Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
“No, racist intent generally does not disqualify a speeding ticket.Speeding tickets are based on objective evidence of violating traffic laws, not subjective motivations of the officer. While racial bias in policing is a serious issue, it doesn't negate the validity of a speeding ticket.
This is where it helps to read and understand the conversion you are taking part in. Here is what I wrote, take note of the bold:
"It is illegal for a police officer to pull someone over and give them a ticket because they're black. If that's the officers motivation and that can be shown, the question of whether the individual was speeding is irrelevant to the fact that his rights have been violated."
I wasn't arguing that the individual cannot get a speeding ticket. I was arguing that he is still being discriminated against regardless of whether he committed the violation or not. Here, let's see what Chatgpt has to say about that:
Is being discriminated against considered a violation of ones rights?ChatGPT said:Yes, being discriminated against can be considered a violation of one's rights—especially when it involves protected characteristics like race, gender, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, or national origin.
So why does this matter? Because if you bothered to read the OP and take note of what it is about you would know that the central point here, MAGA hypocrisy aside, is that Trump is violating the first amendment. Specifically, he is violating CBS's first amendment rights.
Discrimination means to treat someone differently based on superficial characteristics (as in characteristics that are not relevant to the standard of treatment set by the law or established practices). The key word in that definition is differently.
Therefore to show that Trump is not "discriminating" against CBS for their unfavorable coverage of him, you would need to show that his treatment of them (attacking them for this "violation") is consistent with how he treats every other network with a broadcast news accreditation in this regard. But you won't even try, because you know that is a load of bullshit and so does everyone else. This is not about FCC standards, Trump couldn't care less about that. This purely about punishment for unfavorable coverage. Full stop.
The fact that I have addressed everything you’ve posted on this thread head on
You haven't. The only thing you've offered in this thread is a defense against Trump's alleged 1A violation by suggesting that CBS might have committed an FCC violation. But as the example above shows, that argument is a non sequitur. CBS can simultaneously be guilty of an FCC violation and have it's 1A rights violated just as a person can simultaneously be discriminated against while being guilty of speeding. So since one does not negate the other your point here fails to address the central point of this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
I am saying that it is plausible that Trump has a valid case against CBS, and this case does not conflict with the 1A.
And I've been saying that whether there is a plausibly valid case against CBS is irrelevant to whether this is a first amendment violation.
It is illegal for a police officer to pull someone over and give them a ticket because they're black. If that's the officers motivation and that can be shown, the question of whether the individual was speeding is irrelevant to the fact that his rights have been violated.
To put it another way; if the violation you are citing is merely a pretext, your enforcement actions are illegitimate regardless of whether the violation occurred.
Trump has in fact made very clear that this supposed violation CBS committed is nothing more than a pretext, this is why you and all of MAGA want to focus on whether CBS committed a violation or even take a furthet step back (because that cannot be credibly argued) and just argue that the plausibility of them having committed a violation is itself enough for us to disregard any accusation of a rights violation.
It's fundamentally dishonest and you would never afford any democrat such grace. In fact, aren't you one of those who was claiming that Trump's indictments themselves were proof of a weaponized justice department (which is bad) and therefore we didn't need to adjudicate whether he actually committed the crimes to know that?
If you do not believe he has a case, why are you so threatened by what would only be a bunch of hot air and fist shaking?
Well first of all, because Trump's hot air and fist shaking are not without consequence. I have been saying for years that the true danger of Trump is far beyond anything he can actuate as the president. The danger he brings is the rot of the American mind which he is facilitating. A perfect example is when otherwise intelligent and educated people can look at a man punishing news outlets he doesn't like for criticizing him and find excuses to not only not care about it, but to convince themselves that anyone who does has some kind of derangement syndrome.
But also, it's not hot air and fist shaking. That was Trump term 1, where he, having no idea how government worked, surrounded himself with people who did and who respected the constitution, effectively serving as a check against his abuses. That is not Trump term two. He does not care about rules or processes, and he has no tolerance for anyone telling him no, no matter how wrong or illegal. What he's doing here with CBS is the authoritarian creep people like me talked about all campaign season. He will not stop until he is stopped. But MAGA couldn't care less, you guys never do until it's you.
So, you think that Trump can order the FCC to fine CBS on the basis that he doesn’t like them? Why stop (or start) there? Why, he can just order various authorities to fine NBC, MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times… right?
That's what comes next. Google Democratic backsliding.
A lawsuit is also referred to as “a complaint” in legal circles. Ask me how I could possibly conclude that you aren’t an attorney.
We're talking about a social media post genius, not a lawsuit.
If you wish to argue a conflict with the 1A, then by all means, do so. But if you just want to shake your fist and yell “Trumpman bad!” then I will leave you alone to do that.
The fact that I've said everything I have and “Trumpman bad!” is all you heard... This is why I wake up everyday knowing I'm right. If you had an actual argument against the things I've said you would offer it instead of either not hearing anything I've said or just pretending not to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
The regulations apply to all broadcast news outlets— plural. The accusation of a news outlet breaking those rules that it agreed to operate under applies to one news outlet in this case— CBS.
If the regulations apply to all outlets...
and only one outlet is being called out...
then...
in order for this to be a good faith underlying basis...
the accuser must believe that this is the only outlet who has demonstrably violated the regulation.
And yet, as I've already explained in great detail...
that is not a credible assertion.
Therefore...
It is not a good faith underlying basis.
