saying it because you know it's untrue and instead simply imply it by saying they're extremely opinionated. What and where exactly is this purely opinion non-news at? The only examples of all crazed opinion and no facts I see are people like Alex Jones.

You can still report the facts and be dishonest about them by leaving out key details or by putting a negative spin on something that isn't even bad. I've seen it all too many times with Trump tax plan; the things they say about it and the reality of it are fundamentally different. And then we have media outlets like CNN or the BBC where they move further away from talking about his policy agenda, and more towards attacking his character and leadership.

[Toukairin]

Originally Posted by felix

You seem to be implying they're presenting false information, but avoid saying it because you know it's untrue and instead simply imply it by saying they're extremely opinionated. What and where exactly is this purely opinion non-news at? The only examples of all crazed opinion and no facts I see are people like Alex Jones.

So long as the news is true and based on the real world, the media has no obligation to not be opinionated. The media is not the justice system.

You see more negative because there IS more negative to report on.
It's the media's job to blow the whistles when there's utter chaos.

Speaking of Alex Jones, he's one of a few people on this Earth who deserves to have his fat pathetic ass dumped into a frozen lake for human sanity's sake.

Besides, I don't need media from the US to tell me what is real and what is not. I have most international news outlets to provide facts from their point of view, and I'm more than happy when US news outlets go in the same direction with F-A-C-T-S.

Considering the kind of mess this White House has become, there is indeed plenty of reason to report the negatives. It's up to that orange idiot to get his head out of his ass.

[MrTerrorist]

Merkel’s Efforts to Teach Trump About Diplomacy Didn’t Go Well

Somehow this reminds of that one That 70's Show episode where Kelso's dad tried to repeatedly explain to Kelso what his job was which the latter didn't understand until he gave up and just say his dad is a "farmer".