Therefore...
There is some other reason why he is doing this. And to figure out what that reason is, look to what else this man has said and done.
Now, scroll up to post 32 and try again.
there is no conflict between the First Amendment and complaining that a company isn’t following the rules it agreed to operate under
This is remarkably disingenuous.
We're not talking about Joe Schmoe on Twitter. We're talking about the president of the United States, as in the guy who has the final say on what the FCC focuses their attention on.
And we're not talking about him "complaining". We're talking about him publicly declaring that the FCC "will impose the maximum fines and punishment" on CBS and even called out the individual whom he expects to make it happen.
Excuses for violating CBS's first amendment rights are just that, excuses. They don't make the violation disappear.
Punishing a news outlet for coverage you don't like is a blatant first amendment violation. That is what this is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
No, what I would do is utilize logic 101 by looking at the situation in its totality, then use Occam's razor to determine what best explains the individuals motives.You say “no,” but you then go on to restate the same thing, that being “You, however, would characterize the situation as this particular plaintiff is suing the company only because he personally doesn’t like the company.” but in your own words.
"In your own words" there is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
The obvious implication of your analogy is that I'm asserting Trump's motives with no evidence or reason to believe it so other than the mere fact that he spoke out against CBS.
The problem with this implication is that it ignores both reality and logic 101.
So I listed the plethora of reasons via examples of Trump demonstrating what his interests and intentions have been throughout his entire life to show how they align exactly with what I'm saying.
The takeaway? The obvious implication of your analogy is wrong.
I’m not “having you believe” or claiming either of those strawman imaginings of yours. What I am saying is what I already wrote… at least twice actually, and that is that Trump has a case here according to FCC regulations regarding news outlets.
Well first of all, no he doesn't, at least not in this example. The argument in that case is beyond stupid when looking at the facts, which is why I didn't even bother to get into it. It's just not serious.
Second, you talk about news outlets (plural) but he's only attacking one which is my point, this isn't about how news outlets operate. It's about him using state power to punish those who cover him unfavorably. That is obvious for all the reasons I've already explained.
So it is not credible that you're just merely posting this "fact" as an FYI not tied to any greater point. That is, at best, meaningless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
The FBI admitted to staging it. Why do you think the FBI is lying?
They didn't admit to staging it. They "admitted" that the cover sheets were placed there by themselves for the purposes of taking the photos.
So why do I put "admitted" in scare quotes? Because it's not an admission, it's standard procedure. Turns out that taking pictures of classified documents for a court filling, which is public information, is probably not a good idea. Who knew?
Or here, how about we just ask Chatgpt why the FBI would use cover sheets for classified document photos:
In the Trump classified documents case, FBI agents used classified document cover sheets when taking photos of the materials found at Mar-a-Lago to:
- Protect National Security Information: Some of the documents may have had highly sensitive information visible on their covers or first pages. Placing standard classification cover sheets (like "TOP SECRET" or "SECRET") over them helped prevent disclosure of specific sensitive content in photographs used in court filings or for internal records.
- Demonstrate Classification Level: The cover sheets visually indicated the classification level of the documents (e.g., “Top Secret//SCI”), which helped the public and court understand the nature of the materials without revealing their actual content.
- Standard Evidence Handling: It’s part of protocol in handling and documenting classified materials—especially when used as evidence. The cover sheets help preserve chain of custody and ensure no inadvertent exposure.
- Visual Clarity for Legal and Media Use: In public court filings (like those released by the DOJ), the government wanted to show that classified materials were recovered without revealing what was actually classified. The cover sheets provided a clear visual shorthand.
So it turns out, if you wanted an answer to your question all you had to do was ask, but that was apparently too much.
Besides I could find excuses for why Biden committed serious crimes
Yeah, the problem with that is thing this we call reality, and when you combine it with this thing we call logic... Disingenuous proclamations tend not to not survive.
You don't go after political opponents like the gestapo did it's evil.
Serious question; is it then your belief that when one party is in power, their political rivals ate too be given free reign to commit whatever crimes they like?
Second question, what are your thoughts on Donald Trump signing an executive order instructing the DOJ to go after Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
You will always find excuses to do evil things like going after political opponents
No, I will always defend that which is rational and in line with basic values of honesty, integrity, and consistency.
Trump committed obvious and serious crimes. Therefore, in line with honesty, integrity, and consistency, the only rational response is to charge him with committing serious and obvious crimes. That's how it works.
you do know that the photo the FBI did was staged right?
No, I just have forgotten my tin foil hat.
The documents never had the words classified printed on them for example
Not every document in the photos was classified, and not every classified document has a huge red stamp ready for its photo to be taken.
Please tell me you have more evidence for this extraordinary claim than that.
Now would an organization that has the truth on its side need to lie?It's a simple yes or no question. Don't complicate it. Do the good guys need to do things like stage photos?
The fact that you are already asking that loaded question without providing anything that could be considered a rational argument in support of is premise shows where the problem is.
Prove the photos were staged, then we can talk about what it does or doesn't imply.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
You, however, would characterize the situation as this particular plaintiff is suing the company only because he personally doesn’t like the company.
No, what I would do is utilize logic 101 by looking at the situation in it's totality, then use Occam's razor to determine what best explains the individuals motives.
Example:
“The president has accused CBS of aiding his 2024 Democratic opponent through deceptive editing one month before he and Harris faced off in the presidential election. The saga began when Harris was widely mocked for a "word salad" answer she gave to "60 Minutes" correspondent Bill Whitaker during a preview of the interview on "Face the Nation," and CBS then aired a different answer to the same question during a primetime special.”
In this example, you would have us believe that what this is about is a president who cares so deeply about news organizations sticking to unbiased fact based journalism that he believes it is worth his time and attention to focus on this one network over this one particular example.
Meanwhile, this very same president has said absolutely nothing about another news network who had to pay almost a billion dollar defamation settlement because they lied so blatantly and repeatedly and was forced to turn over the evidence proving that they knew the stories they aired were all total bullshit.
Who also happens to be the same president that endlessly praises every single outlet that covers him favorably and attacks every outlet that covers him negatively.
The same president that has never, ever, ever, defended anyone's first amendment right to say anything critical of him, ever.
The same guy who as president, finds it worth his time and attention to attack celebrities and talk show hosts on social media who make fun of him.
The same guy who literally sued a comedian for making a joke about how he looks so orange he might be the son of an orangutan.
The same guy who tries to primary every politician that doesn't side with him on everything.
The same guy who personally attacks every judge who has ever ruled against him while personally praising every judge who sides with him.
The same guy who calls the free press the enemy of the American people.
The same guy who said explicitly, repeatedly, that he was running for president to be "your (as in everyone who opposes networks like CBS) retribution".
The same guy praises every dictator on earth for being tough, while attacking every democratically elected leader in the free world.
Yeah... That guy. That's the guy you claim is so concerned about fair and unbiased news coverage.
Or...
It could be that the guy who has spent his entire life punishing any and everyone who treats him unfavorably... Is trying to punish a network who treats him unfavorably.
Gee, tough one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
The story is the fact that the president of the United States is calling for his own FCC to punish news outlets for reporting he doesn't like.That “fact” was not established in your OP.
You can say it is not established that 2+2=4 all you like, it still does.
Putting out a public statement where you declare the FCC chair (who works for you) "will impose the maximum fines and punishment" on CBS... Is by any reasonable definition, "going after" CBS.
CBS is also, very clearly, a news outlet Trump doesn't like.
2+2=4
The only thing you could try to argue is that Trump's intentions are pure and have nothing to do with the fact that he simply doesn't like CBS or their coverage, but that position cannot be maintained with a straight face.
Trump is the most transparent individual we've ever seen when it comes to how he feels and what motivates him. He attacks every news network that does not cover him favorably and he loves every network that does. He's never defended anyone for exercising their first amendment right to criticize him, ever. And he declared as a candidate that he was running a campaign of retribution. There is no way that any reasonable person cannot spot the pattern here. Trump's response to CBS is as predictable is the sun rising.
My initial response to your OP is a response to what was established— that CBS might be in violation of FCC rules for what qualifies as an accredited news broadcast.
Which is irrelevant because there is no reasonable case to be made that that is what this is about, nor would that be news worthy in the slightest. It is nothing more than an excuse to avoid the blatant violation of the constitution right in front of your face.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
You were on here silent on the Twitter files were you not?
Mostly yes, because what right wingers allege the Twitter files to show is complete and total BS.
You supported going after Trump for being a Republican
No genius, I supported going after someone for committing serious and obvious crimes, and I've broken down why he did in fact commit serious and obvious crimes many times over on this site. Your brain does not work. For you to after all these months and years to still be holding onto this ridiculous characterization of my position demonstrates that.
Trump incited a mob to attack the US capitol that lead to Congress having to evacuate for their safety. That is a serious and obvious crime. Anyone who does that should go to jail.
Trump knowingly stashed cases full of classified documents in his beach club next to the toilet and on his stage, then lied to the FBI about having possession of them and ordered all evidence of their whereabouts destroyed. That is a serious and obvious crime. Anyone who does that should go to jail.
If you can not at the very least agree that the two examples above are serious and obvious crimes to which Donald Trump should be prosecuted then you can go back to your little corner and keep repeating whatever feels good to you.
I have been intellectually honest and said that it's wrong no matter what to do evil things
And yet you voted for Donald Trump and support him enthusiastically, so nothing you say there matters.
I somehow doubt you have confronted your own evil though since you have ignored the arrests of people for memes in England the arrest of anti establishment politicians like LePen or the conservatives in the Philippines or Romania.
I don't have the time or energy to focus on England's internal politics, we have enough problems here in the US with an aspiring dictator slowly consolidating all power within the federal government to himself as he destroys our economy and half the country seeing nothing wrong with it.
Taking away free shit for companies is not an attack on freedom
If you want to argue that universities shouldn't get federal funds that's a reasonable debate to have. But it does, so this talking point is nonsense. Not giving something and taking something away are two totally different things, especially when taking something away is the result of that entity ceding to your unconstitutional demands.
It's weird that when you guys are in power it's okay to go after political opponents for prison, end free speech and end freedom
This is the game you guys on the right love to play. You have no real arguments so all you do is mischaracterize your political opponents so that you can use your own mischaracterizations as an attack later, all to avoid having to reconcile why you are supporting something you purport to disagree with.
No, we never supported attacks on free speech. No, we never supported weaponizing the justice system. No, we never supported attacks on freedom. That's just what you wrongly called the things you were observing, setting up your excuse for later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Those who think government sending lists of claims to censor to facebook and twitter wasn't a (constitutional) problem, have no room to complain; but I, being both honest and rational, do.
False equivalences are not rational. Twitter and Facebook had aligned views on the danger of allowing false claims to be amplified via their platforms and worked with those agencies to prevent that. That is not remotely the same thing as what Trump is calling for, especially given how little Trump has shown himself to care about traditional limits every other president respected when it came to abusing the power of his office to fire anyone he wants for any reason he wants and how little disregard he has for the law.
Created:
Posted in:
the president of the United States sending a clear message to his subordinatesWho are his subordinates here? Trump is talking about the FCC.
... which ultimately reports to the president.
punish a news outlet for reporting on things he does not like.The article you linked is about Trump complaining that the Harris interview was substantively edited, not that there was a Harris interview in the first place.
The article link was provided only as a way to fend off disingenuous dismissals of "fake news". The story is the fact that the president of the United States is calling for his own FCC to punish news outlets for reporting he doesn't like. Are you ok with that or not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Is the first amendment important or not. We have to decide this
No, you need to decide this for yourself and then use that values based determination to decide how you feel about what's going on in this country and around the world. That's how intellectual honesty works.
right now theleft thinks it doesn't matter when they have power.
BS. The left recognizes the difference between having power via holding positions that make sense and are therefore held through much of mainstream society vs using the power of the state to violate people's rights.
So they can't really use it to argue against anything Trump does
Trump's actions are either in line with or against your values, whatever position "the left" held in prior examples is irrelevant to that.
Also another question is what does it mean to lose an FCC license? Is it just the government not giving 60 minutes free shit or does it really prevent them from having a TV show?
It means they granted the right to use the airwaves to broadcast their content. Certainly not the big deal it used to be but still matters.
The rest of your questions there are irrelevant, they're just an excuse to minimize an obvious abuse of power. The bottom line is that the president of the United States is trying to use state power to punish dissenting voices. Are you ok with that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
It isn’t hypocrisy to call out a network which might not be adhering to the rules it has agreed to operate under
No, but it absolutely is hypocrisy to portray yourself as believing in free speech and then excuse away the president of the United States sending a clear message to his subordinates to punish a news outlet for reporting on things he does not like.
Created:
Posted in:
Here's Trump on the latest 60 Minutes episode:
"They should lose their license! Hopefully, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as headed by its Highly Respected Chairman, Brendan Carr, will impose the maximum fines and punishment, which is substantial, for their unlawful and illegal behavior. CBS is out of control, at levels never seen before, and they should pay a big price for this"
I can't wait till all those MAGA enthusiasts who've been screaming about the first amendment being under assault for all these years find out about this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Trump himself is inept, that should go without saying. But he has empowered technocrats who know how to run organizations efficiently. Even cabinet officials with no such experience, like Hegseth, and perhaps those with genuinely insane beliefs like RFK Jr., may be more inclined to give competent outsiders a seat at the decision-making table and break through intergenerational cycles of groupthink.
Not a single thing any of the individuals Trump filled his cabinet with have shown us demonstrates a willingness to give competent people a seat anywhere near this administration, in fact that seems to be a disqualifier. The first and only qualifier here is subservience to Trump's whims, that's the opposite.
They might make everything worse. But for the first time since this crisis began, our chances of staving off civilizational collapse by the middle of the 21st century are greater than zero. By analogy, America is a patient with otherwise untreatable cancer and a firm offers them an experimental drug that'll either cure them or kill them faster. That's our current predicament.
The Trump administration isn't analogous to an experimental drug, it's more like homeothapy. The problems we face are massively complicated and complex problems require complex solutions, yet every answer Trump provides fits on a bumper sticker or as a rally chant.
I give him credit though, his strategy definitely worked. He recognized that he could never in a million years stand toe to toe when it comes to persuasion through offering a real vision and a plan for the country, so instead he just rilled everyone up to believe the country was on the literal brink of collapse and only he could save it, thereby giving everyone the excuse they need to look past the fact that he is so transparently incompetent and unfit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And how did that work out betting on red? Don't tell me, you probably don't do stock trading, so you don't care.
What are you talking about? This isn't about the stock market genius, it's about the US economy and what Trump is doing to it.
The stock market is just the first indicator of how ridiculous Trump's actions are, it shows that investors all throughout this nation recognize the harm it would cause. Of course he hasn't done too much yet so it's largely reversible, just no reason to think he will until he brings us to the brink of collapse like he just did.
You keep framing this ad betting for or against red (I assume CNN) which is just plain stupid. All they're doing is reporting on what Trump is telling us and showing us he's going to do and educating people on what that would mean. This has nothing to do with betting, it's about being prepared for whatever outcome Trump decides to unleash upon us. Not their fault the moron you guys put in charge of our nation has no idea what he's doing and is flip flopping worse than my Nike slides.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Instead of airing Trump's economic team, they had a parade of 24/7 TDS "experts"
Why would any serious news network give airtime to a bunch of people parroting things they don't believe because they work for someone they know is a lunatic and a blusterer who will fire them if they dare tell the truth? Even Janine Pierro is talking about a possible recession, that's how bad this plan was.
Always bet on Orange.
Bet on orange to do what? Reverse the big plan that he announced and enacted only to finally withdraw right before crashing the bond markets which would have taken the entire US economy with it?
It's hilarious that you wrote these words as if you think it's some sort of validation for supporting this complete and total moron. I mean sure, if all you're thinking about is your investment portfolio and see Trump's imbecilic manipulation of the markets as an opportunity to get rich that's one thing, but you're acting like that's all that's supposed to matter to anyone else which is ridiculous.
The fact that you placed your bet on Trump's tanking of the economy as something he would eventually relent on due to the damage he was actively causing the markets tells us very clearly that even you don't take him seriously as the administrator of our government's policies. Which not only shows you to be a depraved human being for supporting him but is also yet another example of how unfit he is for office. If you don't take him seriously then clearly no one else would, including the very people who would need to in order for any of his tariff ideas to work.
Ad Homs are the last resort of a defeated person.
Yes, they're also the last word of a rational person who recognizes that they're dealing with someone who does not value logic or reason so will instead just spout intellectually vapid nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I hope you bought the dip that was artificially manufactured by left propaganda.
The stupidity of the Trump voter never ceases to amaze me.
Right, it's not that investors were worried that Trump was telling the world and now taking actual steps to drastically raise prices for goods every American relies on daily, it's that the brainwashed sheeple panicked because CNN told them to panic.
You're such a clown.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's incredible how you know every expert, no matter the subject.
Turns out in today's digital age experts tend to share their opinions. Who knew?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
This is just appeal to the majority combined with appeal to authority.
Correct, because that's how logic works.
The fallacy in an appeal to authority fallacy occurs when you appeal to something that is not an authority.
Appealing to a majority (aka argumentum ad populum) is a fallacy when the people from which you are appealing to have no expertise.
When neither of the above is occurring it is not only not a fallacy, it is the only rational pathway to follows.
Also, it’s not complicated to think that political biases affect research fields. Confirmation bias is human trait and our so-called “experts” are not immune.
Correct, no one is immune from personal bias, but that's what expertise cuts against. So when one expert weighs in on a subject, that's not definitive, but when a clear majority of experts agree on a given conclusion that gives very strong reason to accept the conclusion.
It’s also not complicated to think people in power will grift to keep their power. If you follow the money, there’s a pretty hefty incentive for our media, academia, and govt to act not in our interests, but in theirs.
That makes no sense at all. Media, acedemia, government... These are not people, they're institutions made up of people. So to assess the personal incentive structure you need to determine what each individual involved has to gain. What does the college professor, or the journalist, or the scientific researcher gain by lying to the public? And do you not think anyone else would gain by exposing it? There's a whole right wing media ecosystem dedicated to making all of these institutions look like a systemic fraud, do you really think they can't come up with anything better than the BS they are peddling now?
Are you familiar with the concept of “the cathedral?” It explains how decentralized narrative collusion happens. You take a few power-hungry grifters have them employ social pressure and convince a few newcomers to join their side (most of whom don’t even realize the grift), they make their way into institutions and exert further pressure, and eventually reach the majority, at which point all dissidents are cast out.
Yeah, it's called DOGE
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but did you just argue that he’s defunding certain agencies as part of his propaganda effort, while simultaneously arguing his defunding of them is what saved them from being a part of his propaganda effort?
He's defunding NPR because they report actual facts, which someone like him can't have. As horrific as that is, if the alternative is for him to install his sycophants in and turn them into a propaganda arm of his campaign then that is unfortunately preferable.
It's there something about that you need explained? Seems pretty simple to me.
As for the govt agencies, keep in mind that the departments are part of the executive branch- they serve at the president’s pleasure. Trump has every right to get people aligned with his agenda in those departments- the same way Biden did when he was president.
I really don't understand why Trump defenders always seem to think that telling us Trump "has the right" to do something qualifies as a defense when the allegation is that what he's doing is not right. Surely you can understand the difference.
If hiring and firing people based on the president’s vision is considered “propaganda,” then every president since their inception has been guilty
Propaganda has a real definition, and it's not hiring people who share the president's vision. It's about spreading lies deliberately or at the very least with a reckless disregard for the truth. Like when DOGE reports that they slashed an $8 billion dollar program that actually cost $8 million, or when they claim credit for slashing the expense for contracts when the work was already performed, or when they tell you all about how bad the gang bangers are that they deported when the only evidence they seem to have acted on are what kind of tattoos they had.
Created:
Democrats had full power of congress along with the Biden rubber stamp for anything they wanted to do.They could have passed anything they wanted, including loan forgiveness, a tax on the rich, A tax on all billionaires, a bill legalizing all illegal invaders, a bill forcing women to compete with trans, a bill that set up federal funding for abortion clinics.What did they end up passing?1) A resolution to extend the Trump tax cuts.2) A massive spending bill where most of the subsidies went straight to billionaires.Only dumb people still think Democrats care about their own talking points.
Democrats had a one vote majority in the Senate and two senators who might as well have caucused with the republicans, so no they could not have passed anything they wanted because those two senators blocked most of what they wanted.
One would think that someone who pays such close attention to politics would know this.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Democrats actually never call for doing anything with the money they tax billionaires with so the goal really is to destroy their wealth and yet their plans always fail.
We're running a two trillion dollar deficit. There are only two possible ways to remedy that; spending cuts, or raising people's taxes.
It won't be possible to fix or even significantly improve that situation without some combination of both, so if we're going to raise taxes the only question is who will pay for it. Common sense that in a country where 80% of the population owns just 7% of the country's wealth and where 1% own more wealth than the bottom half, that we would place that burden largely on the rich.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Just pointing out your dissonance.
And failing miserably.
Dissonance would be the result of incompatibility between two statements. Yet there is nothing incompatible here at all:
1) You said If Kamala had pretended to be as stupid as Trump in an attempt to appeal to the stupid voters, she would have lost her educated voter base.2) You also claimed Educated people understand that choosing our political leaders will have real world impacts on our lives, and recognize that there are way bigger things to worry about than whether a candidate faked or exaggerated an accent to appeal to a certain crowd.
Would love for you to show me otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That was her fault.
What does that have to do with our conversation?
This article explains how condescension can cost the election.
I'm sorry, but you seem to have mistaken me for someone who gives a shit about debating election strategy, which is kind of odd given that I have told you repeatedly I don't.
You asked me why Kamala failed to appeal to the stupid people, I gave you my answer. Do you have a substantive criticism of that answer?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If you have no solutions then your complaints are meaningless.You want a solution to what I actually complained about in this thread?Here ya go: Stop lying about what you believe.
It's not a solution to anything we were discussing.
There are better ways to deal with not having arguments to support your position than projection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
They had no problem supporting her even though she often code switched the uneducated southern dialect a great many times.
This is so incredibly stupid.
Do you really think politics is nothing more than a personality contest?
Of course you do, because that's how stupid people think. Educated people understand that choosing our political leaders will have real world impacts on our lives, and recognize that there are way bigger things to worry about than whether a candidate faked or exaggerated an accent to appeal to a certain crowd.
So she bet that she didn't need to do more code switching for uneducated voters. Fair enough. Hopefully the next Democrat leader learns.
I already explained the problem with this. Try reading it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Complaining about the right thins is a solution, or at least it would be if people were honest and rational.but they aren't
If you have no solutions then your complaints are meaningless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I just want to know why she failed to code switch for dumb voters? Did she purposely want to lose?
If Kamala had pretended to be as stupid as Trump in an attempt to appeal to the stupid voters, she would have lost her educated voter base.
The reason Donald Trump had been successful in American politics in such a way that no one had been able to replicate is because he is a political perfect storm decades in the making. He's a man who built an entire brand off of being a billionaire through nothing but his own genius, who was then amplified by reality television, who is a gifted showman, who is also a complete and total buffoon.
Trump supporters have basically accepted all of these things and that cognitive dissonance has resulted in them dismissing any stupid thing he says and does as the work of some level of genius beyond the comprehension of us mere mortals. Or in short: 'Trump works in mysterious ways'.
This is what allows Trump to get away with the stupidity he displays every single day. No matter what he says or does, there's always some 4D chess explanation. He's "negotiating", or "he's purposefully showing himself to be eradic to scare other nations into submission".
No other politician on earth gets this kind of grace, and it's the stupid people that give it. That's why Kamala didn't try to go that route, her bet was that America was smarter than that. A bet she lost.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Constitution - "Ad hoc armies are a right, weapons are a right"Courts - unless those weapons or armies are in any way dangerous, until you go through an unlimited set of bureaucratic hoops and feesYour part time sacred cow is dead and rotting. You don't believe in it anymore than you believe in democracy.
Congratulations, you discovered the flaw in a constitutional government... It has to be run and enforced by human beings, and human beings don't always agree. Groundbreaking stuff.
You have any solutions, or just complaints?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Your dishonesty here manifests by attempting to equivocate on the word "democracy". You can save whatever excuse you may have on that, I don't care.Honest well educated people know about the aztecs, and once you know about the aztecs trusting majorities just isn't possible without some form of internal contradiction. All you have to do to make the dumb people's brain stop working is ask "what if the majority decided to eat the babies?"
That's why we have a constitution. The will of the majority isn't enough to legalize that.
If you're next "argument" is to point out that constitution's can be amended then, setting aside the overwhelming majorities that would require along with other hurdles, the answer is that if we live in a society where such a sizable majority decided they wanted to eat babies the problem has nothing to do with the form of government in place. That's not something that can be fixed, so this entire conversation is useless.
I never claimed to have loyalty to the will of the majority, I do love some ironic karma though, and people who claim to derive their moral authority from a principle getting kicked in the ass by that principle will always be satisfying.
I know, it's always satisfying watching people get bitten by a principal they never actually held but that you made up for your own satisfaction.
A strong value in the principals of democracy doesn't mean everything will be perfect, nor does it mean the people deciding it's future are competent enough to make those decisions. We believe in democracy because it's the best option we have given that the alternative will always boil down to some form of autocracy.
Venting about the stupidity of the people you share a society with =/= being wrong or logically contradictory about valuing democracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If you trust democracy you trust those dumb people.
Democracy isn't just about choosing your leader, it's an entire system of checks and balances. We may still be a democracy, but Trump has managed to erode us to the point where we are functioning as an autocracy. The power to tax and declare war is vested in Congress, yet Trump is claiming emergency powers on the basis of us being at war and Congress is doing nothing about it despite these declarations being cartoonishly absurd. So now he's silencing and deporting people with no hearings, he's firing any and everyone who is insufficiently loyal to him personally, and he's taxing the entire nation according to his third grade and 100 year old understanding of economics.
The point of checks in a democracy is to ensure the nation is not subject to the whims of one (very moody) man. We have all throughout history seen the danger of an autocrat having the power to change the direction of their nation with the snap of his fingers. That's what democracy is supposed to protect against, yet that is exactly what we have.
So no, it's not about trusting the dumb people, it's about trusting the system by which representatives of those dumb people engage. But you have to have a system first, that's what Trump is trying to destroy. That is what makes him so dangerous. That is why we keep talking about democracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That doesn't really answer my question. I am genuinely curious why Kamala had such a hard time grabbing those votes, assuming she wanted to win the election.What do you see about Kamala herself that made it so hard to connect with that voter base? She certainly seemed able to speak in code to various different audiences. I would even say she was pretty good at it admittedly. So why that particular group?
Because Kamala had something Trump doesn't have; shame. Kamala understood reality. She understood that prices were not going to go back down. She understood that the war in Ukraine would not be over on day one. She understood that the debt and deficit are real problems that are not easy to solve. So she spoke to that reality.
The problem with Trump is that he is either a moron (which I generally go with because I believe in taking people at their word for the purposes of political assessment) or he is a brazen liar. He told everyone he would fix prices, the stupid people believed him. He told everyone the war in Ukraine would be over on day one because he'll negotiate a good deal that everyone will love, the stupid people believed him. He said he'll fix the deficit by getting rid of waste fraud and abuse, the stupid people believed him.
Kamala knew better and wasn't willing to lie as brazenly as Trump. That's why she, along with every other politician in America fails to connect with Trump's base like only he can. Trump gives them hope because he makes them feel like finally someone's listening to them. The problem is that they're disconnected from reality. If you are educated you know what they want is not real life but they don't want to hear it.
*This* is the reason for the education gap in our politics right now. When Trump is gone that will dissipate to some extent, maybe back down to 2015 levels. That is my single greatest reason for being so vehemently anti-Trump. He's literally making us dumber as a nation and destroying any chance of finding solutions to real problems.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Because when the room is full of stupid people, laying out the details of your economic plans and explaining how they will benefit working families can't compete with Trump telling voters that Kamala's economic plans are "very very bad".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
The first thing we do is, let’s kill all the lawyers. I'm not MAGA even if I agree with Trump from time to time.
It really is a perfect example of why Trump won. Lawyers get a terrible rep for some of the terrible things they are able to accomplish but anyone who understands anything about what it takes to maintain a functioning democracy and rule of law understands how important lawyers are to maintaining a healthy society. But most people are deeply uninformed and even unintelligent so of course this appeals to them.
It's not that Trump is smart, it's that he's so stupid it takes no effort for him to know how to appeal to stupid people, which unfortunately make up the bulk of our society.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
good. screw the rich. Now the poor can afford to buy them stocks
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
But the leftists in power are not afraid that he is wrong. They are afraid cause they know he is right.
lol ok bro. Every economist is wrong, the guy with a third grade vocabulary knows it all. Yeah, that's MAGA.
That means the end of the Democrat party. Well, it's actually over anyway, they just do not know it yet.
This is so stupid. Democrats have gained 15-20 points in every special election we've had over the past few weeks. These results plus history give them a 5 out of 5 chance of retaking the house in 26.
By the time democrats "figure it out" they'll have a sizable majority.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nah, Americans are done with your status quo theories. They want a better standard of living now, not 20 years from now.
This is the literal opposite of what Trump is now trying to sell
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
I gave you 9 paragraphs in post 33 explaining my argumentYet no answer.
If you read the post you would have your answer
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You don't have to give me anything genius, if the trade didn't benefit you then you wouldn't have engaged in it.Oh, so now your position is that Americans can choose to not buy tariffed goods, thereby not increasing the prices of the things they choose to buy. Well done sir.
I'm starting to think I shouldn't even be making fun of you.
That snippet was regarding a hypothetical ham and cheese sandwich trade, I was taking you back to kindergarten to explain what trade is and why people engage in it.
So no, that's not my position. If you'd like to know my position read the many posts I've written in this thread explaining it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
So your argument is "world is complex"? Okay.
I gave you 9 paragraphs in post 33 explaining my argument. If that's all you got out of it then I see no reason to waste any more time trying to explain anything to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Next time don't lie and say Tariffs will raise prices on everything. Including goods made solely in America for Americans (such as chicken).
I didn't genius. Read my post (you're probably referring to #17) again. I said tariffs will raise prices "for everyone", not "on everything". They will raise prices for everyone because he's doing them on imports all across the globe so it is inevitable that every single American consumer will pay higher prices at some point.
You saw what your mind made up, and then took it to the next level ("including goods made solely in America") again, all in your own mind. It's really tiring arguing with you and having to explain to you over and over again that the foe you are arguing with is your own imagination.
Your COVID example is another red herring. Supply chain disruptions during the pandemic weren’t caused by tariffs
I never said nor suggested they were. I was talking about price gouging or at least something close to that. If you read the words I typed in context that would have been clear.
Your lame argument boils down to a general “companies like profits” statement, which is true but meaningless in this context. Companies are always going to price their goods based on supply and demand, not just because a tariff exists somewhere in the economy
Correct, which was my point if you had bothered to read and absorb it. If your competition's prices are artificially inflated, and that leaves an opening for you to raise your prices while still keeping them lower than your competition, of course you're going to take advantage of that. Not only just because you can, but because buyers of your competitors goods will suddenly be directed towards you thereby creating a supply shortage, which according to supply and demand will result in a price increase.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
So your response is that you have no response to how you will protect local buisnesses from flood of cheap import?
My response is that the idea of protecting local businesses via tariffs of the sort Trump is implement is deeply misguided since the world is far more complex than that.
But more to my point, if your goal is to protect US businesses from cheap foreign imports, Trump couldn't be screwing this up any worse.
Again, look at what I wrote. If you don't understand what doing the opposite means then you clearly didn't. I'm happy to expand on what I have to say about this but not if you haven't bothered to read what I've written so far.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Tariffs might matter in other industries, but when it comes to American chicken, they’re irrelevant.
You have to be trolling, nobody is this stupid.
Not a single word I typed had anything whatsoever to do with chickens. Common sense that if the conversation is about tariffs, then any arguments made are clearly talking about industries in which US consumers rely heavily on foreign imports.
Next time, before responding to a post, try reading it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Do Trump’s tariffs increase profit margins for American importers?
No. They will pass the tariff cost onto us, which in theory will make no difference to them except that also means they will probably sell less product, thereby reducing their overall profit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Tariffs have zero effect on goods made completely in America and purchased by Americans.
Nonsense.
If a foreign product costs $100 and the US version costs $105, but Trump puts in a 25% tariff, the foreign product will now cost $125.
That will incentivize the US company to raise their prices to increase their profit margin, which is not only a much more cost effective way to raise revenue than to increase production but will also be necessary to a certain point because of basic supply and demand, which has now been artificially shifted towards the US product.
We already learned this lesson during COVID. Companies don't give a shit about the greater good, they're about profits, full stop.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If I have to give you 2 pieces of ham for 1 cheese because of tariffs, that's how people like Trump get elected.
You don't have to give me anything genius, if the trade didn't benefit you then you wouldn't have engaged in it.
But you're right, ignorance and stupidity like this is exactly how Trump got elected.
Bro is literally defending decades of blanket EU tariffs and then pretends Trump has no reason or rhyme to fight back.
Wow, you really are illiterate.
I didn't defend EU tariffs. I didn't pretend there's nothing here to fight back against. Read my post, as in the words that I actually wrote, and try again.
Yeah, we lived through 4 years of those "serious economists"
You lived through the aftermath of COVID, as did the entire developed world.
X is calling you, they said you're late to class.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Trade deficit shows that US buisnesses are selling much less to foreign markets than foreign buisnesses are selling to US markets.
The difference isn't that massive, and bringing all of that industry to the US will take years, probably wouldn't be fully actualized till well after Trump leaves office.
You keep focusing on the trade deficit, did you read and absorb anything else I talked about? Curious to know your thoughts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
When you think of a response to this, let me know.
Read the rest of my response to you, then insert the opposite of that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
EU has always had a flat tariff on all goods from America. How is that remotely fair.
Here is the EU preparing a "counter strike" against us thanks to Trump.
If you want to argue that they're tarrifs against us are unfair, that's perfectly fine. I'm all for fixing any imbalances that exist towards our benefit, bit there's a way to do that and it begins with negotiation. What Trump is doing is just plain stupid and even if by some miracle that no serious economist seems to see coming that everything works out in the end, the pain along the way could have certainly been spared, but Trump is too much of a moron to understand that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
almost everyone uses tariffs. I am not sure why you choose to attack Trump
Because of the batshit crazy way he's going about this. Tariffs in the abstract are neither good nor bad. They're a tool, and just like any tool their effectiveness for positive change depends entirely on how they're implemented.
Used strategically, tariffs can help you bolster a particular industry you find beneficial to national interests. Trump is not being strategic at all. If his goal was to fuck this up there's nothing he could have done any differently.
The whole idea of tarrifs is supposed to be to influence investor behavior. But when Trump announces tariffs and then cancels them and then announces them again... investors flee. Their not going to invest when they don't know what he's going to do next.
He's also not implementing them surgically, which is itself insane. Not every product should come from the US. The US for example doesn't have the capability of producing the type and scale of avacados that Mexico has, so putting tariffs on those will only raise the price of guacamole.
He's flip flopped all over the place on why he's doing it. First it was because other countries pay the tariffs, but everyone has since figured out that's a blatant lie. Then he said it was to stop fentanyl, then it was to stop illegals, then it was because we're getting ripped off, etc. etc. etc. If no one knows why he's doing it then there's no incentive to negotiate terms that work better for everyone.
He's also made this personal. If you piss other nations off you only incentivize them to retaliate further. Normally what stops that to a large extent is the fear of escalation, they're not going to take any action that will hurt them more. But when you piss them off they'll be willing to endure the pain so long as you feel it too. Canada has pulled US liquor off their shelves. Not because they don't want it, but because they refuse to send their money here. That doesn't help anyone.
Again, the idea that everyone in the US will buy American made products sounds wonderful. It sounds like those dollars will all come back flowing into the US, but he's not taking into account that other countries will not buy anything from us so we're losing much of our business as well. It will cause sudden and massive displacement, which is never a net positive.
And probably worst of all is that to the extent he's painted a clear picture of any grand vision it's basically to bring America back to the 70's. There's a reason we moved on from those days. The world has changed and history shows that you cannot unwind progress. If another country can produce a good better and cheaper than us it's often in our best interest to let them produce it while our workforce focuses on things we do better.
Trades don't happen unless both sides benefit. If I have bread and mayo and you have ham and cheese, we both win by giving each other half of what we have. Trump doesn't get that. Everything to him is zero sum; if one side "wins" the other side must be a loser. And there's nothing worse to Trump than being a loser. That's what this is all about. Not us and our well being, but his fragile ego and desire to look tough.
Created: